1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5567 ]

CONTENTS

Tabling Documents –– 5567

Oral Questions

Electoral redistribution. Mr. Macdonald –– 5567

Federal-provincial energy agreement. Mr. Lockstead –– 5568

Federal-provincial agreement, Mr. Williams –– 5568

User fees in public schools. Mr. Rose –– 5569

Provincial lottery. Mrs. Wallace –– 5569

Steve Fonyo run. Mr. MacWilliam –– 5569

Commissioner of critical industries. Mr. Stupich –– 5569

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

On the amendment

Ms. Brown –– 5570

Mr. Reynolds –– 5570

Mr. Mitchell –– 5573

Hon. Mr. Ritchie –– 5575

Mr. Stupich –– 5576

Mrs. Dailly –– 5577

Mrs. Wallace –– 5578

Ms. Sanford –– 5580

Mr. D'Arcy –– 5583

Mr. Davis –– 5584

Mr. Rose –– 5585

Mr. Nicolson –– 5587

Mr. Blencoe –– 5589

Appendix –– 5592

THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 1985

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I would like to introduce to the House two

delightful individuals from Saanich and the Islands: Miss Cara

Dickenson, who is 12 years of age, a grade 7 student at North Saanich

Junior Secondary School, and her mother, Mrs. Leslie Dickenson. I'm

pleased that her father and her husband, respectively, stayed home.

MR. KEMPF: In the members' gallery this afternoon are four

guests. I'd like the House to welcome Mr. Ken Chee, Mr. Phillip Chan

and Mr. Bill Thompson, who are accompanied by an old friend of mine,

Mr. Jack Kelly.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, you will notice that a number of us

are wearing buttons which talk about the peace walk that is going to be

held on April 27. They were presented to us today by representatives of

the Greater Victoria Disarmament Group. Seated in the gallery,

representing that group, are Phil Esmonde and Liz Reimer. I would like

the House to make them welcome and to encourage them in their work.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of the Hon.

Terry Segarty, Minister of Labour, and British Columbia minister

responsible for the status of women. In that capacity I wish to bring

to the attention of this House the passing on Tuesday last of a very

dedicated and courageous woman and human being, Manitoba's former

Minister of Labour and minister responsible for the status of women,

Mrs. Mary Beth Dolin. Mrs. Dolin recently resigned her portfolio in her

ongoing battle with cancer, but was nevertheless able to offer a warm

welcome to British Columbia's Steve Fonyo upon his arrival in Manitoba

a few short weeks ago. I'm sure that all members would wish to join me

and the minister in extending sympathy to Mrs. Dolin's family and to

the Legislature and people of Manitoba.

MR. GABELMANN: On behalf of members of the opposition I would

like to, first of all, thank the member for his comments and to say

that we on this side of the House were saddened and shocked at Mary

Beth's passing the other day. She was a close and dear friend of many

of us on this side of the House and, as workers in Manitoba know, a

dear friend to them too.

MR. STUPICH: In the galleries today is a group of six from

Nanaimo — a school board representative, a teacher and some concerned

parents: Jan Parsons, Ian Matthews, Julie Bower, Joy Fagan, Aileen

Fletcher and Sandy Scott. They are all here as part of their campaign

to express their concern about what's happening to education in the

province of British Columbia.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to introduce

four guests we have in the gallery from Calgary, Alberta: Mr. and Mrs. Edward

Lynn — Sheila and Edward — and their two sons, Derek and Trevor. I would ask

the House to give them a warm British Columbian welcome.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, among the delegations of concerned

parents and teachers visiting today are, from Langley, Regula Baer,

Diane and Lyle Pona, Vivienne Parkes, Karen Bolli, Scott Kerr and Wendy

Johnson. Would the House please welcome these people as well.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, visiting with us in the

gallery today is Alberta MLA Bob Elliott, representative for the Grande

Prairie constituency that borders South Peace River. I hope the House

will make him welcome,

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I understand that we have two birthdays

coming up this weekend; one is the Leader of the Opposition's and one

is the Premier's. I believe they are both on the same day.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Not on the same day?

MR. SKELLY: I tried to change it.

MR. LEA: Because we won't be here on their birthdays, I think

we should get together and wish them a happy birthday, and at the same

time remind them that that is the anniversary of the sinking of the

Titanic. [Laughter.]

MR. SKELLY: The man seems to know a great deal about the Titanic, Mr. Speaker. We call him "Skipper."

Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to join me in wishing Mrs. Alexandra

Skelly, whose birthday is today, many happy returns of the day. She is

in the gallery with my daughter Susan and my son Robbie.

Hon. Mr. Chabot tabled answers to questions on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented the 1985 report of the auditor-general.

Oral Questions

ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION

MR. MACDONALD: On March 27 I raised the question of the

Charter of Rights and the redistribution. I now ask the

Attorney-General a different question. In view of the fact that Central

Fraser Valley, a government-held riding, will have two members, and

Coquitlam-Moody, much larger in size and with more people, will have

one, does not the Attorney-General consider this to be a flagrant

violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Will he ask for a

constitutional opinion, or has he already done so? The subject won't go

away, Mr. Attorney-General.

MR. SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order.

HON. MR. SMITH: I sometimes wish the questioner would, not the subject.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did seek a constitutional opinion on the

validity of redistribution changes, and they received a clean bill of

health.

[2:15]

[ Page 5568 ]

MR. MACDONALD: A brief supplementary. Who gave you this egregious opinion, Mr. Attorney-General?

HON. MR. SMITH: A conscientious public servant in the constitutional administrative law branch of the Ministry of the Attorney-General.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL ENERGY AGREEMENT

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a question to the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources relating to the new federal-provincial

energy agreement. According to the federal Energy ministry, this

package is worth $1.3 billion to oil and gas companies this year,

escalating to $2.5 billion by the end of 1987. What portion of this

windfall of revenues will go to companies in British Columbia, and what

guarantees does the minister have that any part of this windfall will

be invested to create new jobs in British Columbia?

HON. MR. ROGERS: It's very difficult to say, because you

didn't qualify which are British Columbia companies. Most companies

involved in oil and gas are Canadian companies, some of which are

located in British Columbia and some of which are located in the

neighbouring province of Alberta, almost none of which...

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, I won't say it, because we had something about your head the other day, if you want to talk about nits.

...are located in Toronto. We don't know, quite frankly. We'd have

to figure out what percentage of each company's assets are in British

Columbia to answer the first part of your question. If you'd like that

information, I'll try to get it for you.

Secondly, there is a federal government monitoring agency in place

which both the federal minister and the three provincial ministers have

agreed will be the agency to ensure that the funds that are now going

to finally go to their rightful owners will be reinvested in the

appropriate areas.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I thank the minister for his answer and his offer of supplying me with information.

On a supplementary. Did the minister seek any assurance from the

federal government that it will not attempt to recapture revenues lost

through the elimination of the petroleum gas royalty tax through

increased taxes on the pump? In other words, are we all going to be

hosed at the pump?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, if you would switch your car to natural gas, then you wouldn't have to worry about that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: In your constituency, Mr. Member, very soon.

Mr. Speaker, I did not ask the federal government, nor did I feel it was appropriate

to ask the federal Minister of Finance in advance of his budget — nor by the

way would I try to do that provincially — to predetermine what taxes, if any,

he may choose to levy. However, we have the assurance of the federal government

that their taxes on the energy sector will be on profit, not on a royalty basis.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: One more supplementary, Mr. Speaker. It would

appear from the minister's answer then and from the speculation, which

will likely become a fact, that we could face an increase of eight

cents per litre at the pumps within the next two years. When you're

next speaking with the federal Minister of Energy, I would like a

guarantee from you, from this government and from the federal

government that there will be no increase in the price of gas at the

pump.

MR. SPEAKER: Future action, hon. member.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I detected a trace of a

question in there. I might remind the member that the taxes are not

administered or levied by the federal Minister of Energy; it is the

federal Minister of Finance who will make those decisions.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AGREEMENT

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development. On Tuesday the minister said that he hopes to see a

federal-provincial agreement ratified by this summer. Does this,

despite the television hype of two months ago and the Premier coming

back from the first ministers' conference...? Can the minister assure

us that there will be full funding, and that there will be jobs created

under this program, in the planting season? Because it's right upon us

currently.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMS: The full budget will be in use this year — is that correct?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I have no way of

guaranteeing the federal response. But the provincial government has

made its commitment very clear in the budget; we have committed our

full $325 million over the five-year period. We've made it very clear

to the federal government that on the basis of equity with the other

agreements signed across Canada, including that signed with Quebec on a

per capita basis, the $650 million total funding is no more than

equitable with British Columbia. We're not asking the federal

government to put out any more than they've done with other provinces.

I've said that I have full hopes of having an agreement signed by the

end of this spring, and the commitment by the province couldn't be any

clearer.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, does that mean that the only

commitment we have is for 50 percent action in terms of forest renewal,

in view of the fact that they have not been able reach an agreement

with the federal government?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We were one of the first of the

provinces to sign the general development agreement, and that's for a

ten-year period. It's only reasonable that the period after that

involves negotiation, first of all by the former minister of Industry

and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), and secondly by

myself over the last few months. I'm confident that we will reach an

agreement.

[ Page 5569 ]

We are very firm on the amount of the agreement and the components

which are contained within that, and we have put our commitment forward

in the only kind of way that a provincial government can: that is, we

have committed it in our budget. We will continue negotiations; in

fact, I've sent telexes off to the federal minister today — and to all

of the members of the British Columbia Conservative caucus —

reiterating the reasons for our $650 million request, and reiterating

that we have included in our budget the province's share, which is all

we can do. I'll be awaiting a response from the federal minister.

USER FEES IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

MR. ROSE: My question is directed to the Minister of

Education. As the minister well knows, the Langley School District has

been forced by the government cutbacks to impose user fees on secondary

school students ranging from $35 in some instances to $85 per course.

I'd like to know whether the minister is aware of the hardship that

these fees place on low-income families in the district, and I'd like

to ask him if he would advise the House what action he is prepared to

take to ensure that public education is fair to all, regardless of

ability to pay.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: A delegation from Langley arrived at my

office this morning at about twenty to ten. I spent about 15 minutes

with them. They left two briefs with me. I have quickly reviewed both

of the briefs, and I will be looking in some detail with respect to the

brief in which the costs have been set out in some detail covering what

appears to be every subject offered in the district. I can make no

further comment on that at all. I would like to draw some comparisons

with other school districts to see what their policies are as well.

PROVINCIAL LOTTERY

MRS. WALLACE: My question relates to the new lottery, Pacific

Express. Can the Provincial Secretary confirm that B.C. industries will

be the suppliers of the materials required for that lottery?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Thank you for asking me a question; it's the

first question I've had this session. I thought for a moment there was

a conspiracy against me from that side of the House. I thought I would

never get a question.

The answer is very simple. Yes, in due course the benefits will flow directly to the British Columbia printing industry.

MRS. WALLACE: Will the minister confirm — perhaps he could just nod — whether this includes promotional material?

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's my understanding that all promotional material is now put together in British Columbia.

I want to say how successful Pacific Express has been. I thought

you'd never ask that question. I'm sure all the members are very

interested. The Speaker is not too interested, so I'd better stop.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a small key

ring: "Pacific Express." Can the minister explain why it bears the

words "Hong Kong"?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The name of the lottery denotes that it's on the Pacific Rim, so I guess that's why.

STEVE FONYO RUN

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the

Minister of Finance. A resident of my riding, Mr. Steve Fonyo, is

expected to arrive in British Columbia very shortly. In view of the

non-partisan nature of Mr. Fonyo's fund-raising effort for cancer

research, has the government agreed to match private contributions to

the Cancer Society in respect to Mr. Fonyo's campaign, as has been done

already by the province of Alberta?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, it's an important day for the

Provincial Secretary, because that should be his second question. I

refer the member to the Provincial Secretary.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, then I redirect my question to the Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I was busy reading correspondence, but it's

my assumption that your question was: is British Columbia going to

match the funds that are raised through the public, similar to what has

taken place in Alberta? If that is the question, my answer is that the

issue is under active discussion by cabinet at this time.

COMMISSIONER OF CRITICAL INDUSTRIES

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

Finance, the minister responsible for the critical industries

commission: will the minister advise what consideration is given to the

statement of Mr. Art Phillips to the effect that government should get

rid of all tax gimmicks that favour a particular industry and get rid

of the outright grants that go to industries that are in trouble. The

trouble is that by granting incentives to one particular industry that

isn't competing, you are penalizing the industries that are. What

consideration was given to these known thoughts from Mr. Phillips when

he was appointed?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the member would — after

question period — just tell me the approximate time of that statement.

Was it last month, last year or a number of years ago? In view of the

fact that we have just introduced the bill with respect to the

commissioner of critical industries, and it will be before us for

debate later, I will take the question as notice until it is called for

debate.

[2:30]

HON. MR. SMITH: May I have leave to file a letter which was

referred to in my estimates in committee? It's a letter from the member

for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) endorsing the Victoria jetfoil.

Leave granted.

[ Page 5570 ]

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I call public bills and orders. Adjourned debate of second reading on Bill 30.

ISLANDS TRUST AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

(continued)

On the amendment.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could tell me how much time is....

MR. SPEAKER: Seven minutes, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Good. Thanks very much.

In the seven minutes remaining to me, I just want to ask one

question of the minister and repeat my support of the amendment, which

is that because the government has failed to consult with local

representatives, they have created a situation respecting the Gulf

Islands Trust which is contrary to the principles of cooperation

between governments and local autonomy.

For the last 15 years — 12 years, to be more accurate — the staff

of the Islands Trust have been in the employ of the Ministry of

Municipal Affairs. Their salaries have been paid by Municipal Affairs.

They received all of their benefits from and as well were members of

the government employees' union. Suddenly this has become a problem. I

wonder whether the minister could indicate in closing this debate why,

after 12 years of the staff being hired by the local representatives of

the Trust, assigned their jobs by the local representatives, even

though their salaries were paid by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs,

the decision has now been made to put them under the full jurisdiction

of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and to deprive the Trust of

responsibility for them.

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out earlier in support of this motion, the

main function of the Trust is to act as an advocate for the Gulf

Islands, and to nurture and protect and develop them in a reasonable

and rational and careful manner. I also added that every indication has

been and is that the Trust is doing this efficiently and well, and that

the residents of the Gulf Island as well as the residents of the rest

of the province of British Columbia are satisfied with the job which

the Trust is doing. Therefore we are a bit confused and curious about

why at this time the government has decided to remove that

responsibility from these people who are doing such a good job.

I also want to read into the record a press statement which was made

by the chairperson of the Trust, Mr. Humphries, on March 28, when he

said that the council considered the proposed amendments to the act —

that's Bill 30 — to be an insidious attempt to undermine the autonomy

of the Islands Trust. He said that if passed, the proposed legislation

would remove the power to appoint and to manage the staff of the

Islands Trust from the elected officials and would place these

functions in the hands of the provincial government.

It was pointed out also that at no time was the Trust consulted about these

amendments. It is this lack of consultation which the motion is addressing itself

to, because this lack of consultation gives the lie to the government's

commitment to partnership, in that it is not possible to make decisions involving

a partner without consulting with that partner. Clearly if the government wants

municipalities and regional districts and communities to be in partnership

with the government, it has to treat these bodies with at least the minimum

of respect which would be their due.

For the government to introduce legislation which would remove the

autonomy of an organization such as the Islands Trust from it, without

consultation, shows clearly a violation of the government's stated

principles of cooperation, selfgovernment and local autonomy.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, when I talk about the special qualities and uniqueness

of the Gulf Islands, I do that not simply as a member who is of the

committee which established the Trust in the first place, but as

someone who has lived on the Gulf Islands myself for a number of years,

maintained and retained a residence on those islands and been a part of

some of the decision-making involving the development of plans of at

least one of the islands.

It's a very unique experiment which the Islands Trust represents. We

have I don't know how many people living in this province — I guess at

least a couple of million — of which there are 57 of us elected to sit

on the floor of this House and make decisions concerning what happens

to the rest of us. Despite the fact that I am one of that 57, which

makes me a very special person indeed, I have less input into what

happens as a direct result of my being a member of this Legislature

than I have as a person who retains a residence on one of the Gulf

Islands, because the decisions made by the residents of the Gulf

Islands are cooperatively made. Everyone has an input into the

development of the island plans and into discussing the concerns of the

islands. Everyone has an input into deciding what direction development

should take, how the islands should be treated and respected and how

they should be protected. That's a very special kind of privilege, and

it's a very special kind of experiment which has been very successful.

When one compares the Gulf Islands with the rest of the province, one

is forced to agree that whoever was responsible for the caring and

nurturing of those islands has been doing an outstanding job. The

people responsible are the duly-elected representatives who are now

going to have their autonomy removed from them and placed in the hands

of the government.

Every indication has been that when the government has had

responsibility for anything to do with the Gulf Islands, it has failed

to act. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to your attention that on a number

of the islands, in the question of salt water, for example, showing up

in wells — calling for action immediately from the government in terms

of water development plans which the government has responsibility for

— the minister has not signed any of these plans or acted on any of

them. On Lasqueti in particular, I know, where there is a request to go

to a different kind of system, the government, which is responsible,

has refused to do so.

So when one compares the way in which the government discharges its

responsibility to these islands with the way in which the Trust

discharges its responsibility, one has to conclude that the Trust is

superior. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I support this reasoned

amendment and ask the minister to reconsider his position on this bill.

MR. REYNOLDS: I rise to speak against this amendment. I plan to speak in favour of the bill, and will when we

[ Page

5571 ]

get rid of this amendment. I found it very

interesting listening to the members of the New Democratic Party

speaking about the Islands Trust. I would say off the top.... The

second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) talked about the trustees

being dedicated, hard-working people, and I would agree with him on

that. Most of the trustees working in the Islands Trust are like any

other politicians: they believe in what they believe in, and they work

very hard towards their ends. He also said that the islands are the

most beautiful in British Columbia; I would certainly agree with that.

In fact, I would agree that they are some of the most beautiful islands

in the world. Like many members in this Legislature, I have been on

most of them, if not all of them. I will have some things to say about

that later.

Mr. Speaker, I find it rather strange listening to the members of

the opposition when they talk about consultation. I listened to the

Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Skelly) talk about consultation.

Certainly he remembers, because he was in this Legislature when his

government brought in the agricultural land reserve in this province.

Did that party consult with the people of British Columbia when they

brought that legislation in?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No way!

MR. REYNOLDS: People were having meetings all over the

province, yelling and screaming about that arbitrary legislation. The

minister in charge of bringing that legislation in at the time froze

lands that didn't even need to be frozen. He will know, I'm sure,

because.... I wouldn't make any accusations, but I can only assume,

when I see the sides of hills frozen in Delta, where that minister used

to be a planner, that maybe there were some politics involved in how

that land was frozen. The NDP talks about consultation. Where was the

consultation in that legislation?

MR. SKELLY: In every regional district in the province.

MR. REYNOLDS: Well, there never have been, even when

Solidarity was playing their games a couple of years ago, the numbers

to equal the numbers of people who filled halls around this province

against this NDP government's agricultural land reserve. If there was

one simple reason why the NDP were defeated, it was that arbitrary

legislation.

Interjections.

MR. REYNOLDS: Don't they get upset when you remind them of

those sad things, those unforgettable moments in British Columbia. They

like to forget, but we won't let them.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, one of their members says we'd

like to get rid of the land reserve. We've refined the land reserve.

The land reserve has been refined and is working well in this province.

We did that through consultation with citizens of British Columbia.

MR. LAUK: George Spetifore....

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, listen to the member. He gets mad at one

of the greatest farming members of British Columbia. The Spetifore family is

still farming in various areas of this province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Debate might be relevant to the amendment and to the bill.

MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It's very

hard when they're throwing comments at you about things. It's very hard

for me not to speak about such great people in this province.

Going back to the Islands Trust, let me quote the bill that this NDP

introduced in 1974, to see, for those who are listening.... The NDP is

talking about consultation. They're talking about how we're trying to

do away with the Trust, how we're tying their hands. You've heard them

talk about how we're doing that. You've heard them talk about the

manager and how the minister has interfered in that area; and I want to

talk more about that. But let me quote just one

section of the

legislation — not introduced by the Socreds, but introduced by the NDP.

Section 9 of the act says, "Notwithstanding the Public Service Act, the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may appoint a person as manager of the

Trust," and they fixed the remuneration and other expenses to be paid

to him for his services as a manager.

It shocks me when I sit here and listen to these New Democrats talk

about how this government wants to tie the hands of the Trust.

Section

9 of the bill that they introduced laid that rule out: the minister

would appoint the manager. Isn't it strange that two years later the

New Democrats think that's tying somebody's hands?

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you read the bill?

MR. REYNOLDS: I have not only read the bill, I've read the

amendment. The bill is only one paragraph. I'll read it back to you in

a few minutes. I'm trying to figure out what this tempest in a teapot

that the New Democrats have created is all about.

Let me read another

section of the bill that was introduced by the

NDP in 1974. Subsection 9(4): "Notwithstanding the Public Service Act,

but subject to the approval of the minister, the general trustees may

engage and retain such persons as they consider necessary as

consultants, experts or specialists and may fix their remuneration."

This was the NDP bill on the Islands Trust, 1974.

MR. REID: They haven't read it.

MR. REYNOLDS: They haven't read their own legislation.

They're up here on a tempest in a teapot, trying to accuse this

government of doing nothing other than what their intent was in the

legislation in the first place. I can excuse the second member for

Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), because he wasn't here then. He has probably

been getting the same dumb information from his researchers that they

give him for question period, and that's why he doesn't know what was

in the bill. I could excuse the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker,

if he would just get up and say: "We made mistakes in '74. We were

wrong then, and we want to fight this bill on those grounds." He will

never admit he was wrong or his party was wrong.

Interjections.

[ Page 5572 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. With every member contributing to silence here, the member on his feet would not have to yell.

[2:45]

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to quote, in talking to this amendment, a 1974

article from the Vancouver Sun : "Trust to Control Development of Gulf Islands.":

"The provincial government is putting the Gulf Islands

under virtual rule by a trust to control their growth and development.

A bill to impose such restrictions was introduced in the Legislature

Wednesday by Municipal Affairs Minister James Lorimer, who charged the

local governments of the islands with failing to carry out their

responsibilities."

Here is this great NDP government, and they say we want to

interfere. His reason at that time was that he didn't think the

governments of the day were doing a good job for their people. Who was

he? Did he consult all the people of the province, and did they say:

"Get rid of this type of government and bring in another one"? No, Mr.

Speaker. That's the kind of consultation the NDP have.

I listened to the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who talked

about this government taking away the autonomy of the Islands Trust.

That's not what this bill is all about, and that's why I can't vote for

this amendment. This bill is a good bill for the province and a good

bill for the islands. The debate in this Legislature is all politics,

and I guess that's what it's all about. But I can't understand why

they're so serious about it.

I can't remember which one of their members talked about the meeting

that was held yesterday in the legislative buildings — a meeting called

by some members of the Islands Trust — but I was invited to that

meeting. I received my invitation in the mail at quarter to eleven

yesterday morning and the meeting was to take place at eleven o'clock.

The minister received his at approximately the same time, or maybe a

little earlier that morning. The parliamentary secretary to the

Minister of Municipal Affairs received his invitation to that meeting

in the mail today.

Isn't this interesting? I phoned the Minister of Municipal Affairs

and said: "I got this invitation at quarter to eleven to go to a

meeting at eleven o'clock. I think we should go. We're an open

government." He said: "Certainly we will." I walked up to his office

and we walked down the hall to go to the meeting. My goodness, who is

sitting in the chair talking at the meeting but the second member for

Victoria. I wonder when he got his invitation to the meeting. I would

imagine that he not only was chairing the meeting, but probably

organized it and hoped we wouldn't get our invitations until today, as

that other member got his, so they'd be able to say we weren't there.

It's so interesting because we got there, the minister made a

statement, and at the end of his statement the second member for

Victoria jumped up because all the media were there and he wanted to

get his little talk in the media to let those people there know that he

was really concerned. When the minister finished he said he had to

leave, which he did. The second member for Victoria also left the

meeting, because the media left. I sat there for the next hour and

talked to the people from the Islands Trust. I left there at five to

twelve — twenty-five minutes late for a meeting that I had with

somebody else, because I wanted to listen to their concerns, wanted to

listen to their point of view. I also wanted to tell them mine.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: He left when the cameras left.

MR. REYNOLDS: Certainly. Members of the opposition leave when

the cameras go. This is a political issue for them. They're trying to

make some marks. It's a tempest in a teapot. I get concerned....

The NDP members talk about this bill and how it will hurt. I wonder

what they've got against employees in the ministry. The second member

for Victoria asked if I'd read the bill. Yes, I have. Let me read it

for him.

Section 1 says: "The minister may assign employees of the

Ministry of Municipal Affairs to assist the trust in carrying out its

duties under this Act." Mr. Speaker, what have the members of the NDP

got against employees in the minister's office? Do they think that

these hard-working bureaucrats are members of our party?

Interjections.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, listen to how upset they get.

They're attacking employees of this government — citizens of British

Columbia — saying that they're partisan. I would be concerned.... The

NDP always talks about the plot. What's the plot? If they're so against

employees in the ministry, what is their plot? Are they going to fire

them all if they ever get to be the government of this province again?

That's the plot behind what they're talking about.

They talk about the hiring procedure for this manager, and

consultation. The chairman of the Islands Trust met with the minister

well before this legislation was introduced.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: February 19.

MR. REYNOLDS: February 19, the minister says somewhere around

there, in case we're wrong by a day. He also told him in discussion

that he should hold off in the hiring of this manager, because there

was going to be legislation introduced in this House.

The chairman of the Trust agreed at that time that that was a good

idea, because you don't go and hire someone if there's going to be

legislation that is going to affect that person. You don't take them

out of a job and put them into another one that is maybe not going to

be there. The next day the chairman of the Trust changed his mind. I

would suggest that what he probably did was to run down to the office

of the second member for Victoria and tell him about the discussion he

just had with the minister. And the NDP told him: "No, no, you can't do

that. You can't make that agreement. It wouldn't be good for us in the

House. We can't fight the bill if you do that." They talk about

consultation and cooperation. That's not the kind of cooperation that

we should have from two people getting together.

We talk about the islands, and, of course, I have one in my

constituency, unlike most of the members who are getting up here in the

opposition and talking about islands. They don't have them in their

constituencies.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: I said "most of them," not all of them.

I do have an island that is part of the Islands Trust in my constituency — Bowen Island. I won't say it's the greatest

[ Page

5573 ]

one of them all because that would be a little bit

partial, but it certainly is a nice place. It has a nice marina on the

dock; it has good ferry service; it's got great parks. It's a great

place to live. Actually, it's becoming a bedroom community for

Vancouver.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do they vote?

MR. REYNOLDS: How do they vote? In the last election they

voted right down the middle; it was 50-50, to the vote. The best vote

we ever got on Bowen Island was the last vote. In the next election

they are going to be a little bit better than that.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that if we.... I'm talking about

this amendment. I have to vote against it, because I think this

legislation for the ministry is important. But also there are things

that we should be looking at in the islands, to make sure that

developers can develop if they want without undue restrictions. I look

at the marina at Bowen Island. They've expanded the number of slips for

boats, but they would like to put a restaurant in there. They would

like to have a neighbourhood pub in there, to attract boaters from

south of the line that come up, and the boaters from British Columbia

who flood down to Roche Harbor and Friday Harbor on long weekends

because we don't have those kinds of harbours in British Columbia.

Those are the types of things we should be looking at, yet because of

the politics that are played with the Islands Trust by some members,

those things are not happening.

I might also suggest that we should be looking at the Partners in

Enterprise program. The islands, instead of sitting here and wasting

all their energy on a bill that is not going to interfere with them at

all, should be sitting down with the ministry deciding how they can get

all this money from this provincial government to improve the marinas

on all these islands and improve the islands for tourism.

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of things more. We're talking about

consultation. The NDP and some of their friends only feel consulted if

the answer is one that they've proposed, and that's really the problem

if you listen to their debate in this Legislature. The Islands Trust

does a good job in some areas, but it shouldn't be that difficult for

them. I got some figures this morning. I phoned down and said: "How

many people live in the Gulf Islands? What are we talking about here

that is taking so many days in this Legislature — with a lot of the

serious problems that are going on that the NDP could be debating or

proposing in this Legislature? How many people are we talking about?"

The latest figures they had were about 11,252. They said that they

could be out, but that's the latest they could get. Now that's not a

lot of people. I said: "Well. how many people do we have on the islands

that are elected to positions?" I got the figure, and I couldn't

believe it. I phoned them back and I said: "Check this out again. There

are 280 elected officials in all those islands." Now that's not all

trustees. It includes school board trustees, improvement districts,

regional districts and trustees — 280.

MR. BLENCOE: That's 2,000 square miles, John.

MR. REYNOLDS: Talk to the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) if

you want to talk about square miles. He sits there all by himself. He's

probably got five school trustees and a couple of elected officials for

I don't know how many tens of thousands of square miles. For 2,000

square miles and 11,252 people we've got 280 elected officials? We

probably spend more on having elections than we do in paying them

salaries. Wouldn't we be better with 25 or 30 well-paid ones who worked

at it full time?

That's the crazy part of this debate. The people on the islands are

well represented; they're still going to have staff — staffed in no

different a way than was proposed by the NDP in their original bill.

But the second member for Victoria has convinced his party and some of

his friends in the Islands Trust have convinced him that he can make a

big issue out of this. Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia are

smarter than that. They're going to start asking this NDP: "When are

you going to get down to debating the real issues in the province? When

are you going to start proposing something positive in this province?"

Mr. Speaker, I'll vote against the amendment, and I'll probably speak in favour of the bill when we get rid of this amendment.

MR. MITCHELL: I always like following my colleague from the

government who sits on this side of the House, because he really goes

on and on about a lot of issues that are not before us in this

particular debate. What he brought out is something that we have been

stating time after time: there must be consultation with those elected

people, those people who are responsible — in this particular case, the

Islands Trust.

What happened? He's reading from a draft bill brought into the House

that, I take it, was sent out to a parliamentary committee. This

parliamentary committee was composed of members from all parties which

toured the islands and consulted those who were going to be involved,

and the draft legislation was amended to its present state. This is

what this side of the House has been advocating for the seven years

that I have been in here: that we must utilize parliamentary

committees; we must go out and study any changes to any major pieces of

legislation; we must be prepared to listen to the people concerned.

This is what we have been saying. The last speaker has enforced what we

have been saying for at least seven years. It was a policy that was in

for the seven years that I've been in this House, and in years before

when the NDP was in power they did utilize parliamentary committees.

This is all we've been saying.

What we are doing by bringing in this amendment and by having this

debate is to save the minister from himself. The minister, when he made

his initial speech, assured us all that these amendments didn't mean

anything: they were simple housekeeping amendments which were not going

to affect the present operation of the Islands Trust in any way. The

worst part about that, you know.... I would be one of the first who

would like to sit here and when the minister makes a statement, I would

be prepared to accept it. But what is happening out in the municipal

and regional areas is that the elected officials at the present time

are finding that the minister is not even living up to the present

legislation. He is taking on powers that have never been taken on by

previous ministers of municipalities. He is refusing to honour

community plans that were debated within the local areas. They were

debated at the regional councils and were adopted at every local level

within.... In my particular riding they have been debated at public

meetings, at special meetings; they have been part of the election

campaign and have gone to the Capital Regional District, and they

conform in every way to existing legislation. But the present minister,

in his

[ Page 5574 ]

wisdom, has decided that he will not conform and

accept them. The amendments that he is bringing in are what have caused

our amendment. It's because there is not the trust or belief that what

is said is going to happen. I realize that is a very serious statement

to make, but it is the record of this minister, and the record of the

government in trying to get rid of the Islands Trust.

[3:00]

There's an old saying in the profession that I was in before, when I

was a police officer, that a law must not only be right but must also

appear to be right. Those in the Islands Trust and in the municipal

councils and regional boards, and all the people who for one reason or

another have gone into public office, who have got involved in making

decisions and taking responsibilities are only asking that the minister

and this government take time and sit down to discuss the issues that

are of a local nature. As the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe)

stated, those who have been elected to certain responsibilities should

have the right to make a mistake if that mistake is going to be made.

The minister should be the last person to encourage that everything be

centralized in Victoria. We cannot afford to centralize everything in

Victoria if we are going to maintain any sort of democracy. The grass

roots of any democracy are going to be at the municipal and the local

level.

This is the reason that there has been, would you say, an uprising

of the residents of the islands. They have that hidden feeling that the

minister is trying to upset their elected officials, that he is going

to have the power to appoint his people to do the planning and make the

recommendations. When I say that there could have been the intent of

the legislation that the minister says it means, when he made his

opening speeches.... With some small minor amendments, he could have

brought them under the pay of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, or he

could have brought them under housekeeping for superannuation or

anything else. But the appointment and the direction must remain at the

Islands Trust level. Their appointments and the way they are utilized

must be left at that level.

That assurance, if that is the intent of the government, could have

been arrived at openly; there could have been discussions. We have

continually asked that the government take into confidence the local

elected people.

I know that the minister said that he did not have any developer

friends. I have to confess, Mr. Speaker, that I do have developer

friends. I have friends who develop property, and I have friends who in

their quest for a quick buck find that some of the rules and

regulations and protection that local community advisory planning

committees put on their particular development cost them money. I know

that they would rather be able to run roughshod over the APCs and over

the regional local directors because they could make an extra buck. But

the ones I do accept as my friends, who I admit are developers, have a

commitment not only to develop land and bring in a new subdivision, but

a commitment to the people who are going to buy those lots and build

their homes there. They have a commitment to the children who are going

to go to school in that area, play in the parks that are provided, and

play in the ditches without the fear that they will be polluted with

septic sludge. This is what a good developer is concerned with. This is

what good local elected people are there to protect.

All we are saying is that we are trying to save the minister from

himself. The legislation not only must be right but must appear to be

right. With the past record of this minister, the past record of the

government, the fear of setting up a parliamentary committee to go out

and ask for input from those who are going to be affected — to have it

on record what is the hidden agenda and what is the real agenda.... The

minister could protect and maybe get some Brownie points by holding

back on this particular bill at this time, sending it to a

parliamentary committee, to bring in those who are going to be affected

— those in the Islands Trust.

I have to accept that there are going to be changes on those

islands; there is going to be development. But I think that development

should come from the local level. I don't think anyone there is under

the illusion that they are going to protect those islands forever

without any changes. As the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown)

said, when they are trying to improve the water supply and bring in

different water districts, the minister has taken it upon himself not

to sign, not to accept the proposals made by those residents. This is

the sort of background record that is in the communities of the Gulf

Islands. There is that fear.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

All we're asking is that the minister take a second look and do the

consultation that is needed. If we had the appearance from the

government, from the back-benchers, that this is not a political

issue.... We are the last people to want to make a political issue of

something like the Gulf Islands. It is an important issue in British

Columbia, and that protection must be maintained. The political issue

is the grass roots of our elected municipal governments, our elected

school boards, our elected public trustees. I don't care if these are

fire district trustees or water district trustees, but to make fun, as

the previous speaker did, of some 200 elected people.... This is the

grass roots of democracy. Every one of those particular individuals has

got involved, has taken a responsibility and has made decisions.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that some of those decisions might not have

been decisions I would have supported, but it was a decision that they

have a responsibility to make, and they have their people who voted for

them. They will have the opportunity to reject them or to re-elect

them. This is the important part, and this is the political issue that

we're standing on: that decisions must be made locally. British

Columbia democracy cannot afford to centralize all the power in

Victoria.

The minister is a very jolly chap, but his PR out in the community

is not always the best. I have two areas in my riding, as I said,

where, when the local people had made all the decisions for certain

amendments to certain community plans, the minister refused to accept

them. In one — that was Metchosin — he said he wouldn't accept it until

they incorporated. They did incorporate, and I guess he had to turn it

over to them. The other one is Sooke and he still refuses to sign the

particular amendments.

The funny part about it is that it's not.... You know, I don't think

he's doing it to help me politically, but I would like to tell the

minister that his own Social Credit supporters are absolutely appalled

that he would take the power from the people they have elected. They

have made a decision and he is denying that particular proposal the

go-ahead. It's embarrassing them. They have meetings to study

incorporation, and they spend more time saying, why doesn't our good

Social Credit minister accept the wishes of the local people? I

[ Page 5575 ]

know I'm getting a lot of good feedback from his bullheadedness. He's a jolly chap, but he's very bull-headed.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: Is that unparliamentary? He's a friendly bull-headed....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The term, hon. member, is unparliamentary. Avoid using it.

MR. MITCHELL: I feel that all we're trying to do is get

through to the minister that he sit down and consult with them. When

the Islands Trust group, the ones who are going to be affected, have

met with the minister, and they come in and recommend a change in the

wording, that the assurance is being given.... I can say without any

fear of contradiction that if the two groups come in, in the spirit of

cooperation — that's this government's new buzzword — that if we have

that cooperation, consultation and input, and the minister stands up

and says he has met with all of the people concerned and changed it —

maybe there was some wrong

interpretation of what he meant the

particular legislation to mean.... If he publicly says, "This is what

we want," then I know this side of the House will support them. If we

can get that type of consultation and cooperation, not only in the

Islands Trust but in Sooke and all the other unorganized areas in

British Columbia.... Where there is local input, local consultation and

local direction, things will change. But the principle of consultation

will never change. If we practise it, it will only get better, it will

only improve.

[3:15]

This legislation, which we may feel is important.... I think every

one of us gets snowed under with all the legislative changes that come

down. You read an amendment, you go through the particular bill, and

you find that an amendment that came in in 1982 hasn't been put in

place, and you're wondering what you're amending. Every one of us — if

we want to be honest as MLAs — slips up on certain changes that come

through this House. But something like this has had the publicity;

everyone has read it. The Islands Trust people have expressed their

concerns. And I think that when you have the official opposition in the

House, who represent 45 percent of the people of British Columbia....

There must be some reason. There must be some fault in the legislation

or the

interpretation.

I ask, in closing, that the minister seriously consider where he's

rushing us to — the intent or the

interpretation of the legislation —

and that he hold back on it and get it straightened out. We're showing

our cooperation. We're happy to see that he does give assurance that if

changes are needed in the legislation, they are brought in in a proper

and happily consultative manner.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave to bring to the attention of the House that...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MS. BROWN: ...the eyes of the hard-working mayor of Burnaby are upon them, and ask them to bid him welcome.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I would add my welcome to our hard-working mayor — certainly a very hardworking mayor for his municipality.

I'm going to be very brief. I know that members opposite are

speaking to the gallery today, and I thought that since that is the

case and I'm speaking on the amendment.... I am compelled to rise very

briefly and comment on the remarks of the last speaker.

None of them have displayed any knowledge of the legislation, let

alone the legislation that their own government wrote when they were in

office — they don't understand it at all. It's all been hypocritical

rhetoric. But what I really want to say is that the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, who has quite clearly stated that he is a

supporter of democracy and that the principle of consultation will

improve if practised, and that we should always consult.... Mr.

Speaker, I want it known here in this House today, and I want it listed

in the records, that that same member came to my office shortly after I

became the Minister of Municipal Affairs and suggested....

MS. BROWN: A confidential meeting?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No, not a confidential meeting at all.

He asked me to consider imposing incorporation on the Western

Community without a vote. I think it only fair that the public and

those in the gallery he has been speaking to know, and that the record

shows, that this speaker who just sat down calling for the principle of

consultation and the need to practise it for improvement of it is the

one who asked me to impose incorporation on the Western Community

without a vote.

I oppose this amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew rises, I guess, on a point of order?

MR. MITCHELL: Not a point of order....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have spoken to the amendment, so it must be a point of order.

MR. MITCHELL: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Please proceed.

MR. MITCHELL: The statement that the minister made is false.

He knows that at this point I cannot debate what I said, but I never

said it the way he is interpreting it, and I say that the statement he

made is false. If he wants to debate what I said, it's in Hansard .

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, one moment, please. We will

leave it at that, but suffice it to say that both points of order have

been heard. Latitude was afforded both the member for Esquimalt–Port

Renfrew and the minister with respect to events that obviously occurred

outside of the scope of the bill or the amendment regarding the bill.

But that latitude having been allowed, I'm sure we can discuss any

differences of opinion at another time.

Now back to the amendment to Bill 30.

[ Page 5576 ]

MR. STUPICH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When I rose to my feet

earlier it was to try to bring the minister to order and find out

whether he was opposing or supporting the amendment. He did say he was

opposing the amendment in his conclusion; he left no doubt about that

in the conclusion. His remarks would leave some doubt.

The amendment we're debating now.... Perhaps it is good that we

should consider it from time to time and refer to it from time to time.

I think the minister didn't in his remarks, but then there have been

faults made on both sides. The amendment does decry the fact that there

have not been evident the principles of cooperation, self-government

and local autonomy in the minister's mind or in his actions in bringing

in the bill before us. So I think the amendment is quite proper and

could even be supported by the minister if he were to read it

carefully, because certainly the minister himself knows that he hasn't

done this.

Such legislation hasn't always been developed through cooperation

and consultation. I first met the Gulf Islands — the islands that are

now in the Islands Trust; some of them, at least — when I campaigned in

1949. I won't tell you how long ago that is if you can't figure it out

quickly, but it is quite a while ago. That was my first opportunity to

travel among the Gulf Islands and to.... I almost said "to get to know

them." You can't do that in one lifetime, let alone in the lifetime of

one politician. But it did give me an excellent opportunity to get to

know some of the islands well and to get to know some of the people who

have lived on them, in some cases, for several generations. They are a

really delightful place to visit and to live, although it's not a place

that I choose to make my home.

At that time there were no controls other than those imposed by the

provincial government. So we're going back to square one now, it would

appear. In those days all the rural area in the province was under the

control, when it came to planning, of the provincial government. That's

the way it was. There was no consultation; there was no discussion, no

reference to local people as to what should go on or what shouldn't go

on. The only representations that were heard would be from local

constituents on some of those islands making representations through

their MLA or to ministers directly when they wanted certain things.

That's the way it was, not just in the Gulf Islands, Mr. Speaker, but

in rural areas all over the province.

I was a member in this Legislature when the then Municipal Affairs

minister, the Hon. Dan Campbell, brought in the first legislation

establishing regional districts. There are a couple of us — two, three

or four of us — who are around that were here at the time. I recall

some of his remarks to the effect that there had to be more local

input, in particular into planning development. The regional districts

were going to be allowed, perhaps even encouraged, to pick up one

function after another — and to pay for them themselves. But initially

they were all to have planning as a function. They were to get some

provincial government assistance towards the cost of planning, and some

local. But it was an effort on the part of the then Minister of

Municipal Affairs, supported by his government, to try to get planning

developed at the local level. That was a move in the right direction, I

submit.

When the NDP government came into office, the regional districts had

been in place; planning was in effect. But there were some of us who

felt that there were some parts of the province that needed special

attention, that needed some special consideration, at least, if not

special attention, from the provincial government. We chose to listen.

The NDP government chose to establish a committee — the Select Standing

Committee on Municipal Affairs — that was instructed by the Legislature

to travel among the Gulf Islands, to listen to them as to what they

thought was happening in the Gulf Islands, and to listen to them for

advice as to what the government might do to try to protect the

uniqueness of the Gulf Islands for future generations.

They travelled among the Gulf Islands, this all-party committee, and

listened. They did this for quite some time. They came back, the

legislation was developed, and the legislation, when it finally came

in, was supported by all members in the House. Certainly the NDP

government supported it, but the Social Credit, Liberal and

Conservative members in opposition also thought it was good,

progressive legislation. They thought it was legislation that had been

developed, as in the words of the amendment before us right now,

through cooperation and consultation. We were increasing the degree of

local autonomy when it came to planning in particular. That was the

thing that was most in mind at the time.

Well, Mr. Speaker, it worked. Sure, there were problems. There are

always problems. There are problems in planning in municipalities.

There are problems in planning in all regional districts and in all

areas of the province. There are people who would want things to be

approved more easily and more quickly. Sometimes we act in haste and

repent at leisure. It is so easy to do something and, a lot of times,

to regret it in the event that we make a mistake.

Sometimes the mistakes are so bad that little can be done to correct

them. That is the concern of the Gulf Islanders — the people who

support the concept of the Islands Trust, the people who take

part in

the election of Islands Trust members. While some of us may feel that

there are too many elected representatives covering all the different

kinds of boards and activities that go on in the Gulf Islands,

nevertheless there is a great degree of public interest in those

elections. When it comes to selecting the members of the Islands Trust,

the representatives on all the islands, there is a lot of interest. The

voter turnout is very high. Certainly to my knowledge, in my own area

at least, on the islands in my constituency that are part of the

Islands Trust, there is a very high turnout. To the best of my

knowledge there have always been elections required. There have always

been more people running than there were positions to be filled.

When I was first elected, I represented most of the islands

currently covered by the Islands Trust. The constituency then was

Nanaimo and the Islands, which included everything from Gabriola, all

of the Gulf Islands that are part of Canada down to Resthaven, which is

a little island off the coast of the Saanich Peninsula that had nothing

on it except the hospital. Nevertheless, that was one of the islands

that was part of the Nanaimo and the Islands constituency. So I had a

good opportunity to see many of the islands and to be completely in

support of the Islands Trust legislation, not just the legislation but

of the process, the way in which it was developed. It was developed by

consultation — the word that is mentioned in the amendment before us

right now.

To the best of my knowledge, the minister in his opening remarks —

certainly when he spoke in opposition to this amendment — never said

anything about any consultation with anybody. He did say he met, but it

was after the fact, after the bill was introduced. If he has anything

at all to tell us about any consultation he had with anyone in the

Islands

[ Page 5577 ]

Trust, or anyone among the Gulf Islanders who was

expressing concerns to him about the way in which the system was

working, then I think we should have that information in debating this

legislation.

If the minister can tell us anything about any degree of

consultation or cooperation that he showed anyone in developing this

legislation, I would invite him to tell us about it when he winds up

second reading, when he next speaks on this. I expect the question will

be asked again and again when we come to committee stage, if he hasn't

dealt with it adequately before we get to that stage. That's one

problem. There hasn't been the consultation. There hasn't been the

cooperation.

It's been said that the legislation really doesn't do all that much;

it's simply housekeeping. From where I sit, in reading the legislation

before us right now, it would seem to me that it's making a fundamental

change in the Islands Trust authority. Previously they had the right to

hire staff, perhaps in some cases subject to

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council approval, and they had the right to

instruct staff and to tell staff what they wanted done. Without any

consultation or discussion with the Islands Trust people, as far as we

know, the legislation before us now says that it will be up to the

minister to supply staff. He "may" supply staff. To say that he may

supply staff is also saying that he may not supply staff.

[3:30]

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I welcome what the minister is saying from his

seat, and I look forward to hearing his remarks in closing second

reading, or in discussion of it in committee stage, or whenever. At

least we'll have it on the record then. Let's have some real evidence

from the minister that he intends to make staff available to the

Islands Trust.

The next question is, I suppose, who is going to decide how many

staff members there will be from time to time? If the Islands Trust

representatives feel that a certain job has to be done...or is it going

to wait until people working in the Municipal Affairs ministry

somewhere, who are currently overloaded, to the best of my

information...? I think almost every office in government is

overloaded. Certainly the lineups for different services from

government are getting longer and longer. I've had occasion to send

memos to different cabinet members asking about such problems.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I haven't written to you yet, but I'll take it

up with you privately before I do on the floor; I do that always. When

I meet problems like that, I prefer to do it that way. I haven't heard

of any yet, although I have heard from Municipal Affairs ministry staff

that they feel it's getting beyond the point of being able to cope with

the problem, but that's not.... I think I heard the minister say that

they are busy; that's fine.

My concern is: will he be able to supply staff members to the

Islands Trust to do the job that the Islands Trust representatives feel

should be done if his staff members are already going full tilt? They

now can; they now have the authority to hire them. They're paying part

of the shot, so they have that authority. The minister, from what I see

of the legislation, is taking that away from them. Again, I shall be

discussing that not with this amendment in mind but rather in the bill

itself.

My reference to the bill before us is that this has all been done

without any consultation. It's conceivable that there were some

problems, although I had never heard of any. But it is quite possible

that there were some problems. That being the case, could the minister

not have sat down with representatives from the Islands Trust and

discussed ways of meeting the problems, dealing with the problems?

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The minister will be able to tell us about that

when he winds up second reading — whether he did discuss it with him.

We'd be very interested in discussing that information with the people

with whom he was telling us he did discuss it with. That's great. He

may very well....

His first speech, when he moved second reading, was so brief that he

didn't give us all of the answers that might have shortened this debate

substantially. I'm not promising that, but it might have. We just don't

know, because we don't know what he was going to say. He'll have that

opportunity later on. But right now there is little we can do, other

than on the basis of the information we have. Our information is that

there hasn't been the discussion. There hasn't been the consultation.

The amendment before us criticizes the government for having dealt with

a problem that was minor, to the best of our knowledge — to the extent

that there was a problem at all — in a very strong method by wiping out

the authority of the Islands Trust to hire and fire and instruct the

staff members working on proposals, or working on jobs assigned to them

by Islands Trust representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment.

MRS. DAILLY: The amendment before us, just to refresh our

memories, is that the government through its failure to consult with

local representatives has created a situation respecting the Gulf

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

self-government and local autonomy.

Now I am taking

part in this debate because although I am not a

person, I must admit, who is very knowledgeable in the whole

legislation and all the ramifications of the work done through the

Islands Trust, I have had personal experience in living and working on

an island — but I'm not talking about this one at this time, Mr.

Speaker; it was Denman Island, which I am sure the minister has

visited. I hope he has.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Isle of Skye.

MRS. DAILLY: The Isle of Skye.

But Denman Island is where I first started my first teaching in a

one-room schoolhouse — which is still there, by the way. Anyway, I

remember Denman Island with great fondness. I know that when I visit it

the odd time now, I am pleased to see that although there have been

some changes as far as the extra places that are now built there —

compared to the few little farmhouses that were there when I taught

there — I feel rather happy that it still primarily has a pastoral

atmosphere. Most of the people who go to live on those islands go there

for that reason. If they don't want that kind of life, then they return

or they stay in the urban areas. I know that it is the concern of

everyone, I think, in this Legislature that British Columbia maintain

that, so that people who enjoy that kind of life will be able to find

those places to reside in.

[ Page 5578 ]

I wish personally that I, many years ago in the forties, had bought

a piece of property there, Mr. Speaker, because it would be a wonderful

place to retire.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: When I was a teenager, thank you. I think I was, too — my last teenage year.

Anyway, my main concern with the legislation is that not only do we want to

maintain this.... And the minister may say: "Well, I do, and I have

nothing against that. That's what I'm here for, to maintain the islands

as they were and as they should be maintained." Then I have to say to the

minister, why bring in a piece of legislation which frightens people? It frightens

the people who live on the islands, it frightens the people in the Legislature

— in the opposition particularly — and it frightens the people who are working

very hard in the Islands Trust.

So I ask the minister — and I do hope he will answer this when he

closes — why have you done this? Why can you not give support to the

request from the opposition which reflects not only the opposition's

viewpoint but the viewpoint of many who live on the islands? Why can

you not hold back on this so that the aura of fear and concern which

you have created by this amendment — which you claim is very minor,

simply a housekeeping amendment — can be removed? That's all we're

asking. Is it so important to you and to your government to have this

in? If you withdrew it, would it interfere with your plans as minister?

Would it really interfere with any particular new policy that you are

trying to bring about? Because we cannot see the reason for this.

AN HON. MEMBER: The new policy is cooperation and partnership.

MRS. DAILLY: I am very pleased, yes, that the new policy that

the minister of Municipal Affairs has espoused recently through

legislation before this House for the municipalities is for partnership

and cooperation. No one could disagree with that. But then at the same

time as he brings in this kind of legislation for municipalities he

comes out with what appears to be a rather heavy hammer on the Islands

Trust concept and legislation. So why does he not keep this aura and

this policy, as he claims, of cooperation and partnership with the

Islands Trust people? That is simply what we're asking.

Now the minister may, in his closing remarks, suggest — and I'm

giving you lines for your closing speech — that we are perhaps

paranoiac in our concern over what that legislation you presented to us

will do to the people in the Islands Trust. We are not, because even

though the minister may say, "Trust me; I promise you there will not be

any major changes," you are going to create a climate of fear that is

not going to bode well for the future of the Islands Trust. I think the

minister must know this by now. He's a well-meaning minister. I know

his background is concerned with work-sharing and with cooperation.

Then why can he not extend this to the Islands Trust concept? You still

have not given us on this side any reason to support your legislation.

We can't see anything positive about it. I think that it behooves you

to be able to express to this House anything positive about this piece

of legislation.

But even if you can, to some degree, allay some specific fears, it

still gets down to a matter of trust. The Islands Trust people are very

concerned that there will be an atmosphere created from this bill which

will not bode well for its future. That is why, Mr. Speaker, even

though I do not profess, as I said earlier, to be able to debate in

detail the whole amendment and what it means — maybe no one else can,

actually, because we're not quite sure why he has to do it — I do want

to express simply, as a person who knows the beauties and the joys of

preserving these islands, to the minister: why are you bringing in this

amendment? Please, give second thought to it. Will you please listen to

the opposition and give support to the hoisting of this particular

amendment. Actually, we'd like to see the whole thing dropped. I think

that would certainly create a much better feeling with the people on

the islands.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The Social Credit government is in a fair amount of trouble now. I

think that that is pretty much understood all over this province.

Economically they are in trouble, with their policies. The people of

British Columbia are — and have been for a little while now, I would

suggest, unfortunately for the members of the Social Credit — beginning

to lose their faith in the competency of this government. To bring in

an amendment which also destroys a feeling of confidence when it comes

to the preservation of our islands, to my mind, is almost a suicidal

step that this government is taking, and which they certainly do not

need. I would say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs that here you

have an opportunity not to move in a heavy-handed manner. Here you have

an opportunity to show, as a minister of the Crown, that you do listen

to the opposition, that you do listen to the people of the islands who

have genuine concerns about this bill.

I do not wish to keep repeating myself on this. I just have this one

specific concern to express to the minister: why are you doing this? Is

it necessary? If you can't give any valid reasons for it, which you

haven't to date, in your introduction, we ask you to give consideration

to removing this legislation. I can assure you that you will gain

respect from the people of the Islands Trust. The opposition will feel

that they have a minister who is able to take a second look, a minister

who's flexible and will listen.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to having that minister look at this bill with

a much more tolerant, open mind. Hopefully, in his final remarks to the House,

he will assure us: "Yes, perhaps I have been hasty. Perhaps this is a bill

that can indeed be withdrawn."

[3:45]

MRS. WALLACE: I'd like to have a few words to say about this

amendment. Certainly the amendment which has just been read by my

colleague from Burnaby North has pointed out that what we're talking

about in this amendment is the need for cooperation. I think that if

the minister would just review the major piece of legislation under

which his ministry operates, the Municipal Act, he would recognize that

it is full of clause after clause that specifies the requirements for

any change at the municipal level, how a bylaw is brought in, how it is

dealt with.... For just the smallest change in a given village or

municipality there is a requirement to have public hearings and to go

through all this routine, as I'm sure you're aware, Mr. Speaker. This

is to ensure that all sides are heard before a change takes place.

[ Page 5579 ]

What apparently has been happening here is that the minister woke up

one morning and decided: "Aha! I'm going to fix that Islands Trust. I'm

going to decide who works for them. I'm going to decide whether anybody

works for them. I'm going to decide what their qualifications are. I'm

going to make sure that those people report to me so I'll be able to be

sure, in my mind, that what's happening in the Islands Trust is what I

want to happen, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs." That's not

cooperation, Mr. Speaker. That's not the way it works under the

Municipal Act with a village, a city, a town or a regional board. But

that's what the minister is proposing to do in this particular piece of

legislation. He just suddenly woke up and decided: "That's what I'm

going to do. That's a good idea." And he brought in this bill. As

somebody said earlier, even his colleagues don't know what it's all

about. They're trying to figure out why he's doing this.

What we're proposing in this amendment is that you back up. Just go

back to sleep for a minute, Mr. Minister, and wake up again and decide

to do it the way it would be done under the Municipal Act. Decide to do

it with a degree of consultation. Go and talk to the people in the

Islands Trust. Talk to the chairman of the Islands Trust. Talk to the

members. Tell them your reasons, if you have any reasons. We haven't

heard what those reasons are. Unfortunately he didn't tell us when he

introduced the bill. He spoke on our amendment for two.... I'm not sure

whether he spoke on our amendment or whether it was a point of order,

Mr. Speaker. I think he spoke on the amendment, but he certainly didn't

tell us what his reasons were. If there are valid reasons for doing

what he's doing, then follow some procedure of consultation,

cooperation and general discussion with the people involved — the 13

different local island councils and the Islands Trust itself. Do a bit

of a review and present some statistics, all the things that you would

do in the normal course of a municipal hearing for a change of a bylaw

in a municipality or a regional board. Do all those things. I'm talking

about cooperation. Do it the way that you would normally approach such

a thing; don't just wake up one morning and take a stand.

We have heard outlined in this Legislature, and no one has disputed

it.... The minister hasn't spoken, but many people have gotten up and

talked about many things. They talked about Meares Island and they

talked about the Land Commission or the land reserve. They talk about

all kinds of things, but no one has disputed the fact that the Islands

Trust on several occasions, which were all detailed with dates and

times, wrote to the minister and asked for some consultation. They

asked to sit down and discuss suggested alternatives. They did all

those things, Mr. Speaker, and we heard it said here very clearly that

the minister had never responded. We've heard no rebuttal to that. The

minister is up on a point of order on everything else, but he didn't

jump up on a point of order there and say: "That's wrong." None of the

people who have spoken in support of this bill have indicated that that

was wrong.

That's not consultation; that's autocratic rule by an autocratic

minister. The minister, for whatever reason, has decided that he's

going to do this thing — no explanation, no consultation, no requests,

no reasons. He's bringing that control into his own little hands so all

those many islands — 13 islands.... It isn't the number of people. It's

been said that 11,000 plus people live there. The real crux of the

thing is that there are certain interests out there that would like to

multiply that number of people by ten to make it 110,000 people,

because they can see the profits that they would get by dividing and

subdividing again and again. That's what the Islands Trust was all

about. That was done in cooperation with those island residents, with

the people who live there, with the people who are concerned about

retaining that unique, very special, very beautiful area. It was all

done with consultation.

Now the minister says: "I'm going to change the way we do it." You

suspect, because he's given no explanation, because he hasn't followed

the normal procedures, because he hasn't taken those steps that I've

outlined that would make it appear much more credible.... If he is

credible, and if we give him the benefit of the doubt and say, "Okay,

for some obscure reason he has failed to explain, but it's a credible

reason," that is not enough. It has to appear to be credible. It has to

be known to be credible. That hasn't happened.

The people who are the most closely concerned, the people who are on

the Islands Trust and on the local island councils and the people who

live on those islands have not seen it as being credible. Would you,

Mr. Speaker, think it was a fair deal if suddenly out of the blue you

read in the paper about the area which you were attempting to develop

along the lines that the people who lived there wanted to see

developed, and you had the ability to hire the personnel to do this,

and you picked up your morning paper and read that if this bill passed

you would no longer have the right to hire anyone, would you think that

was a credible way? Would you really feel that the minister had your

best interests at heart? Would you really believe that you had been

consulted if you read it in the morning paper? I don't think so, Mr.

Speaker, and I don't think the people of the Islands Trust council feel

that, because that's really where they learned about it. They read it

in the morning paper.

Then you took pen in hand and sat down and wrote to the minister,

and said: "Dear Mr. Minister, I've just read in the paper that you're

going to take away my employees; that I don't have the right to hire.

You may, if you feel like it, supply municipal employees to work for

us, but we will have nothing to say about what categories, about what

their responsibilities are. You'll be directing them because you're

going to hire them and fire them and pay their wages." You would say:

"I'm sorry to read this in the paper. I really think there must be a

mistake. We didn't hear anything about this before. We thought

everything was going fine. We've heard no complaints from the people

who live on the islands; we've heard no complaints from our employees.

Has the press made a mistake? We know the press makes mistakes. If it's

true, Mr. Minister, won't you please talk to us about it? We've got

some ideas that we think.... If you really have to do this, Mr.

Minister," you'd say in that letter, "maybe you could tell us why. And

maybe you could consider some suggestions that would make this

acceptable to you and to us. If you really believe in the Islands Trust

and in what we're doing, maybe you'd answer our letter; maybe you'd see

us and talk about these things."

You send that letter off, and your heart is full of hope. You're

sure that minister is going to reply. I'm sure you would do that, Mr.

Speaker. And you wait and wait and wait, and you get no answer. You

think, well, the postal service isn't very good. Maybe that letter got

lost. So you sit down and write again. You repeat it all. "I wrote you,

Mr. Minister, when I read this in the paper. I'm sure the letter must

have gone astray, because otherwise you would have answered by now. So

could you please consider these points?" And you'd spell it all out

again: that everything seemed to be going fine,

[ Page 5580 ]

you'd heard nothing about this, and then all of a

sudden you read it in the paper; that you really wanted to make this

thing work, you were sure there was a misunderstanding, you were sure

that if you could get together you could work something out. And you

send that letter off. You wait and wait and wait, and you get no

answer. Would you think that was cooperation?

Maybe you're really a hopeful soul. Those people elected to serve on

the Islands Trust are a fine type of person — trusting, responsible. So

you try again. You think, maybe the secretary put it on the bottom of

the pile of correspondence on his desk; I know he's a busy man, and he

hasn't got at it yet. So you sit down and write another letter. "Dear

Mr. Minister, I really can't believe that this is what you're going to

do, without even talking to us about it. That's not cooperation, Mr.

Minister. We don't think you're like that. We'd really like to talk

about this, and we've got these suggestions. If for some reason you

want to do this thing, then at least let's talk about it." So you send

that off, and you still get no reply.

Is that cooperation? That's not cooperation. Only the patience and

nature of those people on the Islands Trust have kept this thing as

stable as it is. If that were me, I think I would be much more upset

and much more annoyed. I'm sure they're upset and annoyed, but I think

I would show it in a more volatile manner. They're still trying to

cooperate. They're still trying to get the minister's assurance that he

will not just say "Trust me," not just say "This is housekeeping." If

he really believes that this is just housekeeping, he will introduce an

amendment to ensure that their powers will remain inviolate as far as

their ability to administer that Islands Trust. So far the minister

hasn't done that. So far the minister has given them no assurance. So

far he hasn't said that on the floor of this House. All he's said is

"Trust me," and those who don't trust him are silly.

That's where we're at with this bill, and that's why we've moved

this amendment. We've moved this amendment because the government has

failed to consult with the local representatives. The government has

created a situation respecting the Islands Trust area that is

completely contrary to any principle of cooperation. It's completely

contrary to any principle of self-government. Don't we believe in

self-government?

[4:00]

The member down here from West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds)

has indicated that there are 280 representatives from the various Gulf

Islands. Well, if there were just three or four you might think that

those people really didn't speak for the people of the Gulf Islands.

But if they've got 280 of them all together, those people certainly are

representing.... They have a good broad base, a much higher per capita

base of public input at the elected level than, say, do our

constituents, Mr. Speaker, who out of 2.5 million people send only 57

of us here to Victoria. They're well represented. They have that

democratic elective process well in hand. It's not a little group — a

little clique — that has control and is going contrary to the direction

that the people who live on those islands want to go. So why hamstring

it? Why has the minister, at this particular time, chosen to do this

thing?

I thought that that government was out to try to create the image of being

interested and listening to what the public had to say. I'm not sure that

they do that, but they're certainly trying to create that image. The minister,

through this bill, is destroying the best efforts of the Minister of Finance

and the Premier and all these people who are roving around the province with

all their great ideas that they want to present to the people, trying to involve

the public, trying to show that they're listening and are sensitive to the

needs. Here's a minister who's going in exactly the opposite direction.

On one hand he calls in all the municipal people here and has a

grand fete over across the street and tells them all about partnership

and renewal. Those are elected people representing local

constituencies, municipalities, regional boards, villages, cities,

towns. He says: "Let's cooperate." Mind you, his idea of cooperation

is: "This is it, folks. Take it or leave it." But even that is better

than this. It has some little inklings of positive approach. This has

none. If he wants to say to the Islands Trust, "This is it; take it or

leave it," at least he should say it to them and not just bring in a

bill and not talk to them. Eventually he did come and speak to them —

yesterday, was it? — but no promises or commitments, and no

explanations as to why he was doing this. That's not cooperation.

That's not in accord with the principles of self-government and local

autonomy. That's not the direction that we should be going in in this

province.

This is one area where we really need to ensure that the locally

elected people have as much help as possible in protecting a very

valuable, fragile resource that could be destroyed very easily —

irreparably destroyed — if for even a short period of time there was a

bit of laxity. If, for a very short period of time, the Islands Trust

council and the local councils found that they were not able to fulfil

all their duties, that irreparable damage could well be high-density

subdivisions on any or all of the Gulf Islands. That is the thing that

would completely destroy the very unique and very special and very

precious qualities that those islands have.

This is not an area that can be treated that way. There are water

problems; there are sewage disposal problems, and there are just the

problems of the ecological and environmental rarities that exist on

those Gulf Islands: the wildlife, the fish and the shellfish, the sea,

the quality of the water, the air — all of those things. They're all

very precious, they're all very fragile, and they're all very easily

destroyed. That's why the Islands Trust and the councils on the various

islands are so concerned.

They see, in this lack of ability on the part of the minister to

cooperate, communicate and demonstrate by action that he does not

intend to reduce their ability to function.... That's why they are

concerned; that's why we are concerned. We're concerned about the loss

of local autonomy and the self-government rights of the people who live

on those Gulf Islands, and that's why we have moved this amendment. I

think it is self-evident that the reasons, as listed, for moving it....

They are clear-cut. There is no question in my mind that it is a good

amendment and should be supported.

MS. SANFORD: You would think at this point that the minister

might recognize there is a problem with this bill. The people living on

the islands within the Trust are extremely concerned and are mounting a

campaign to oppose this piece of legislation, which the minister keeps

telling us is housekeeping. I think, Mr. Speaker, that at this stage....

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: I can't hear the minister. Does he wish to speak?

[ Page 5581 ]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Has Blencoe got his rent-a-crowd out there to demonstrate?

MS. SANFORD: I haven't seen any crowd out there, have you?

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: They're mounting opposition and they

certainly.... Have you got the pile of letters that I have? I'm sure

the minister has far more letters than I have.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member direct her

comments to the Chair. And the minister will be allowed to close debate

on the bill with respect to second reading.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I think it is an appropriate time

to review where we're at in terms of this debate and the amendment that

is before us. What we have is one of the most unique, most beautiful

and most precious groups of islands in this province, which some years

ago was included under what is called the Islands Trust. That did not

come about suddenly. That came about as a result of the pressures on

those islands and the recognition by the islanders — and, indeed, by

the then Social Credit government — that something had to be done to

ensure that those islands were not destroyed forever by the unfettered,

uncontrolled and unregulated development that was taking place. After

all, because they are islands they also have unique problems of

transportation, water supply, sewerage, garbage disposal and fire

protection. There are innumerable problems that are special and unique

to the islands.

Because of this unfettered development that was taking place on the

islands, my predecessor in this House, the then Minister of Municipal

Affairs, Dan Campbell, placed a freeze on the development of those

islands. He applied a straight, across-the-board, ten-acre development

freeze. By the way, he had the support of the then Premier, who

recognized that those islands were in fact valuable and needed special

attention. When the government changed hands in 1972, the Select

Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs and Housing was assigned by the

then Minister of Municipal Affairs, Hon. James Lorimer, the task of

travelling to the islands and of listening to the islanders about the

problems that existed on those islands and to suggestions from them

about what we could do as a government and as legislators to ensure

that some special protection was afforded those islands.

I was overwhelmed by the response of those islanders. They attended

those meetings; they spoke their minds; they implored us to take

action, to give them some authority to be involved in the planning and

direction and the development of their own islands. They were sincere.

They were keen to talk to us. All of the members of that committee, Mr.

Speaker, including the Socred members who now sit on the government

side of the House, were impressed by the representations, by the

concerns, and were quite willing to sit down after we got back to

Victoria in order to come up with some sort of legislation that would

do two things: one, ensure that the islanders themselves had some say;

two, that they would be able, through special legislation, to play a

part in the future development of those islands, ensuring that those

jewels were in fact protected for all of the people of British

Columbia. That happened in 1974.

As a matter of fact, the idea of the Islands Trust and the Islands

Trust legislation was advanced by a Conservative member of the House,

who since then has changed his political stripe and become a Socred and

now sits in this Legislature as the Minister of Finance and

representative of Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis). It is no

wonder that that member is not getting up and speaking on this piece of

legislation, because if he were to support the Minister of Municipal

Affairs, he would be speaking against what he proposed back in 1974,

having travelled with the Select Standing Committee on Municipal

Affairs to the Gulf Islands.

[4:15]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

So in 1974 we had put in place the Islands Trust legislation, which

enabled the islanders to elect their own representatives, to have their

own advisory committees on the islands, to assist them in going to the

public on the islands in order to come up with development plans which

would suit each and every individual island within the Trust. As I

pointed out before, that was hard work. In some cases on some of the

islands they had meetings week after week, for up to two years, before

they could agree on what was best for that particular island. But it's

a valuable process. It protects those islands. The decisions are made

and developed, with the help of staff, by the people elected on those

islands.

If there were a problem all of these years since 1974 when the act

was established.... If there were a problem with

section 13, which says

that the Trust shall appoint its staff, then why hadn't we heard about

it? Why is it that we are suddenly faced with a piece of legislation

that eliminates the

section saying the trust shall appoint staff, and

instead puts in place a

section that says that the minister may appoint

staff? He's now going to be the employer. He's now going to be the one

who calls the tune. The employer nearly always calls the tune. So the

Trust, in its attempt to continue its work in preserving and protecting

those islands, is going to be hamstrung. No longer will the staff that

they depend on be answerable to the Trust; they will instead be

answerable to the minister. It's a power grab. It's more of the same

kind of thing that we've seen out of this government over the past

dozen years — not dozen years; it seems more like two dozen years. Over

the past ten years, time and time again the government has assumed more

authority, more power, more centralization. It's frightening, Mr.

Speaker. It's a trend that I vigorously oppose, and that's why I'm

prepared to spend as much time as I can in this Legislature pointing

out to the minister and to the members of this House that the direction

in which they are embarked at the moment is the wrong one. It's

dangerous, and it erodes the ability of people within their communities

to make decisions that affect them.

Surely the minister must be recognizing by now — I know it takes a

long time — based on the correspondence that he is getting, on the

telegrams that are coming into his office and on the phone calls that

are made from people within the Trust, that he has a problem. The

problem is that there has been no consultation with the islanders, and

that's why we have this amendment to his bill which points out that the

government has failed to consult with the local representatives. That's

why we've moved this amendment, and that's why I'll be supporting this

amendment.

[ Page 5582 ]

1 think it's tragic that we in this province are continuing to head

in a direction which enables the government to assume more and more

authority. If the minister is sincere in saying that this is no more

than a housekeeping piece of legislation, then all he has to do — and

we have mentioned that many times — is to give that assurance in

writing, through legislation. All he has to do is indicate that in no

way will the authority of the Trust be eroded through this amendment

that he has introduced. The people on the islands don't believe it. We

don't believe it. We think it's far more than housekeeping; we think

it's yet another power grab and another way in which to erode the

authority of locally-elected people.

Why doesn't the minister recognize that he has failed to consult?

People wouldn't be writing this volume of letters, nor would they be

sending telegrams, nor would they be phoning day after day to the

minister's office, if they had been consulted and if they understood

exactly, as the minister has tried to indicate, that this is no more

than housekeeping. If the minister had consulted, he could have said:

"Oh, it's no more than housekeeping, and I certainly will put in a

piece of legislation to ensure that this is no more than a piece of

housekeeping legislation."

Why does he refuse to do that, Mr. Speaker, when time after time we

point out to him the concern of the islanders and raise our own

concerns and yet he simply calls us silly — or something else?

Surely those who sat on the committee that travelled those islands

cannot support the legislation that the minister has brought in,

whether they sit on the cabinet benches or not, because if they vote

for this they are in fact voting against what they recommended and

voted for initially, which was to establish a system where the local

people could make decisions locally about the development of those

islands.

What this is going to lead to, Mr. Speaker, is not cooperation from

the islanders with this government. It's going to lead to mutual

mistrust. It certainly flies in the face of any statements made by the

government about its interest in cooperation.

It is so simple for the minister to put in writing the assurance

that we need — that I need, as a representative of people who are

affected by this legislation, and that my constituents need to be

assured that the system that they have worked under for the last 11

years, and which has worked well for them, pleased them, and given them

a sense of pride, will continue to be in place. Why is it so difficult

for the minister to give us that assurance? I'm afraid, Mr. Speaker,

it's because the government and the minister are far more interested in

development than in preservation and protection. That's why we're

seeing this.

The member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) spoke on

this amendment a short time ago, and suggested that this bill was

similar to the agricultural land reserve that was introduced. Well, at

least he's consistent. He's opposed to both the agricultural land

reserve and the Islands Trust, which give people the authority to give

some protection to the islands on which they reside. That member is

clearly far more interested in development, both in the agricultural

land reserve and on the islands, than he is in any sort of vision of

the future, or any sort of protection for those very special unique

islands. But in order for the Islands Trust to be effective and to

carry out the mandate that this Legislature gave to the Trust in 1974,

there must be an arm's-length relationship between the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and the trustees. That's eliminated when the minister

himself appoints staff. I have no doubt that the appointments made by

the minister...that those appointees will also be directed by the

minister. After all, when you hire someone you usually tell them what

it is they're to do, and why it is that you are paying them to do the

work you've hired them for. So they will be directed by the minister

and not the Trust. There is no longer an arm's-length relationship with

this amendment.

Surely the people within this Legislature can see that, can see the

mistake that's being made by giving that kind of authority to a

Minister of Municipal Affairs. I wonder if next on the list will be the

employees who now work for regional districts and municipal councils.

Are they too going to be appointed and directed by the minister? After

all, municipalities, regional districts and the Islands Trust are all

children of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. That's been mentioned by

many Ministers of Municipal Affairs over the years. If one child gets

treated this way, then surely we can expect that the other children

will be treated the same way. But that's consistent too, Mr. Speaker,

because it represents even more power grabbing and autocratic authority

on the part of the government.

That seems to be the direction we've been headed in over these

years, so maybe I shouldn't be so surprised at this. Maybe I shouldn't

be so concerned about this, because it is so representative of the

kinds of actions that they have taken. But I feel that I have a duty

and an obligation on behalf of the people living on Lasqueti Island,

Denman Island and Hornby Island, which are within my constituency, to

stand up here and join with my colleagues in trying to point out to the

minister that he's on the wrong track, that he's failed to consult with

the people, and that the people on the islands are reasonable people.

All they need is the assurance that the minister does not intend to

direct the Trust or in any way influence the decisions that have been

made. I'm sure he could come up with some wording for that. In fact,

we've prepared some amendments, Mr. Speaker, that would ensure that the

Trust maintains its authority and autonomy, but he refuses to consider

them. He's been sitting there and sitting there, now and again calling

us "silly," or some other term, yet refusing to move, to budge, to give

the assurance that we need as representatives in this House of people

who are very concerned about what is happening to them at this time

through this legislation.

All the mechanisms for local decision-making are being eroded and

dismantled by this government, whether it be at Islands Trust level,

municipal level or school board level. Mr. Speaker, I think even you

should be frightened by the approach that is being taken by the

government. It's frightening when at every chance they get they seize

power and authority. I have too much respect for our democratic system

to be able to sit in my seat and allow the minister to bring in this

kind of legislation which represents yet another power grab.

[4:30]

The other day, when I was speaking during second reading of this

bill.... I'm really pleased that the member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston)

is here, because at that time the member for Surrey and the minister

himself wanted to know — they kept shouting across the floor — which of

the islands trustees would state that he was pleased to be elected as

an island trustee so that he could play his

part in preserving and

protecting those islands. They kept saying, "Please name him." Well,

let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the person who said that he was

pleased to be elected and pleased to be serving did not realize that he

would have to preserve and

[ Page 5583 ]

protect the islands from the minister himself. That

elected trustee said to me: "I was sorry that you didn't name me in the

Legislature, because, as a matter of fact, I've written to the minister

himself saying exactly that." I would like to read the letter that that

newly-elected trustee on Denman Island has written to the minister,

expressing his concerns about this piece of legislation and expressing

the view that his fight to protect and preserve the islands is with the

minister himself through this kind of legislation. This is dated March

24:

"It is with regret and a sense of apprehension that I

note you are tabling legislation to absorb the Islands Trust staff into

the direct control of your ministry. What possible justification is

there in tampering with a system that works well and has done so for

many years? One can only conclude that you intend to bend the Trust's

mandate to your will, or be perceived as doing so.

"This is particularly unsettling, as we have a

relatively new, young and dedicated Trust council from a broad

political spectrum, some of whom are setting up a committee to consider

a program of sustainable and acceptable development. I emphasize the

word 'acceptable.' As a member of this committee, I can assure you that

we are not a collection of wide-eyed radicals, but represent the Trust

as a whole — a group of intelligent, dedicated men and women.

"Our planners and staff reflect this dedication. Our

new manager shows much promise, and his rapid grasp of affairs is

extraordinary. Incidentally, you are reported as saying that you do not

see the necessity for a manager to oversee six people. I submit this is

oversimplification, as the manager has to deal with 26 trustees as well

as maintain liaison with other ministries."

Here, Mr. Speaker, is where he makes the comment:

"When I took my oath of office to uphold the mandate

of the Trust, a mandate which includes the words 'to preserve and

protect,' I did not anticipate having to protect the mandate from its

own minister. As the Islands Trust now stands, you have probably the

most cost-effective organization in your government. The trustees have

neither sought nor received an increase in their very modest honorarium

of $1,600 a year.

"Both as a trustee and a citizen I am alarmed and

discouraged — a state of mind shared by many. I urge you to leave well

enough alone.

Yours truly,

H. N. Tait,

Denman Island, B.C."

If the member for Surrey who so much wanted his name the other day wants the

postal code, I would give that to her as well.

The members of the Trust not only want to be able to carry on the

work that they have been performing over the last 11 years, but they

would like their mandate expanded. Time and time again, they have

attempted to consult with the minister. They have attempted to appeal

to the minister. They have attempted to cajole the minister, in fact,

into proclaiming a

section of the Islands Trust Act which would enable

the trust fund to be established, so that people could make money,

donate properties or donate assistance in terms of preserving and

protecting those islands. The legislation is there. It's contained

within the act. But it has never been proclaimed. If the government

wishes to preserve and protect those islands, not only should they

abandon this bill, but they should also take the next step, which is to

proclaim that section, which would enable the trustees, with the

assistance of people on the islands and people in the province who are

interested in ensuring that those islands are not destroyed through

overdevelopment.... If he would take that step, proclaim that section,

we could begin in this province to build a trust fund which would in

fact make the whole objective of preserving and protecting the islands

even easier for the trustees. They need that help. My appeal, Mr.

Speaker, is for everyone to support this amendment, and then for the

minister to say — finally, after listening for two days, recognizing

the concern that has been expressed by people on this side of the

Legislature, and by people on the islands — that he will withdraw the

bill, then finally that he will move to proclaim the

section of the

Islands Trust Act which will ensure that the trust fund could be

established.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, knowing that neither you nor I have

very many islands in our constituencies, I'm.... My constituency is a

long way away from the Gulf Islands, and I'm not going to spend a lot

of time speaking on this motion. But I have some concerns, because the

condition of the Gulf Islands and how those islands are developed and

enhanced is basically a resource-use issue. That is near and dear to my

heart and, I think, to everyone in the province and every member of

this House whose riding consists of a lot of different types of

countryside — water, lakes, streams, mountains and, indeed, those

natural resources.

What we need to be concerned about here is what the people who own

property on the islands think about the way the Islands Trust has been

operated and about what's going to happen under this particular

legislation. We should remember that property owners and residents of

the islands are a diverse group of people. Some live there year-round.

Many earn their living elsewhere but still think of themselves as

islanders. I think many of the government MLAs who live on the mainland

side should think about the fact that they have a number of

constituents who are full-time residents on the mainland but who like

to think of themselves as islanders because they own property on those

islands and love to get away every moment that they possibly can. Then,

of course, there are the true absentee landowners, whose primary

concern with their property on the islands is a commercial one. There's

nothing wrong with that; that's a legitimate concern as well.

Of course, the islands themselves have a great many differences, as

the all-party committee that studied this question found out. A

situation on, say, Cormorant Island in Johnstone Strait is radically

different than what you will find on one of the outer Gulf Islands at

the south end of the Strait of Georgia, such as Mayne Island, or on one

of the almost totally summer-resident islands, such as Savary, or on

one of the sparsely populated islands between the two straits, such as

the Thurlows.

We have wondered, and I have wondered, if the regular planning

authorities and the regular administrative authorities on the islands —

the municipal councils, the regional boards — have been unhappy with

the Trust and the operations of the Trust. Have those councils and

boards asked for these kinds of changes? They may have. It would be

interesting to hear from members on the government side who want to

comment on the need for this legislation.

[ Page 5584 ]

I remember some of the statements that were made during the 1975

election campaign. The member for Okanagan South (Hon. Mr. Bennett)

talked at great length everywhere he went throughout the province about

the need for more local autonomy, the need to get decision-making

authority decentralized and away from the Victoria political

bureaucracy. You know, I agreed with him when he said that, and when

many other Social Credit candidates said that. Yet we not only find

example after example of the present government in Victoria taking more

and more centralized, authoritarian control into Victoria, but we also

find them doing it over the objections of property owners, residents

and taxpayers in the areas that are losing what little decision-making

authority they do have.

It has been suggested in this chamber that developers will get

advantages out of this bill. There have been a number of successful

real estate developments on the Gulf Islands since the Islands Trust

was set up in 1974-75. Many of those developments — in fact most, I

would say — were popular with the islanders. But an interesting thing

about them is that when there has been commercial development and when

there has been subdivision and real estate development on the various

islands, the most successful and popular developments and the easiest

to get through were the ones set up and controlled by people who knew

the islands — people who lived on the islands or people who had a

history of knowing something about the islands, even if they were

largely based on the mainland. The developments that have had

difficulty were those that were attempted to be rammed through by

people who really didn't know anything about the neighbourhood, so to

speak. They were essentially commercial owners from elsewhere who had a

good dream. They had a good dream on the drawing-board but did not know

anything about the physical environment or the social environment on

which they intended to impose that dream.

Concern has been expressed to me and I think to other members of the

House that one of the ways any government can use to strangle a

particular function is simply to cut off funds to it. That can happen

to a regional district with sharing of funds from the province;

certainly various federal governments have done that to the provinces

on occasions. One thing that the province could do under this act is

starve the Islands Trust by simply cutting off any resources to the

operations of the Islands Trust — leave the various elected

representatives hung out to dry, so to speak.

One of the concerns that we have is that at least the Islands Trust

— the elected members — had some responsibility for taxation; they had

some responsibility for the money they spent or did not spend and some

responsibility to make the technical operations of the Islands Trust

work. It would be very easy to discredit and emasculate the Islands

Trust through this act we're discussing here — and that's the reason

for the reasoned amendment on it — simply to make it non-functional by

the gradual removal of funding support. We have a situation where the

phones might ring in the Islands Trust but there'd be nobody there to

answer. That would cause individuals who wish to contact the Trust a

certain amount of anger and annoyance. That policy has worked well for

the government, Mr. Speaker, in removing some services to the people in

the last few years, and it certainly is a functional one here.

[4:45]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I want to add my concern that when central government takes over

authority for staffing of a nominally autonomous body, that same

principle could be applied to other nominally autonomous operations

around the province, such as regional districts, hospitals, school

districts and municipal government. It's a step in the wrong direction.

People who live in an area know their area best and will administer

that area best. That was the demand and the request that was supported

by all parties in this House back in the early seventies, and that's

why we had an Islands Trust.

If there are objections to its existence or to the way it's been

operated, I would like to see those discussed in this chamber. I don't

think members on this side of the House or members on the other side

would object to changes that were the result of being petitioned by the

people — the taxpayers — who are affected by the operations of the

Islands Trust. But it would appear that the government is moving in

exactly the opposite direction. The government is deciding that they

know best what changes should be brought in, even though nobody is

aware of any popular opinion or even unpopular opinion out there, in

asking for those changes.

So I want to add my voice to those who have concerns about the need

for this bill, the need to expand the amount of governmental control

over a very important area of the province. Could we perhaps have

someone on the government side explain why there needs to be some more,

say, commercial needs that are not being satisfied on the Gulf Islands?

Perhaps the Health minister could tell the chamber that there aren't

enough doctors and he's having problems giving billing numbers to

doctors who live on the islands.

I'm not aware of any commercial or professional or trade services

that are not available on the islands, even on some of the very smaller

ones. In fact, if islanders ask for anything, it's readily available

ferry services so they can obtain the services they need when those

services aren't available on their own island. But I want to repeat: in

my experience, most commercial services and most professional services

and virtually all trade services are available on all the islands,

usually at very reasonable expense.

So, Mr. Speaker, there has been no evidence given to this chamber,

either by the minister or by any of the spokesmen on the government

side, as to what the reasons are for wanting to take this even greater

centralized authoritarian control into the Victoria political

bureaucracy. In the absence of any evidence on that, I have to support

this motion and hope that the government will take time to have a

second or third look at this bill, as they did.... Mr. Speaker, I want

to remind the House that when a former Minister of Municipal Affairs

wanted to bring in

an act to simply totally eliminate the Islands

Trust, there was enough common sense on the government side to leave

that bill to die on the order paper. I would like the members on the

government side to exercise the same level of common sense and

recognize the fact that in support