1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd 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 )

WEDNESDAY, JULY 28, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

9057 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982 (Bill 69). Hon. Mr. Fraser

Introduction and first reading –– 9057

Criminal Injury Compensation Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 75). Hon. Mr. Williams

Introduction and first reading –– 9057

Coal Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 78). Hon. Mr. McClelland

Introduction and first reading –– 9057

Ministry Of Energy, Mines And Petroleum Resources Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 77).

Hon. Mr. McClelland

Introduction and first reading –– 9057

Ministerial statement: West Kootenay Power and Light Co.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 9058

Mr. D'Arcy –– 9059

Tabling Documents

Report No. 2 on the committees of the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker –– 9059

Oral Questions

Gulf Islands development applications. Mr. Barber –– 9059

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Finance annual report, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 9062

Ministry of Municipal Affairs annual report, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 9062

Labour Code Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 50). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)

section 1 –– 9062

Mr. Gabelmann

section 2 –– 9063

Ms. Sanford

Division

section 4 –– 9063

Division

Third reading –– 9063

Land Use Act (Bill 72). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

Mr. Barber –– 9063

On the amendment –– 9083

Mr. Barber

Hon. Mr. Williams

WEDNESDAY, JULY 28, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I

have friends in the gallery today: Norman and Marion Nichol. They have

brought visitors to the House — I believe they're first-time visitors —

George and Elma JobeL. Would the House please welcome them.

MR. PASSARELL:

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are some northern residents who are

visiting the NDP caucus. Here from the Nishga Tribal Council are Mr.

Rod Robinson, the vice-president, Alvin McKay from Greenville, and

their adviser Don Rosenbloom. Would the House give them a warm welcome.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Joining those who are in the gallery today are two visitors from the

constituency of Saanich and the Islands, Mrs. Kathlyn Benger and Mr.

George Griffiths. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. BARBER:

Cretia Harper and Reuben Ware are in the House today. They are members

of the Vancouver Island Coalition for Disarmament, which is asking that

municipalities be allowed to put referenda to the people on that

question. I ask that the House make them welcome.

Also in

the gallery today are some more people who care about the future of the

islands, the Islands Trust and the beauty of those places. They include

Monty Drake of Denman Island, Jane Sproule of Lasqueti Island, and

certain others who are wearing T-shirts. One hundred and forty-two

British Columbia citizens have signed a petition, which, if a Page will

come, I would like to present in the Premier's absence — perhaps she

could leave it on his desk — asking that the government reconsider and

abandon its proposal to destroy the Islands Trust. I ask the House to

make those people welcome.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I ask

that the House welcome three constituents from Richmond who will be in

the gallery today: Mrs. Catherine Alongi and her daughter Elizabeth,

accompanied by the wife of our Minister of Energy, Denise McClelland.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Visiting us from Seattle today is His Worship Mayor Charles Royer and a

delegation of officials from that city. Would the House please make

them welcome.

In addition, all members on occasion have the

opportunity to rise and introduce their constituency secretaries. We

have a new constituency secretary in Vancouver South, who has been with

us for the last four months learning the hard ropes of this business.

Would the House please welcome Mrs. Alison McLallen.

MR. RITCHIE:

Visiting in the members' gallery today are two young ladies from

Central Fraser Valley; Helen Waterfield and Brenda Regier. Would the

members please make these two young ladies welcome.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, I know that all members of the House would like to extend

very happy birthday greetings to a popular member of this assembly whom

I shall leave nameless. I would very much like to read three lines from

this individual's horoscope: "This is a year for greater independence,

for initiative, originality and self assertion." He is "creative,

romantic at times and very often spoiled by members of the opposite

sex." Who is that nameless individual? The Deputy Speaker (Mr.

Davidson). Happy Birthday.

Introduction of Bills

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1982

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

a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982.

Bill

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

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

CRIMINAL INJURY

COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

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

a bill intituled Criminal Injury Compensation Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill

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

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

COAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

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

a bill intituled Coal Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill

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

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

MINISTRY OF ENERGY, MINES AND

PETROLEUM RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

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

a bill intituled Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Amendment

Act, 1982.

Bill

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

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

MR. STRACHAN:

By leave I move that the rules be suspended and the sixth report of the

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills be

adopted.

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I have a ministerial statement I would like to make.

[ Page 9058 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

WEST KOOTENAY POWER AND LIGHT CO.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

My statement deals with a decision which the government has reached on

a matter involving Cominco Ltd. and the West Kootenay Power and Light

Co.

Before providing details of that decision, I would like

to offer a little background on the issues, on the status of Cominco,

and on the question of security of supply for West Kootenay and its

customers. These issues have been with us for an awfully long time —

close to 30 years. In fact, these matters have been before the B.C.

Utilities Commission, its predecessor and the provincial government on

at least four occasions since the 1950s. The issues involved came to

the forefront again in 1981 when Cominco and West Kootenay applied to

the Utilities Commission for two things: in the case of Cominco, the

company sought exemption from regulation as a utility, while West

Kootenay sought commission approval to purchase three hydroelectric

plants — Upper Bonnington, South Slocan and Corra Linn — from Cominco

for an agreed price of $20 million, to be debt-financed.

Hearings

were held by the commission in the fall of 1981. Subsequently the

commission forwarded its recommendations to the government in April of

this year. Those hearings, conducted over a three-month period from

August to October, were detailed and exhaustive. I would like now to

commend the commissioners who participated and the parties themselves

for what was a very determined effort to resolve once and for all a

situation which was long overdue to be cleaned up. In its report the

commission said that one of its fundamental concerns was to bring about

a resolution which would provide a high degree of certainty to the

operations of both Cominco and West Kootenay. Subsequently the

commission said it recognized that the recommendations contained in the

decision which it forwarded to me were based on evidence heard in the

fall of 1981 and which might not fully reflect economic conditions

which existed in the spring and summer of this year.

All

members of the House are aware that by last April economic conditions

in the province had been severely hit by the global recession, which

has particularly affected the province's vital resource areas and

resource companies, including the operations of Cominco, which is a

major employer in the Trail area. Right now the Cominco lead-zinc

smelter is shut down in a bid to reduce inventories of unsold metal,

and the company has indicated it must cut back on production of

fertilizer and close some of its plants to reduce stockpiles. We have

had some good news in the last few days, with the announcement that

Cominco will be calling back to work some 4,400 employees.

Mr.

Speaker, like many other resource companies, Cominco is clearly going

through a very difficult period. While things will eventually improve,

an illustration of the present problems is that in the first quarter of

this year Cominco recorded a loss. It's of interest to the members of

the House that Cominco has never recorded a loss since the Depression

year of 1932.

In reviewing and studying the commission's

report, the changed economic picture which brought about this situation

was taken into consideration, along with the impossibility in the

current financial market of West Kootenay achieving satisfactory debt

or equity financing, and other factors relating to West Kootenay's

long-term prospects and future plans. Copies of the commission's report

are being made public, but I'd like to summarize its key

recommendations to the House: that Cominco be granted exemption,

subject to cabinet approval, under the Utilities Commission Act, and

that the price to be paid by West Kootenay for the three power plants

would be $9.2 million debt-financed. Let me repeat that these

recommendations were based on historical circumstances and did not take

into account the economic changes and the money supply situation which

occurred after the 1981 fall hearings.

In light of these

changed circumstances and after a thorough review of the

recommendation, the government has decided, under

section 27 of the

Utilities Commission Act, to somewhat vary those terms proposed in the

report. We agree that it is appropriate that Cominco be exempted, as

recommended by the commission. But the government believes that, as a

result of the downturn in the economy and the difficulty of West

Kootenay Power and Light in achieving satisfactory debt or equity

financing, it is necessary to make the following changes: the purchase

price to be paid by West Kootenay for the three plants will be the

agreed-upon price of $20 million. This price, agreed to by both parties

before they appeared before the commission, is acceptable to Cominco

and to West Kootenay, and is actually less than the current value of

the three plants. The purchase will be financed through the issue of

200,000 shares of West Kootenay stock to Cominco.

This

decision will provide important long-run benefits to West Kootenay,

which at present has a high debt-equity ratio and short-term and

expensive bank borrowings. The utility will thus be able to restructure

its financing and convert its debts to a long-term basis. As a result,

it will be in a much healthier financial position than that proposed by

the parties last year.

The sale will become effective as of

December 31 of this year; this will mean no impact on West Kootenay

rates in the current year. West Kootenay will be guaranteed firm annual

sales of up to 75 average megawatts of power from Cominco until the end

of 1990. This compares to 69.8 average annual megawatts, proposed by

the commission. This sale will be at a preferred rate and will have a

value to West Kootenay Power and Light of $40 million to $50 million

over the cost of purchasing power elsewhere. It will help West Kootenay

with security of supply, and allow the utility enough lead-time to

consider additional sources of firm power supply after that date. In

addition, West Kootenay is guaranteed a right of first refusal to any

further surplus power at the preferred rate over and above the annual

average of 75 megawatts.

After 1990 and up to 2005, West

Kootenay will also have first rights at the preferred rate to future

surpluses generated by Cominco during this period. Cominco, under a

ministerial order which is now in effect, will be required to file

long-term plans to reduce the company's equity in West Kootenay to not

more than 50 percent. This move will promote greater independence for

West Kootenay in the future. Cominco will be allowed to export surplus

power, subject to the province awarding an energy-removal certificate

and after West Kootenay is given first right of refusal to that surplus

power. In the past Cominco has reinvested the cash flow from its export

sales to modernize its Trail operations, and the company will benefit

from any future export revenues to continue with this modernization and

expansion program.

[ Page 9059 ]

The

government believes that these changes under

section 27 of the

Utilities Commission Act will, in both the short and the long run,

prove beneficial to both Cominco and West Kootenay. The provincial

government is responsible for the electrical cogeneration strategy in

this province, for industrial strategy initiatives and for energy

export policies. I believe that today's announcement means that we have

taken very positive steps in these areas which recognize changed

economic conditions and the needs of the region, and which will have

significant long-term advantages.

West Kootenay will have

greater independence and an improved financial structure, while we have

also ensured a continued cash flow to Cominco from its exports to

assist the company in its Trail operations. In addition, Cominco will

be exempt from regulation as a utility, which could have resulted in

increased financing costs which would constrain or hinder further

growth at the Trail plant. West Kootenay gains by improving its

debt-equity ratio to a lower figure, and will be in a situation where

it will be possible for it to convert to a long-term debt picture with

lower interest rates. By exempting Cominco from utility regulation, the

company will, as global markets for its products improve, be able to

move ahead with its plans for industrial expansion at Trail. These

plans will create new projects and new jobs which would not have been

possible without these actions. I have secured strong assurances from

Cominco's management on their very major commitments to the future of

the Trail operation. In short, I believe the decisions we have reached

are appropriate under present day circumstances and are in the best

interests of not only the parties themselves, but also the people of

the Kootenays, the employees of Cominco and the employees and customers

of West Kootenay.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I would

like to welcome the minister's rather lengthy dissertation on these

matters. It's very good news not only to those of us in the West

Kootenays, but also and especially to those who live in the area of

Kimberley, to whom the announcement is just as important, and to all

those people retailing and wholesaling power through the West Kootenay

system, which includes the south Okanagan. I want to note, however,

that the minister's announcement is really not significantly different

from those recommendations that were made by the old Energy Commission

in the spring of 1980. I appreciate the minister's judgment on a brief

that I presented on this matter to the Utilities Commission last August.

want to support the minister in noting that one of the things we really

need through West Kootenay Power and Light is a modernization of

switching gear, transmission facilities and distribution equipment.

That is long overdue, and the company has acknowledged that. I also

want to make the point that it has been of tremendous significance to

us in that part of the interior — and, as I mentioned, even in the

Kimberley area — that we have an adequate guaranteed supply of low-cost

industrial power. As has been noted in this House before, that is the

only reason we have a secondary and tertiary manufacturing facility in

Trail and, to a lesser extent, in Kimberley. It is not due to the

availability of ore or proximity to markets or any of those factors,

and it's certainly not due to transportation costs; it is due entirely

to the existence of, low-cost electrical power. That is why we welcome

the minister's announcement so much.

I want to reiterate

that, on a long-term basis, the announcement is probably more important

to the East Kootenays than it is to the West Kootenays. While the

Sullivan mine in Kimberley is tremendously rich, no mine goes on

forever, and Cominco has made a long-standing commitment that they are

going to replace at least some of the facilities there, as that mine

phases out over the next 20 years, with industrial manufacturing, which

would not be there except, as I mentioned, for the existence of

low-cost industrial power.

It's good news indeed, Mr.

Speaker, to all those of us in the southern part of the interior who

depend, for our standard of living and our industrial strength, on

these hydroelectric facilities which have been in place for many years.

Mr. Speaker tabled report No. 2, on the committees of the Legislature, under the Legislative Procedure Review Act.

Oral Questions

GULF ISLANDS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

MR. BARBER:

My questions today concern political interference on behalf of

developers proposing to subdivide in the Gulf Islands. My first

question is to the Minister of Finance, the MLA for Saanich and the

Islands. Will the minister admit today that he has, on more than one

occasion, used his political influence to advise developers on how to

circumvent the planning decisions of the Islands Trust?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

The member who posed that question in this House a year ago made some

very serious allegations, which were dealt with by my solicitor. I

would invite the member to make any such allegation outside this

chamber this afternoon.

MR. BARBER: Neither a year

ago nor at any other time have I ever heard from the minister's

solicitor. Not once; not ever. I have no idea what he's talking about.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm sure the member has a question.

MR. BARBER:

Is the minister prepared to admit that, specifically, he has used his

political influence with a colleague on behalf of a developer proposing

four separate subdivision applications on Saltspring Island, all of

this commencing four years ago?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr.

Speaker, I rise only to draw your attention and the member's attention

to the earlier statement. The member is directing a question to me

which does not deal with my responsibilities as Minister of Finance. I

view the allegations contained in the two questions with extreme

seriousness. I invite the member to leave the sanctity of this chamber

and make the allegations outside.

MR. BARBER: Wait for it.

Will

the minister admit that when he took these steps, beginning four years

ago, on behalf of a developer on Saltspring Island, he did so in order

to avoid the knowledge and participation of the then chairman of the

Islands Trust, Mr. Marc Holmes?

[ Page 9060 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, again I must direct the member and this House to the

comments made earlier. I invite the member to say, here if he wishes,

but more appropriately outside this chamber, precisely what he is

referring to.

MR. BARBER: On December 20, 1978, the

minister wrote to his colleague the Minister of Transportation,

Communications and Highways a letter which I will table today. I ask

the minister whether or not he recognizes the contents of this letter

favouring a developer on Saltspring, and recognizes his signature at

the bottom of it. I will quote briefly from it in order that the

minister may know what I'm referring to.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. The purpose of question period is not to bring

information to the House, but rather to seek information. I'm sure the

member has a question.

MR. BARBER: We think this is a

very serious matter ourselves, Mr. Speaker. I want the minister to have

the benefit of knowing the content of the letter which I'm asking him

to authenticate.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, this is not a time for debate. This is a time for a question.

MR. BARBER:

Did the minister, on December 20, 1978, write a letter to Mr. Fraser in

which he said, among other things, regarding Mr. Gordon Cudmore and his

subdivision on Saltspring Island: "I definitely agree that this

application should be resubmitted, and I appreciate very much the

efforts that you and your staff have made in concurring that this is

definitely a situation in which application was in stream before 1971"?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: To end the quote, Mr. Speaker, in order that the minister may answer the question: "My only hesitation...."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go ahead, let him read the whole letter.

MR. BARBER: I'll table the whole letter. "My only hesitation in not writing you sooner was that the term of Mr. Marc...."

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. member, there is considerable objection not only to the length of

the question but to the fact that the question seems to be seeking to

bring information to the House rather than asking for information. I

would ask the hon. member to please have some regard for the rules

which we have in question period.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BARBER: My question to the minister is: did he advise his

colleague the Minister of Highways on December 20, 1978, briefly, in

part, as follows…? That's all there is, to it. I'll table the whole

letter anyhow; I won't read all of it.

To conclude: "My only hesitation in not writing you sooner" — this in regard to the Cudmore application....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What's your question?

MR BARBER: If you'll shut up, you'll hear it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Quit abusing the rules of the House, you snake!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. BARBER:

Did you write a letter in which you said, among other things: "My only

hesitation in not writing you sooner was that the term of Mr. Marc

Holmes, chairman of the Islands Trust, was so close to expiring that I

did not see the need to involve him in this matter" — that is the

subdivision application — "especially in light of the feelings that he

expressed in his letter"? Did the minister write that letter of

December 20, 1978, to his colleague the Minister of Transportation and

Highways?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, this is not

the first time that that member, with a pontifical voice, has alleged

wrongdoing insofar as my activities as an MLA or a minister are

concerned. Perhaps he seeks a headline tonight or tomorrow, and

that.... I have not taken my seat yet, Mr. Member.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I'm satisfied, while I do not immediately recall the

letter to which the member has referred.... I gather, Mr. Speaker,

through you to the interjecting member, that in fact it was from 1978.

I would like to examine the letter. Again I caution the member, through

you, with respect to allegations made last year which that member has

not had the decency to apologize about, sir.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: May we have order, please. Will the Leader of the Opposition please come to order.

The

rules which you have placed in my hands, hon. members, suggest that

communications between members and ministers are not to be referred to

in question period; however, communications between minister and

ministers appear to be subject to questions in question period.

MR. BARBER:

I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Can

he confirm that on November 17, 1978, he wrote to the minister who has

just answered these questions a letter which includes the following

phrase: "I realize these possible approvals may create some

unfavourable reaction, but it is a clear case of being in stream. I

have a copy of the letter from the chairman of the Islands Trust to you

threatening to resign if the applications were not referred to the

Trust"? Did you write such a letter in regard to the proposal of Mr.

Cudmore to subdivide on Saltspring?

[ Page 9061 ]

HON. MR. FRASER: I have no idea, but I won't deny I didn't. I'd like to see the letter.

MR. BARBER:

I have further questions about other political intervention on behalf

of developers proposing to subdivide on the Gulf Islands. This first

question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Can the minister

confirm that the real purpose of abolishing the Islands Trust is to

expedite a number of applications for subdivision which are supported

by members of the Social Credit cabinet but which are opposed by the

Islands Trust?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Categorically, no.

MR. BARBER:

Can the Minister of Municipal Affairs confirm that on December 5, 1978,

he wrote to the chairman of the Islands Trust in regard to the proposed

Rainsford subdivision on Denman Island and said in the letter, among

other things: "Consequently it is my position now that the

above-mentioned subdivision should be approved"? Did he write such a

letter in favour of this developer?

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the Minister of Energy.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I have two points of order regarding that member's question. First of

all, it was my understanding of the rules that you supplied to the

members of this House that matters in question period are to be urgent

and important. This has been raised on a number of occasions since 1978.

second point of order has to do with the propriety of debating in

question period a bill which is before this House and which will be

debated later today.

MR. SPEAKER: The rules which you

have placed in my hands and which refer to debating matters on

legislation suggest that the legislative record of the present session

is not to be dealt with. I'm sure the member is thinking in terms of

the need for legislation not being debatable, which is a rule in

Committee of Supply. But in question period the legislative record —

that is, that record on which the question is already settled, on which

the question has already been put — is not subject to question.

However, I must remind you that subsection (

i) of

section 357 of

Beauchesne's fifth edition suggests that imputations cannot be made

against another member in question period. I would remind the hon.

member to be very careful in framing his question.

MR. BARBER:

Did the Minister of Municipal Affairs, to whom this question is

addressed, write on March 5 this year to the chairman of the Islands

Trust on behalf of a developer named Ronald Gee, proposing a

subdivision on Bowen Island, in which letter he said, among other

things:

"It has not been my practice to question the official plan

or zoning designations of local government unless these designations conflict

with a matter of provincial interest. I am bringing this issue before you as

an individual." — although it was on letterhead and signed as minister

— "I do not know Mr. Gee or Mr. Leith but I am familiar with their property

in the general area of Bowen Island, on which it is located. I agree with Mr.

Gee's complaints. The property in question could easily accommodate the

density under a C-2 designation, as other parcels in the general area can and

have been so designated."

Did the minister write that letter to the chairman of the Islands Trust on behalf of developer Ronald Gee?

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. member, in affirming a question, it is permissible to use perhaps

one carefully worded sentence as a

preamble to the question. However,

to ask "Is this a fact?" and then to use several questions which would

ordinarily be considered a

preamble should be considered to be out of

order. I must further caution that to suggest that another member has

used political influence is an imputation.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

I don't believe I've ever met Mr. Gee. I do not know Mr. Gee, nor do I

know his politics, as to whether he's NDP or Social Credit. I've

written hundreds of such letters to municipalities and regional

districts. If the people of British Columbia should be denied an appeal

to the Minister of Municipal Affairs whenever they felt wronged, we

would live in a sorry state.

MR. BARRETT: Because of

the unusual number of points of order during question period, I would

ask leave of the House that question period be extended to make up the

time taken on points of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon.

members, I will ask leave. But before I ask leave, I must caution

members that the practice is that the speaker who initiates the point

of order usually suggests that the clock be held.

Leave not granted.

MR. BARBER:

I ask leave to table certain correspondence between and among the

Ministers of Highways, Municipal Affairs and now Finance, including

several letters which I was not able to ask questions about during

question period.

Leave not granted.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. BENNETT:

On a point of order, the member for Skeena yelled across the floor that

the Premier said no. In fact, he said: "Bennett said no." That's

entirely incorrect — as incorrect as the untrue allegations he made

yesterday in my estimates.

MR. SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please! Hon. members, when the Speaker stands, silence is

expected. The Leader of the Opposition knows that rule very well.

[ Page 9062 ]

[Mr. Speaker resumed his scat.]

MR. HOWARD: The Premier's point of order was that he did not say no to the request for leave. Obviously it must be agreeable.

MR. SPEAKER: This is not a point of order, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: He mouthed, and said no.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is it your ruling that you heard a no?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Leader of the Opposition's question is: is it the ruling of the

Chair that a no was heard? It is the opinion of the Chair that a no was

heard. An opinion of the Chair is not subject to appeal, and that is a

ruling.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I share your opinion on the ruling, and therefore challenge it.

MR. SPEAKER: The ruling is challenged.

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Davidson

Mussallem

Brummet

NAYS — 22

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

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

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the 1981 annual report of the Ministry of Finance.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm tabled the 1981 annual report of the Ministry of Municipal

Affairs.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 50.

LABOUR CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 50; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

section 1.

MR. GABELMANN:

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask the minister if he would comment

in dealing with the

section relating to strikebreaking. The Code now

calls for strikebreaking to be illegal when it's performed by those

people who could be defined as professionals. The amendments we're

dealing with expand that, I think quite properly, to deal with both

strike and lockout situations. But in opening up the question of

strikebreaking itself, I wonder if the minister would care to share

with the House his views concerning whether or not legal strikes should

be broken by anyone at all, whether they're professionals or not, and

whether strikebreaking — or scabbing, as it's more accurately and

properly called — should be allowed. Why didn't the minister bring in

those kinds of changes when he opened up this section?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Chairman, while I acknowledge the particular question asked by the

member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), that's not really a part of

the amendment at all. What we are doing, in my view, is correcting what

I suspect is probably an oversight when the Code was originally drafted

and passed. That particular

section is to add to the definition of a

professional strikebreaker so that it covers not only situations where

there is a strike but also a lockout. Where there is a strike, it is

illegal and certainly improper for the operation which is being struck

to import a professional strikebreaker. I believe in fairness, and

those same conditions with respect to strikebreakers ought to apply to

an operation which has locked out its employees. That is the substance

of the amendment, and with all due respect, those comments which have

been offered by the member for North Island really have no application

to the amendment before the Chair.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr.

Chairman, first of all I will make it clear that we support the

amendment. We think that the reasons that the minister proposes are

right and proper, and that it is something that should be done to the

Code.

The situation is not equal, and I think what the

minister is trying to do is to demonstrate that there is some

equitability. In fact, there is not usually equitability in this

situation. Most employers, particularly in first contract negotiations,

who have a strike and who then continue operations by employing scabs,

do so when a strike is taken, but when they lock out in a similar

situation, which doesn't happen very often, it's with the intention of

closing. I acknowledge that there are exceptions, but in most cases it

is with the purpose or the intention of closing the plant or the

operation, so they would not be

[ Page

9063 ]

using

strikebreakers of any kind, professional or not. My concern — and it's

one the minister didn't address — is, when he is trying to create some

equitability, as he would argue — and in a limited sense I would agree

— why he does not deal with the whole question. When a legal strike or

a legal lockout is in place, that means the business does not operate

until that legal strike or legal lockout is over. That's the amendment

that we should be debating at this point.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Chairman, this is the

section that we are very much opposed to, in

that it changes the whole thrust of the provisions of the Labour Code.

It takes away from the Labour Relations Board the right to handle the

very difficult, delicate issues that come before it. Instead, through

this amendment the Labour Relations Board is directed to give a

consent-to-sue — in other words, taking the issue to court rather than

having the Labour Relations Board itself deal with the difficulty that

is before it. It is essential that the board have the flexibility that

it requires to deal with these issues. The courts are not experienced

in labour issues, not in the way that the Labour Relations Board is.

That's why the people were appointed to the Labour Relations Board,

because they have the experience and the knowledge to deal with these

sensitive issues.

I think that when it goes to the courts,

Mr. Chairman, we are less likely to get a just decision in the complex

area of labour relations. I think the minister is making a big mistake

in bringing in this section, and we are very much opposed to it and

will vote against it.

Section 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Mussallem

Brummet

NAYS — 19

Macdonald

Howard

King

Lea

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to have the division recorded in the Journals of the House.

Section 3 approved.

Section 4 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Chabot

McClelland

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Mussallem

Brummet

NAYS — 21

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to have the division recorded in the Journals of the House.

Sections 5 to 7 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 50, Labour Code Amendment Act, 1982, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 72, Mr. Speaker.

LAND USE ACT

(continued)

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned when I commenced debate, I rise as the designated speaker for the official opposition.

MR. BRUMMET: Back to the mud.

MR. BARBER:

If there is any mud here, it's mud that your own ministers have written

to one another in letters that we tried to table in the House, leave

for which was denied by you.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

[ Page 9064 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, we'll have a little order, no interruptions across the floor, and let's debate the bill itself.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BARBER: Only the Socreds would describe as "mud" letters which they themselves wrote and which we attempted to publish.

The

bill itself is a setback for local government and for the principles

which local government has always stood for in this province. This bill

gives awesome personal authority to a new czar of Municipal Affairs.

This bill is a failure of public policy in comparison with the original

planning act, which at least contained the welcome tradeoff that the

provincial interest would be disclosed, while at the same time local

governments were to lose certain of their planning authorities. That

tradeoff has been abandoned altogether. I don't know how sincerely the

minister attempted to persuade his cabinet colleagues; he may have

tried very hard and failed; he may not have tried at all and just

pretended. We don't know, and we'll never know, because that remains

secret. But I do know that the only admirable feature of the

predecessor bill, the planning act, the one which required the

provincial government to play by the same rules as they would impose on

the municipalities, has been lost altogether. That's a shame. It's a

loss of considerable proportions, and it's typical of the way in which

this bill we now see has come forward.

This morning the

president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities said: "If he"

— referring to the Minister of Municipal Affairs — "thinks he can force

this on us, he can go straight to hell. He is putting us in the

poorhouse." That's a direct quote from Mayor Jim Tonn of Coquitlam,

this year's president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities.

He went on to say: "Here we have the Premier calling on everyone for

restraint, and they try to impose this on us. We simply cannot afford

this. They are trying to get us to push a wagon up a hill with a rope.

It would cost B.C. municipalities millions in legal and consulting

fees."

There is one

section of this bill which would, the

president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities said, result

in development being ground to a halt. This is the

section which now

requires municipal councils to pick up and cover 20 percent of the

capital costs associated with new subdivision developments. Previously

they have been theoretically entitled to claim all 100 percent back

from the developer. The minister shakes his head — no. The minister

shakes his head and knows nothing. In Saanich, for instance, they've

been doing that for years, in Oak Bay they have done it with two

developments on Beach Drive, and they've done it in Victoria. This

government may be philosophically opposed to the notion that local

government can reclaim the value of the requirements for sewers and

other matters that have to be proceeded with when a subdivision is

advanced.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's different. That's not a development-cost charge.

MR. BARBER: That certainly is a developer's charge.

This bill introduces a brand-new principle which never occurred

before. For the first time in this version of it, we see that

municipalities will be required to pay 20 percent of the capital costs

associated with certain developments, and we'll get to that in greater

detail during committee, Mr. Speaker. But I just want to remind the

House that this is one of several new features contained in this bill

which were never observed in any previous form.

However,

let me get to the subject of question period today. The Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) was understandably annoyed when we released

and quoted from certain otherwise private correspondence between

cabinet ministers and senior government officials. This correspondence

clearly demonstrates that at least since 1978 Socred cabinet members

have been using their offices and the political weight of them to

attempt to influence the Islands Trust in favour of certain subdivision

proposals. Now the government may say there is nothing wrong with that.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs said that he does it all the time.

Why he would admit to that, I don't know, because we happen to think

there is something wrong with it. There is no present authority which

allows the Minister of Municipal Affairs to act as a court of appeal;

there is no present law which permits that. Now there will be under the

new law. But it's not law yet, and it's not law retroactively. The

minister has admitted doing something clearly outside the law. The

minister said in question period — and we'll cite it directly from the

Blues as soon as they come down — that he does it hundreds of times,

and he went on to ask, rhetorically: "Is there something wrong when the

Minister of Municipal Affairs hears an appeal from a citizen on these

matters?" There is something wrong if it's outside the law, because all

you can do is what the law permits. That's the British constitutional

system. That's Canadian law. That's the way we govern this democracy.

Every time a minister intervenes on behalf of a developer and tries to

persuade an official agency, be it an agency of record, of report or of

representation — in this case, the Islands Trust — to vary a plan on

behalf of a developer, it's no wonder Social Credit is criticized.

will read into the record — because I was not able to table them before

— the actual letters I was quoting from. These letters demonstrate a

pattern, in our view, of abuse that dates back at least to 1978. This

pattern of abuse has apparently been resisted by the Islands Trust. For

at least four years they have attempted to withstand the pressure

exerted on them by Socred cabinet ministers in favour of certain

developers. The letters I will read into the record, in their entirety,

speak for themselves plainly and clearly. They were not fabricated by a

dirty tricks squad that we hired through George Lenko Inc. They were

not manufactured by Jack Kelly. These are authentic letters, private

correspondence between and among Socred cabinet ministers. I understand

how annoyed they are that we should have copies of these. I understand

how angered they might be that we would release them. What I don't

understand is that they thought they could get away with it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: John Rich released them.

MR. BARBER: How do you know that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Address the Chair, hon. member.

MR. BARBER:

The principle we're concerned with is the principle that led to the

abolition of the Islands Trust. Let me draw your mind back to 1968,

when the then lower mainland regional planning panel, the advisory

group which was taking a look, on a collaborative and voluntary basis,

[ Page

9065 ]

planning in greater Vancouver, said no to the

Bennett government of the day. What they said no to was the imposition

of the Roberts Bank superport, the rail lines and the associated

facilities. What they said no to was a view of development of greater

Vancouver which was not consistent with their vision of it.

What

did the Bennett government do then? Did they listen to that lower

mainland regional planning advisory group? Did they attempt to

negotiate with them? Did they attempt to collaborate as equals to come

up with a compromise that would suit everyone? The Bennett government

of that day did what the Bennett government of this day has done to the

Islands Trust. In 1968 they simply wiped them out. The organized

opponents of Roberts Bank, representing local government, said: "No, we

don't want this. We don't like it. It won't work. There's another way

to meet the same objectives." The first Bennett government said:

"Sorry, not only won't we listen to you, but from now on you're out of

business." And in a very tyrannical and undemocratic way they wiped

them out; they legislated them out of existence.

What does

the government do today? We now know, from correspondence I will read

into the record shortly, that for four years the Islands Trust has been

resisting attempts by the Socred cabinet ministers to alter the

official plans. Those attempts were apparently made on behalf of

certain developers whose names appear in the very correspondence that

we are now tabling by reading. Every time a Socred minister goes to bat

for a developer and asks the Islands Trust to change the bylaw, it

appears from the documentation I have, which may not be absolutely

complete — I'm sure the minister will complete it if it's not — that

the Islands Trust said: "No, we don't care for that. We don't want it.

We wish to take more time to study it. We wish to take more opportunity

to consult our neighbours. We wish to make it consistent with the

official plan."

For four years the Islands Trust has been

saying no to these propositions. This year the Socreds are saying no to

the Islands Trust, wiping them out altogether. There's a similarity

between what they did in '68 and what they're doing in '82. The

similarity, I think, angers people who care and feel deeply about the

need for competent and intelligent land use. I said yesterday, I repeat

and I'll say it many more times before the debate's through: the

Socreds want to treat the Gulf Islands like just any other piece of

real estate in the province, with no protection, no care, no caution,

and no future. To us, the New Democrats, who created the Islands Trust

proudly in the first place in '74 and proudly defend it in '82, the

attitude which says it's just another piece of real estate is

absolutely unacceptable. It is, I think, also unacceptable to the

majority of residents on the Gulf Islands, and the majority of

off-islanders who use those jewels in the Pacific for recreational and

family life.

The pattern of political involvement commenced at least as early as November 17, 1978, when Mr. Fraser....

use names only because individuals change in the portfolios, and I want

to identify who the minister actually was at the time. I'm sure the

Speaker will understand. I'll indicate changes as they've occurred. I

realize it's arguable, Mr. Speaker, but because I can't table the

documents I have to identify them so that there can be no dispute.

The

then and now Minister of Highways wrote to the then Minister of

Municipal Affairs, Mr. Curtis — for the sake of further clarity, file

no. 5132-348920-334800 — re the Cudmore subdivision. This is the letter

that the Socreds refused permission to table in the House today. That,

by the way, is really unprecedented. Mr. Speaker. I've been here for

seven years and I've never known any member of any party to refuse

leave to table a document — never. I've never ever heard of that

happening before. However, the Minister of Highways wrote to the

Minister of Municipal Affairs on that date and said:

"Re: Cudmore subdivision:

"After the meeting with my staff and Mr. Cudmore

in your office" — referring to the office of Mr. Curtis — "on October

24, 1978, we have resurrected the whole case and find information

dating back to 1967. It was in stream in 1969, when the 10-acre

regulation was passed. Ironically, the subdivision was approvable in

1970. Why Mr. Cudmore stopped the project at that time is not known.

"There

were three points raised at the meeting:

(1) The lots split by the road

are approvable if they are accepted by the health branch of the Capital

Regional District and any other affected agencies (2) there was a

41-lot subdivision of one-acre parcels being prepared, but it was

abandoned for unknown reasons — an application should be submitted to

our district office by Mr. Cudmore's surveyor; (3) there is also a

residual 33-acre lot which Mr. Cudmore wants to split into three

parcels — he should also submit this, as in section (2)."

The minister goes on to advise his colleague, in a secret letter:

"I realize these possible" — and he underlines the

word "possible," Mr. Speaker — "approvals may create some unfavourable

reaction" — this is an understatement, surely — "but it is a clear

case of being in stream. I have a copy of the chairman of the Islands Trust's

letter to you threatening to resign if the applications were not referred to

the Trust. These applications would be referred to them for recommendation as

a matter of course. Do you agree that these applications should be resubmitted?"

It is signed "Alex."

The minister to whom it was addressed replied on December 20, 1978:

"My dear colleague:

"Re your file" — and then the same number that I read out

before.

"Thank

you for your letter of November 17, 1978 regarding Mr. Gordon Cudmore

and his subdivision on Saltspring Island. I definitely agree this

application should be resubmitted, and I appreciate very much the

efforts that you and your staff have made in concurring that this is

definitely a situation in which an application was in stream before

"My only hesitation in not writing you

sooner was that the term of Mr. Marc Holmes, chairman of the Islands

Trust, was so close to expiring that I did not see the need to involve

him in this matter, especially in light of the feelings that he

expressed in his letter. I would appreciate it if you would correspond

directly to Mr. Cudmore and notify him of the procedures that he must

now take to put his subdivision back in the process.

"Sincerely,

Hugh"

[ Page 9066 ]

also have copies of internal memoranda which verify that it was upon

the recommendation of the two ministers that it got back into the

works. These memoranda were signed by, among others, one Fred H.

Sproule, executive assistant, dated February 20, 1979, and indicate

perfectly clearly how the intervention — as I have now proven in

letters formerly private, now fortunately public, between the Minister

of Highways and the then Minister of Municipal Affairs — got Mr.

Cudmore's application back in stream.

As an aside, Mr.

Speaker, you might ask who Gordon Cudmore is. If you did, you would

find out (

a) he's the guy who pinched the petroglyphs on Saltspring

Island, and who, when caught and asked how he thought he could get away

with it, said: "Well, Grace McCarthy told me I could have them." The

same Mr. Cudmore, a well-known supporter of the Social Credit Party —

surely a coincidence — put forward an application, which apparently was

being stalled, if that's the word, by the Islands Trust, which had some

concern that it might not be consistent with their plans.

The

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) today says: "Go out in the

corridor and I'll sue you if you say bad things about me." What worse

things could be said about the Minister of Finance than the words he

himself penned in that letter of 1978, making it clear that he wanted

to manipulate the process in order to avoid the criticism that he knew

Mr. Holmes would make if this subdivision proposal were to go ahead? I

don't need to say anything; the minister said it for himself.

MR. SPEAKER:

I must ask the member to show soon how this is relevant to the bill

itself. The fact that the Islands Trust is mentioned in the bill

doesn't make everything about the Islands Trust relevant. I must remind

the hon. member that the Vancouver Charter is also mentioned in the

amendment section. Following the same logic, everything about the

Vancouver Charter would also be subject to debate, and that is just not

true. Would the hon. member carry his debate to the relevancy of the

bill.

MR. BARBER: I will, Mr. Speaker.

The

Islands Trust is being wiped out; Vancouver city is not — at least not

yet. The abolition of the trust surely leads to legitimate debate about

the functions of the trust and why, in our view, the trust should not

only be retained, but strengthened. It should be given greater

authority. It should be made a permanent feature of self-governance for

the people on the islands.

This correspondence indicates why

the trust is being put out of business. It is being put out of business

because it had the guts to stand up to Socreds and their developer

friends. It's being put out of business because they had the guts to

promulgate an official plan for their area which says no to lunatic,

unwelcome, stupid, greedy, shortsighted developers who only want to

make a profit and don't care to make neighbourhoods better, who don't

care to make islands more beautiful, and who don't care to make the

homes of these individuals more happy and safe.

There's

nothing wrong with honest developers making an honest buck. We don't

object to that at all. There is something wrong with the process you

see here today, in which one minister is advising another to manipulate

the

schedule and manipulate the bureaucracy so as to avoid criticism

from Marc Holmes, who said he would resign. The Islands Trust didn't

have a say in the matter.

I was saying who Gordon Cudmore

is, Mr. Speaker. He received a letter on May 15, 1979, from the

Premier. I didn't have a chance to ask the Premier about this today,

but I believe it's also authentic. Would you like to hear what the

Premier of British Columbia advised this gentleman, Mr. Cudmore?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. BARBER: The minister may ask how we get letters out of the Premier's office, but I'm not going to tell you. I know you'd like to know.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You probably steal them.

MR. BARBER: The minister says we probably steal them.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: May we have order, please.

MR. BARBER: The Premier wrote Mr. Cudmore a charming letter, and said:

"Dear Mr. Cudmore" — I think he must have pretended he didn't know his first name:

"Enclosed

herewith are your materials related to your application for preliminary

approval for the subdivisions of your Saltspring Island properties. I

have discussed this matter with the Hon. W.N. Vander Zalm, Minister of

Municipal Affairs and the Hon. Alex Fraser, Minister of Transportation,

Communications and Highways, and I am advised that your application has

been reviewed at all levels. While you may consider that the

subdivision is in stream, the application must now conform to all

present-day statutes and regulations before approval may be granted.

"Thank you for taking the time and trouble to bring this matter to my attention.

"Yours sincerely,

W.R. Bennett"

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What's wrong with that?

MR. BARBER: What's right with that?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please,

MR. BARBER:

I intervened politically on behalf of a developer a few months ago. Let

me tell you how I did it. I met with the developer, I met with

aldermen, and I wrote a letter to Saanich council. I insisted that the

letter be published in its entirety. In the letter I said: "I know this

developer to be an honest guy and I believe that what he says he will

do, he will do. I believe that his proposal for low-cost rental housing

in your municipality is good and timely, and I urge you to support it."

Now to me, if you want to intervene in the planning process — in this

case on behalf of low-rental housing in Saanich and in an area of

Saanich, by the way, that happens to be in my riding provincially — I

think it's appropriate to do that as long as it's public. But when it's

private, when it's clearly manipulative in the way the correspondence

[ Page 9067 ]

I've now published demonstrates so clearly, I think there is something wrong with that.

don't know Mr. Cudmore personally. I don't know whether or not his

subdivision proposals — there were four of them — are any good. I do

know that I'm not competent to say. Neither are the Premier, the

Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Finance. In each case

we're not competent to say, because we wouldn't know what we were

talking about. I don't think we should exercise some phony competence

in favour of "one of the boys" by pretending we know what we're talking

about. The people who are competent to assess the value, or lack of it,

of Mr. Cudmore's four subdivision proposals on Saltspring are the

Islands Trust. They were elected, they are competent, they are there —

at least for a few more hours — and they are in the business of finding

out what the local people want. That's the beauty of local government,

and the tragedy of this bill. You're wiping that out. You are reverting

and returning to Victoria powers which you are neither fit nor

competent to exercise. You are not fit to exercise it because we

understand what this manipulation means. You're not competent to

exercise it because you don't know enough — you're not there on the

ground, you're not a local resident, you're not affected, governed or

touched by it — and therefore you shouldn't try to do it. The tragedy

of losing the Islands Trust is that power will now revert to seven

regional districts — most of whom are already totally preoccupied with

their own problems and issues, including the problems now being created

for them by this bill — and to Victoria, which is even more sublimely

incompetent, to decide whether or not Mr. Cudmore's application is any

good.

I think there's something wrong when a minister writes

to one of his colleagues in secret and tries to reschedule the matter

in order to avoid the comments of someone like Marc Holmes. I have met

Mr. Holmes. I gather he has a good reputation on the islands, and I

expect that what he might have had to say — if he were allowed to say

it — would have been a legitimate and fair comment. But once again

we've found evidence, and have today disclosed it in spite of the

opposition of the government, which tried to stop us from doing so.

These guys are prepared to do favours for the boys outside the regular

process and against the apparent wishes of the local islanders and

residents themselves. This is not acceptable to us and to people who

believe in good, honest and open planning.

Eighty and

ninety years ago in this province there was a major debate, as there

was in most of the rapidly growing sections of North America. That

debate centred on the question of whether or not the principle called

zoning should be established in law and applied to land. Eighty and

ninety years ago intelligent people won that debate, and they said:

"You may not build a steel mill at the comer of Yates and Douglas, or

Granville and Georgia. Even though you own the property, we will not

permit you to do that to your neighbours and community. That is the

wrong place for a steel mill. The way we will exercise that view is by

creating, through a new idea called zoning" — new in North America,

ancient in Europe.... "We will hold you accountable to your neighbours

and community." Some greedy, selfish people with an incredibly backward

notion of the obligations of property ownership said: "Nuts to that. I

don't believe in zoning. You can't tell me what I can do with my land.

I'm going to do any darned thing I want with it. I'll build anythingI want on it, no matter how ugly or smelly or unwelcome it is." They took the governments of the day to court repeatedly.

was a major fight to establish zoning as a principle of governments in

this and every other Canadian province. Our forbears in this very

chamber fought to create the principle that says that you may not

offend your neighbours or insult your community; you will collaborate

with them to make it the safest, cleanest, most habitable area of the

planet that you can. That's what zoning does. It tells us what is and

is not welcome here and there on the land resource of this province.

What

does this government do? They are taking us back to the days when

zoning could not be administered properly because it was being

administered long-distance. They are taking us back to the days when

local zoning matters will no longer be decided at the local level.

Rather, in the imperial fashion of Social Credit, they will be decided

in Victoria. Even worse, we seem to find a pattern of preference. How

many times has anyone ever tabled secret correspondence between two

Socreds trying to benefit the Sierra Club? Has that ever been known to

happen? How many times have we released secret documents between

Socreds asking a minister to manipulate the

schedule in favour of a

group that believes in neighbourhood planning, neighbourhood zoning,

neighbourhood government and a ward system? Have you ever heard of that

happening? Have you ever seen Socreds bend the

schedule even one to

favour the Sierra Club or neighbourhood government? We don't see that.

I give my word; if ever I get a copy of that secret stuff — with your

permission — I'll table it here. Without your permission, I'll read it

in. Secret letters, bending the

schedule for the Sierra Club — I'd be

happy to see it, and darned surprised.

It's precisely

because we see a pattern of preference that we are also worried about

the Land Use Act. We're making a case now; I've done so for a few hours

and I'll do so for a little while to come. Thank God for the rule that

designated speakers don't have a time limit. The member for Kamloops

(Mr. Richmond) shakes his head in horror. How did they ever let that

slip through, he thinks. Don't worry; they'll clean it up after the

next election — if they're still government.

As I was saying

before, this bill offends a great principle — the principle called

zoning. One reason regional governments are under attack in the

unincorporated areas of this province is that those areas are the last

refuge of people who believe they may not be held accountable to the

neighbours for what they build on their land. There are some people in

the unincorporated areas who still believe it is their right to build

any awful thing they want, and that they should not be subject to

anyone's zoning, regional or otherwise. This bill allows those pirates

of real estate to get away with any piratical act they wish. How does

it do that? By abolishing the planning authority of regional

governments in the urban area and restricting it to the unincorporated

area.

You might think that would be protection, but when you

read the fine print you discover three things. First,

section 19 allows

the minister, if something is an important development, as the phrase

goes, to declare that it's in the public interest and to order a

rewrite of any official plan. He can do that personally in the privacy

of his office, subject to no appeal, legal or otherwise. Secondly,

section 46 allows the minister personally, on behalf of any developer,

public or private, to do the same thing through another route in the

unincorporated areas of British Columbia. Sections 19 and 46 have the

same principle at stake; they obtain that principle in different ways.

Thirdly, and finally, for the first time in

[ Page 9068 ]

British

Columbia law this government and that minister want the power, without

appeal to the courts, without appeal by local government and regional

government, to decide what is supposedly in the provincial interest,

and to impose it wherever they see fit. Now what's good for Art Knapp's

nursery may not necessarily be good for British Columbia.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What was the name of the nursery again?

MR. BARBER: Art Knapp. Isn't that the name?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes.

MR. BARBER: Did I get it right? You recognize the name, do you?

Some

people think, or used to think, as did Charlie Wilson, once the

chairman of the board of General Motors, that what's good for General

Motors is good for America. These guys think that what's good for

Social Credit is good for British Columbia. Wilson was wrong, and so is

the minister. They're wrong because they're trespassing upon a great

principle; they are wrong because that act of trespass makes it

impossible for local people any longer to exercise the authority they

once did. That act of trespass is wrong because we see a pattern of

preference which has typically and traditionally, under Social Credit,

favoured the developers and disfranchised local opponents and local

planning.

The minister would have us believe that the

planning objects of the Islands Trust will be secured in law because

the official plan has already been approved by the Lieutenant

Governor-in-Council. Technically he is right; the official plan has

been approved in almost all its forms. Not entirely, though, in that

the hearings were still on in the Gulf Islands. As of last weekend,

they were still holding hearings. They were still making the plan "a

more nearly perfect document," to quote the minister. The problem is

that the minister didn't bother to tell us that even though that plan

has been approved, he will have heretofore unknown authority, but now

authority in this statute that we're debating, to personally order the

rewrite of any official plan he wants.

So tell us what kind

of protection that is. He says: "Don't worry; you don't need the

Islands Trust, because the official plan has been approved." That's

technically true, and totally irrelevant, because the same bill allows

the same Bill to rewrite any official plan in the province as he sees

fit, subject to no legal appeal, no political appeal — subject to no

one's appeal at all. What kind of sneaky act is that? Does the minister

really think we can't read? I know they think we can't count. Fair

enough; most MLAs have trouble counting. The Socreds had trouble

counting when they appointed one cabinet minister too many under the

Constitution Act, discovered it too late, and had to amend the act

retroactively. They thought they could appoint 20, but they could only

appoint 19. Maybe MLAs can't count, but we can darned well read, and we

know what this law provides. It provides, under the regime of Social

Credit, a minister who has power that he is not in any way entitled to

exercise, and when he has attempted to exercise it in the past, we now

learn, he has been halted by the Islands Trust in his efforts to do so.

Let

me read another letter into the record. On May 28 of this year the

Minister of Municipal Affairs wrote to the chairman of the Islands

Trust. Mr. Speaker, here is more evidence of a pattern of preference.

I'll get to that one in a moment; I want to do these chronologically.

On December 5, 1978, the minister wrote to the chairman of the Islands Trust:

"Dear Mr. Rich:

"With regard to the proposed Rinsford subdivision on Denman

Island, it is the position of the Minister of Transportation, Communications

and Highways, the Hon. Alex Fraser, that Mr. Rainsford, for all intents and

purposes" — get that, Mr. Speaker — "had

received preliminary layout approval from the district engineer prior

to the February 23 amendment to the Denman Island subdivision bylaw.

Consequently it is my position now that the above-mentioned subdivision

should be approved.

"Sincerely,

W.N. Vander Zalm"

They go to bat for yet another developer in this case

— someone apparently named Rainsford on Denman Island. The minister

alleges that "for all intents and purposes," to quote directly from the

letter, this particular proposal had been approved by the Ministry of

Highways prior to the February 23 amendment to the Denman Island

subdivision bylaw. What does that subdivision bylaw do? Well, I'm

advised — but I don't have it at hand — that it provides a rewrite of

the bylaw locally in such a way that the Raynesford subdivision could

not proceed. It does that as a reflection of the expressed interest and

view of the islanders on Denman.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Now

I don't know if the islanders on Denman are right or wrong about the

Rainsford subdivision, because I don't live there. I'm not competent to

say, and neither are you guys. But I am competent to say that local

people should choose and we should stay the heck out of it. But no, in

this instance another pattern of preference is established. In this

instance the minister alleges, without any evidence, that "for all

intents and purposes" preliminary layout approval had been obtained,

and therefore, on the hook of that technicality, alleges that Mr.

Rainsford should not be governed or affected by the Denman Island

subdivision bylaw of February 23.

I don't know whether the

Rainsford subdivision went ahead. We received this information very

late. I'm advised verbally that it did, but I haven't seen the

evidence; I'll wait to do so. But I do know that on December 5, 1978,

the Minister of Municipal Affairs, without providing any evidence of

any sort, alleged that for all intents and purposes approval had been

received and therefore the bylaw should not apply to this subdivision.

Not

only is this possibly technically a violation of the law, in that the

minister provides no evidence that the approval had actually been

granted, but just as importantly, it is clearly a violation of the

spirit of the law. The spirit of the Islands Trust statute says: "…to

preserve and protect the Gulf Islands." The spirit of the people of

Denman, who approved this subdivision bylaw through the process of

consultation that we established when we were government, has clearly

been violated as well. What is the greatest violation of all is that

the Socreds now wish to abolish the Islands Trust, that had the courage

to resist these efforts to manipulate the law, to manipulate the

schedule, and, in this instance, apparently to put ahead a subdivision

which would otherwise be governed by the Islands Trust Denman Island

subdivision bylaw and

[ Page 9069 ]

which

would apparently have been denied on that basis. This is a pattern of

preference, which makes it clear to us why the Islands Trust is being

abolished. However, this is not an isolated incident.

That

was December 5, 1978. March 5, 1982 — more letters, again signed by the

Minister of Municipal Affairs. On March 5, 1982, the Minister of

Municipal Affairs wrote to Mr. Rich, chairman of the Islands Trust:

"Dear Mr. Rich:

"In

the fall of last year Ronald Gee visited my office to complain about

the designation of lot 1, parcel A, district lot 494, plan 11316, New

Westminster district, in the proposed Bowen Island official community

plan update. Municipal Affairs staff contacted Islands Trust staff

about the designation, and the final word was that this property would

continue to be designated C4 in the amended community plan."

The

following paragraph is the most extraordinary admission of political

interference I have ever found this minister guilty of. Listen to what

the minister says on March 5, 1982, in a letter on his own letterhead,

signed W.N. Vander Zalm, minister. To continue to quote directly from

the letter, he actually says this: "It has not been my practice to

question the official plan or zoning designations of local government,

unless these designations conflict with a matter of provincial

interest."

Parenthetically, Mr. Speaker, let me ask: what on

earth is the matter of provincial interest at stake in Mr. Gee's

proposal to build on his lots? Is it a hydro dam he's building? Is that

the provincial interest? Is it a used car lot he's building that

somehow represents the provincial interest? Or is it just another

proposal to build on another lot on Bowen Island, which the minister

pretends, by way of justifying his intervention, is a matter of

provincial interest?

To continue with the quote: "I am

bringing this issue before you as an individual." Again,

parenthetically, what a joke! Here it is on his letterhead, signed as a

minister, directed to the chairman of the Islands Trust, and he tries

to pretend — as if anyone would believe it — that: "I am bringing this

issue before you as an individual." What rubbish! He was using the

weight of his office to influence the outcome.

The letter continues:

do not know Mr. Gee or Mr. Leith, but I am familiar with their property

and the general area of Bowen Island in which it is located. I agree

with Mr. Gee's complaints. The property in question could easily

accommodate the density under a C-2 designation, as other parcels in

the general area can and have been so designated.

"I would appreciate it if you would look into this matter."

What

is he doing here? The man who wishes to be czar of all the

municipalities is writing, pretending in one and the same letter that

there's a matter of provincial interest at stake and that he's doing

all of this as some sort of favour to Mr. Gee — himself acting as just

plain "Bill," an individual. It's on the minister's own letterhead, and

it's signed "Minister." What kind of a joke is that? "I'm writing to

you as an individual." It's absurd.

I don't know Ronald Gee

either. I don't know the individual at all. But I do know the principle

at stake, Mr. Speaker. The principle at stake is that a minister does

not, I think, have any business telling the Islands Trust to alter its

bylaws in order to accommodate a guy who thinks, and apparently the

minister agrees, that he can go to higher density because someone else

does, and who justifies it in a completely false way by implying in the

first sentence of the second paragraph that it has something or other

to do with the provincial interest and therefore that rationale will

serve. Mr. Gee has nothing to do with the provincial interest, of this

I'm certain. Mr. Gee has nothing to do with provincial planning

priorities on Bowen Island. He is apparently a guy who wants to go to a

higher density on a lot, and because that is not consistent with what

the Islands Trust think should happen, he goes to the minister. The

minister, in the pattern of preference that is being established by the

release today of these previously secret letters, apparently

automatically goes to bat for any developer who wants to build anything

on the Gulf Islands. We therefore have some reason to worry and be

concerned about what will happen to the islands after the trust is

abolished.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I caution the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) against remarks of that nature in the House.

MR. BARBER:

That's what the minister wrote regarding Mr. Gee on March 5, 1982.

Apparently he was not satisfied with Mr. Rich's reply — Mr. Rich being,

of course, the chairman of the trust — so he tried again. On April 6,

1982, a month later, he writes:

"Dear Mr. Chairman:

"In

response to your March 18 letter concerning my request that the

official plan designation of the Gee property be reconsidered, I do not

have further information to add, except that the property in question

can support a higher density than is provided in the plan — as it is

doing now and has been for some time — and that properties in the

immediate area have been designated for a higher density and are no

more capable than Mr. Gee's property of supporting the higher density.

"I appreciate the time that you and other trust members have taken to consider this matter.

" Sincerely, Bill."

Just

plain Bill. He's writing, I'm sure, still as an individual. Not once,

but twice, this minister has attempted to use his political influence

to vary the contents of an official plan on behalf of someone who

wanted a higher density for his property on Bowen Island, one of the

larger islands of the Islands Trust. Why would he do that if Mr. Gee

had a good case? If Mr. Gee had a good case, does not the minister

consider that the Trust is competent to assess that case on its own

merits and make a fair decision, or is he implying that the Trust is so

unfair, unreasonable and uninformed that they cannot be trusted to make

any decision? Apparently that is, in fact, his final view, because we

know that they propose to destroy the Islands Trust altogether.

April 22, 1982, the minister writes another letter on behalf of yet

another developer, attempting once again to subdivide land on the Gulf

Islands. Here goes:

"Dear Mr. Rich:

"Mr. Bob Peck and Mr. Jim King, the principals of Surfside Park Estates, had a meeting with Mr. Jess

[ Page 9070 ]

Ketchum, the Hon. Alex Fraser's assistant, and my assistant,

Mr. Derek DeBiasio, recently to discuss the problems they have had trying to

subdivide their Denman Island property. Mr. DeBiasio advised them to make formal

application to the Trust for a change in the zoning designation of their property.

They may also require a change in the plan designation.

"From

the information that is available to me" — listen to this, it's

incredible — "Mr. Peck and Mr. King appear to be victims of the present

development approval process."

Because it

turns them down and reflects another view of the future of Denman

Island, this Socred minister decides they are the victims of the

process and therefore special favours will be done following the

pattern of preference that has been established by the Socreds. The

minister goes on to say:

"I would appreciate

it if the Denman Island Trust Committee allowed their application to be

considered at least to the public hearing stage so that they may have

sufficient opportunity to explain their intentions and the past history

of the subdivision proposal. Apparently the Agricultural Land

Commission has approved the subdivision" — I gather that wasn't correct

— "as proposed to Mr. Peck and Mr. King, and the land would stay in the

agricultural land reserve."

This is a curiosity. I can't find evidence to support that. If there is such evidence I'd be interested in seeing it.

"This decision of the Agricultural Land

Commission indicates to me that it is satisfied with the relationship

of the subdivisions and the agricultural viability of the 160-acre

parcel."

Listen how he concludes this missive.

"The

subdivision of this land was first stymied by the imposition of the

agricultural land reserve, and then by the adoption of the Denman

Island official plan.

"Thank you for your consideration."

What

kind of values are represented in a letter like this? He seems to think

— the letter clearly indicates — that there was something wrong when

the ALR was imposed in the first place on farmland on Denman Island. He

says these poor developers trying to make a quick buck on a subdivision

were "stymied by the imposition of the agricultural land reserve." We

know that the Socreds are against saving farmland, but ordinarily

they're a little more subtle. This minister lost all subtlety when he

joined the coalition. All subtlety went out the window when he wrote

this letter and said: "The subdivision of this land was first stymied

by the imposition of the agricultural land reserve, and then by the

adoption of the Denman Island official plan."

Apparently he

first felt that because it was farmland and was declared as such when

the ALR came in, the developers were unfairly hampered or stymied. They

became victims a second time because the Denman Island official plan

stymied them again and appeared to suggest that a subdivision of this

160-acre parcel was not welcome. Really!

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I regret to inform the Chair that in

this very important debate there are so few members in the chamber that

there is no longer a quorum, and the House must adjourn on that basis.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

On the same point of order, I concur with the Leader of the Opposition.

I think it's a shame that only four members of the NDP are in the

House, and I would like to have more members present for that debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The attention of the Chair has been drawn to the fact that there is not a quorum. I will make a careful count.

Hon. members, there is a quorum present at this time.

MR. BARBER:

The minister, who under sections 19 and 46 of this act wants the power

to rewrite personally any official plan in the province, indicated in

this letter of April 22, 1982, how he would do so if he had the chance.

He asked the Islands Trust to do so, and they turned him down. Now he's

wiping out the Islands Trust, and he can do it himself. What will he do

when he has the power? He will go to bat for the poor victims of the

Denman Island official plan, and the poor victims of the agricultural

land reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I was asking before, when someone else was in the chair, how often

we see the Socreds bending the rules to favour the Sierra Club. I got no answer

except from the galleries; they laughed knowledgeably. I ask you now, Mr. Speaker:

how many times have you ever heard of the Socreds bending the rules to favour

the inclusion of farmland in the ALR and to protect the agricultural option

for British Columbia? It never happens. In this letter which we have disclosed

today for the first time, the minister makes it clear how he would use the power

granted to him if he could only rewrite every official community plan in the

province.

repeat, he asked the Islands Trust to rewrite the plan for Denman. Now

that he's wiped out the Islands Trust, he doesn't need to ask anyone at

all except his own reflection in the mirror. Can you imagine how the

conversation will go? "Good morning, Bill." "Hi, Bill. How are how are

you feeling today?" "I'm feeling like wiping out another official plan

today, frankly." "You are, eh? You know, I've always wanted to do that

myself. I think I'll do it a bit today. What do you say, Bill?" Bill in

the mirror replies: "Yeah, I think you can do that today, but you know

you'll have to consult." Bill number one says: "Okay, I will; I'll call

a meeting. Bill, this is the quorum." The mirror replies, "You bet, "

winks once and goes dark. Another deed has been done. Mr. Speaker,

that's all that's going to happen when the new act comes in. He shows

up with a shaving kit, consults himself in the mirror, and decides

whose official plan to rewrite that day; which victim of the ALR he

will protect that day; which victim of the expressed and popular will

of a local democracy he will thwart that very afternoon.

have more evidence, Mr. Speaker. Let me read another letter into the

record. May 28, 1982, and signed by the minister. This one complains

that the Islands Trust is going about its business of rezoning too

slowly. This is a novel twist.

"Dear Mr. Rich:

"Prior

to the April 30 meeting of the Gabriola trust committee, my office

received a representation from Fred Russell of De Courcy Island

Estates, regarding the length of time that the trust was taking to

establish land-use regulations for De Courcy Island. It is my

understanding that on April 30 there was a meeting. It was adjourned

and continued on May 6. On this date first reading of bylaw number 18

was given and staff were directed to amend the bylaw as agreed to.

[ Page 9071 ]

"The

next meeting of the Gabriola Island Trust Committee is July 30. Due to

the length of time it has taken to set new land-use controls on De

Courcy Island it would perhaps be appropriate for the Gabriola Island

Trust Committee to consider bylaw number 18 at a much earlier date than

July 30.

"Thank you for your attention to this matter."

Not

only is the minister not content to allow the official plan to remain

as a feature of law — for years he has attempted to persuade them in

private to change it — but he is now trying to get them to change their

schedule of events as well, once more to accommodate the possible

favourable consideration of a developer.

Mr. Speaker, the

pattern of preference revealed by the correspondence today indicates

what this minister would do with the power, if he had it, to alter any

official plan in the province. He would use the power to favour

developers and subdividers. He would, consequentially, use the power to

destroy the islands as we know them. That is a power he is not entitled

to have. It is a power he is not entitled to use. It is a power no

government should attempt to exercise.

The Vancouver Sun , in the lead editorial tonight entitled "Crown Jewels," had this to say:

"Abolishing the Islands Trust would be like removing the

Beefeater guard from the Crown jewels in the Tower of London. It would be an

open invitation to plunder a one-of-a-kind treasure house.

"Municipal

Affairs Minister Bill Vander Zalm must withdraw his unthinkable

proposal to disband the Trust and split the administration of the Gulf

Islands among seven regional districts.

"For

an institution with so little real power, the Islands Trust has done an

excellent job since it was established in 1974 to preserve and protect

the environment of the islands.

"But Mr.

Vander Zalm and his advisers are wrong in suggesting that the Trust's

work is completed now that it has put zoning and land use regulations

in place. They are naive in the extreme to think that remote control by

regional districts could effectively protect the islands from the

predations of greedy developers.

"The islands

and the regional interests to which their management would be assigned

according to the proposed Land Use Act have altogether different

interests and needs. It is because the islands are unique that the

all-party legislative committee that studied them recommended a unique

form of government.

"Mr. Vander Zalm showed a

poor understanding of the islands' uniqueness when he suggested

yesterday that if the residents want "self- government" they should

petition the government to make them a municipality. The islands are

not suited to municipal status any more than to administration by seven

regional districts.

"To take away the special

form of government, even though it is being proposed in the holy name

of economic restraint, is to threaten their special value to British

Columbia. Hard times notwithstanding. the little extra it costs to

safeguard these jewels of the west coast is money well spent."

Amen, we say, to the editorial in the Vancouver Sun .

The

minister says that he's going to save a bit of money by shutting down a

lot of local control. He says that lie's going to save a bit of money

by wiping out the Islands Trust, whose budget this year is less than

half a million bucks. Of that budget, approximately $280,000 goes for

staff. Those individuals have been told that their jobs will be

guaranteed within the existing bureaucracy; $280,000 will not be saved.

Of the remaining $220,000, most of it has been spent on the costs of

preparing official plans, documents, bylaws and other proposals for

public consultation, participation and decision making in regard to the

future of the islands.

If that process were to continue, as

the minister pretends it will, it will now continue in not one, two or

three offices, but in seven offices. Regional districts will be

required to spend more money to continue with the planning to spend

more money to hire more planners to continue with the objectives of

local planning for the Gulf Islands themselves. The government may

pretend that it's going to save $220,000 — let's be charitable, because

remember that they've already admitted they won't save the $280.000 for

salaries and that those people will be kept in public employee — and

indeed it may do so out of its own pocket. But the taxpayers won't save

any money. The taxpayers will pay even more money, because if planners

are to be hired and plans are to be made, they will now be undertaken

by regional districts at their cost and as a burden to their taxpayers.

Once again, it's the typical sleight-of-hand for which Social Credit

has always been notorious in this province.

In any case, the

Socreds spent more on booze, Broadway and fancy living last year than

they spent on the Islands Trust. If there were a question of public

priorities and real value for money spent, we would contend, in all

humility, that it's a little more important in the public interest to

spend money to conserve the Gulf Islands than it is to waste money to

pour booze down the throats of wine-guzzling Socreds. If you have to

assign value to money, we think greater value is found in those moneys

spent on the Islands Trust, and the lesser spent on Broadway shows like

"Sugar Babies" and "The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas," which the

taxpayers paid for.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Tell us that Gary Lauk is travelling the world at taxpayers' expense. He's supposed to be here.

MR. BARBER: He's not travelling the world at taxpayers' expense. He's travelling to an educational conference at his own expense.

MR. COCKE: He's not responsible for this; you are. It's a disgrace.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. All members will have an opportunity to take their place

in debate. Right now it's the first member for Victoria.

MR. BARBER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Do you recall when this government passed

retroactive legislation to make it impossible for people to take a

certain regional district to court? They did so last year. The issue at

question was that of proceeding or not proceeding with a sewer

enterprise at Ganges on Saltspring Island. Certain of the residents —

and they are clearly divided on the island; most are against the sewer

but some are in favour of it — said that they felt that what the

regional district was proposing to do was unlawful, and they, on the

basis of the existing statute, proposed to take

[ Page 9072 ]

the

regional district to court, have the sewer bylaw declared invalid, and

thus stop the process. It's fair enough; in a nation of laws we're

entitled to challenge them in court. If it was found to be invalid, the

sewer would have been halted, and that would have been a reasonable

outcome as well. The proponents of the sewer, who include the Minister

of Municipal Affairs then and now — Messrs. Vander Zalm and Curtis

respectively, to make the names clear — and their friends on Saltspring

said repeatedly that no one need worry that construction of the sewer

would lead to more development on Saltspring.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Although

it is traditionally the case that when a new sewer goes in, it tends

always to be connected with new development in the future, thus

reducing the unit cost of the sewer, thus sharing the tax burden among

a greater number of people, and thus leading to greater development,

they said it wouldn't be the case in this instance.

MR. REE: It's good for health reasons to put it in.

MR. BARBER: It may well be very good for health reasons; that's absolutely right.

MR. REE: You're against health.

MR. BARBER: I'm not against health; I'm particularly not against mental health, and we'd like to see more of it here.

The

proponents of the sewer said, "Don't worry, no new development will

result when this major new sewer goes in," and they said the reason no

one had to worry about it was.... Guess what, Mr. Speaker. "The Islands

Trust will be there to prevent it." The proponents of the sewer said:

"Fear not, the Islands Trust will make sure that nothing like you

imagine could happen will happen." You know, there were some people who

believed it. There were some people who were convinced that, well,

okay, fair enough, although the questions of water quality are very

controversial, although the evidence in favour of public health and

thereby public safety justifying a sewer is, to say the least,

technically difficult to assess, let's pretend, let's concede, let's

grant that the proponents of the sewer are right, because after all the

Islands Trust is still here, and surely the Socreds wouldn't wipe that

out. Surely, they said, the Socreds wouldn't simply arbitrarily rewrite

the official plan for Saltspring to accommodate more development in

Ganges, and so the sewer went ahead. Some of the people who fought it

lost spirit, but they were at least comforted by the claim the Socreds

made that the Islands Trust would be there to protect their interest

and to prevent future unwelcome development in Ganges.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Lordy,

lordy, what a difference a day makes! That's what they said last year;

look what's happening this year. Lordy, lordy, suddenly those old

assurances are forgotten; suddenly on Friday the Islands Trust is

abolished. Mr. Speaker, the assertions made by Socreds regarding the

sewer and the alleged protection from future development which would be

guaranteed by the Trust are, in a word, worthless; they have now been

proven to be absolutely worthless. A year later they are wiping out the

agency of protection; a year later this bill specifically provides in

sections 19 and 46 that the minister may rewrite any official plan in

the province. Mr. Speaker, among the official plans in the province are

those on Saltspring, which would prohibit the unwelcome intrusion of

development where islanders don't want it. I think there is a

connection. I believe it is no coincidence. It is in fact political

design, it is political strategy, it is a political purpose and it is

most profoundly a political agenda.

The sewer goes in, the

costs are considerable, and the overruns are already occurring, and I

predict that within six months we will begin to hear the first

justifications for its extension so that more people can share the cost

and fewer will be hurt individually with the greater cost. Within six

months, Mr. Speaker, I predict that proponents of development on

Saltspring, when the Islands Trust is wiped out, will stand up and say:

"You know, this inflation is really getting us. The costs are really

terrible; the recession has hit. We've got to do something about the

cost of the sewer. It's not fair to penalize these poor old folks in

Ganges." They'll make pitiful, heart-stirring, sobbing, emotional

speeches, pretending that they're interested in protecting the

interests of the residents of Ganges. Six months from now they'll stand

up and say: "These poor people are really going to be hurt so badly

that we have to extend a sewer just a little to hook up with a

development just over there so that the tax base will be broadened, the

burden will be lightened and everyone individually will pay less — and

that's the way it has to be." That's what they will say.

That's

really not an acceptable public policy. If there is a need for sewer on

Saltspring, let it be proven on the basis of health reasons, not on the

basis of political subterfuge. If there's a reason for sewer at Ganges,

let it be demonstrated by health professionals who know what they're

talking about, not by politicians who don't. The minister is not a

public health officer and never has been; I'm not and never have been,

and neither of us ever will be. We're not competent to talk about it.

We rely on professionals to advise us. You don't have to be a

professional and a public health officer to realize what's wrong with a

sewer that goes into an area where it's not wanted by the majority of

the residents, and where it apparently is not needed. But let's leave

that aside. Maybe it is needed, although the technical evidence is very

dubious.

In any case, arguments were made a year ago which

said: "Don't worry. No more development. The Islands Trust will forbid

it." A year later those arguments are conveniently forgotten — at least

by them, not by us — and the Islands Trust is destroyed in a single act

of vindictiveness on Friday last. The motivation for that single act of

political vengeance is now obvious, as I have read into the record. For

four years the Trust has been resisting the propositions of Socred

cabinet ministers to rewrite bylaws to favour subdividers and

developers. For four years they've resisted it, and apparently they

resisted too well and too often. Having succeeded in their resistance

and won the occasional battle, they now discover they are victims of

the war.

The Islands Trust, regardless of its incredible

record of achievement, is being wiped out altogether. The process began

on Friday. It is being delayed by us today and will be delayed as best

we can. However, the principle will endure and endure, and endure as

long as people care about local planning, local control, and — in this

instance — the rare and special characteristics of the Gulf Islands.

Although the Islands Trust may be wiped out, the principles for which

it has

[ Page 9073 ]

stood will endure in the minds of people who care about those values and possibilities.

that basis, the trustees and the many volunteers who have worked with

the Trust should feel incredibly proud of their achievement. They need

not feel that it was all for nothing. A new standard was created, new

values have been applied. The exercise of those values has been

entirely successful and the achievement of those people, then and now,

is worthy of the deepest respect. The achievement of the Socreds is to

wipe it all out. It's a disgrace, a tragedy, a defeat. The only happy

event that will come from it is that with any luck it will lead to the

personal defeat of the current MLA for Saanich and the Islands (Hon.

Mr. Curtis) in the next general election.

Let me now address

the personal responsibility of the MLA for Saanich and the Islands in

the destruction of the Islands Trust. It's important that residents of

the Gulf Islands know what this particular member of the government has

always felt and believed about the Islands Trust. Did he support it in

the first place? Let's find out what he had to say about it. I just

happen to have a letter dated October 12, 1973, from the then and now

MLA for Saanich and the Islands, Mr. Curtis. He was then a

Conservative; he is now a Socred. He used to be a Liberal, and next

time he will be a retiree or a defeatee, if you prefer. We do.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Perhaps this is some anticipation, but the line of

debate which the member is now embarking on does not involve the

minister in charge of the bill. Although a passing remark can certainly

be permitted, the member will soon have to indicate how his remarks are

relevant to the bill.

MR. BARBER: They'll be relevant

to the bill in this particular regard, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated

before, I propose to move a hoist motion. It's the first and only one

the official opposition has made and very likely will make this

session. It's a rare gesture. It's a rare and special attempt to

persuade the government to delay implementation of the bill by six

months. I will be challenging the MLA for Saanich and the Islands (Hon.

Mr. Curtis) to vote for it. I will do so on the basis of statements

that he used to make. I will ask whether or not he still believes in

those statements. And at the appropriate point, having moved that

particular motion — which I'm not yet debating — we will see whether or

not he has any commitment whatever to the special way of life on the

Gulf Islands.

In 1973 he said in an open letter to the

residents —

part 4, page 3: "Residents want and are entitled to an

active role in planning the future of the islands." That's what he said

then. What does he say now? Today he says: "Bye-bye Islands Trust;

hello Victoria." That's what he said in 1973. I'll read later in this

debate, as it continues in the hours and hours to come, further

evidence of the — to be polite — inconsistency of approach taken by the

member for Saanich and the Islands, who, on June 14, 1974, apparently

began to see things differently. On June 14, 1974, the member for

Saanich and the Islands proposed his own hoist motion. What bill did he

attempt to kill in that hoist? We're being perfectly obvious through

the purpose of ours; we propose to kill the Land Use Act and thereby

save the Islands Trust. That's why we're going to move a motion. In

1974, when the MLA for Saanich and the Islands, the now Minister of

Finance, used the unusual power and purpose of a hoist motion to try to

kill a bill, what was the bill he tried to hoist? It was the Islands

Trust Act. I know you were here then, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure you

remember, with shock and horror and alarm, the efforts of the MLA for

Saanich and the Islands to kill by a hoist motion the Islands Trust

Act. What he couldn't get in 1974 he's got today. He's killing the

Islands Trust. That particular MLA has changed stripes so often that he

could be used by the Ministry of Highways as a lane divider on the 401.

MR. COCKE: That would be confusing, though — too many colours.

MR. SPEAKER:

Would the member for New Westminster please come to order. Debate on

the principle of the bill is in order, but personal allusions and

personal attacks are not in order, hon. members.

MR. BARBER: I think he would make a very good highway divider. You know, I'm just concerned about his future after the next election.

MR. SPEAKER: The member is out of order.

MR. BARBER: I agree it's out of order, but it's also a good joke. I'm sure you don't mind. At least it's a good joke for New Democrats.

The Times-Colonist for Tuesday, July 27, 1982 thundered as angrily as did the Vancouver Sun

in this afternoon's edition in regard to the Gulf Islands. I will

return after this to my comments about the personal responsibility of

the MLA for Saanich and the Islands for the destruction of the Islands

Trust. The Times-Colonist , a newspaper which has only once in

its 120-year history endorsed the New Democratic Party — only once; its

owners no doubt considered that a mistake, because shortly thereafter

they fired the editor — does not in fact ordinarily support the view of

social democrats. Fair enough; they represent the interests of their

owners, and that's okay; so do the Socreds — they represent the

interests of their owners too. In an editorial headed "Islands Set

Adrift in a Sea of Reasons" they said:

"With a

single stunning line in a bill introduced to the B.C. Legislature last

week, Municipal Affairs Minister Bill Vander Zalm proclaimed the death

of the Islands Trust. Established in 1974, the trust was charged with

preserving and protecting the remarkable archipelago lying between the

lower mainland and Vancouver Island for the benefit of the Trust area

and for the province generally:

"The startling

move comes at a time when trustees have been promoting regional status

for the Trust area. The proposal was put forward in March of this year,

and could have been the answer to many of the area's unique problems.

Vander Zalm has unilaterally scuttled the idea."

The

editorial goes on to talk about the islands. The editorial goes on to

talk about the sewer issue. I won't quote all of it. I'm particularly

interested in the issue of political accountability that the editorial

has established. The editorial continues:

"When

the Trust was established the islands were considered worthy of special

consideration. What has changed that? Surely the minister isn't

suggesting that threats to the islands' special character no longer

exist. The most reasonable idea to date has been

[ Page 9074 ]

regional

district status for the islands, although the present ponderous setup

that has infuriated many islanders would certainly have to be

streamlined.

"The Trust was set up after

islanders voted three to one in favour of it. It is unfortunate that

Van der Zalm didn't give those same citizens an opportunity to vote for

retention of the Trust or a viable alternative. To abandon the islands

now to the varying and uncertain mercies of seven different regional

districts is reckless and foolish."

Amen to that editorial, Mr. Speaker.

The

first referendum passed by a vote of three to one; that was some time

ago. I argue that if a referendum were held today, if it were fairly

worded, it would pass by a margin of ten to one. I think the islanders

today are more convinced than ever of the value, the worth, the purpose

and the ability of the Islands Trust to reflect and represent their

interests. Three to one was a pretty good margin when the first

referendum was held. Very few members of this House ever get elected by

that margin. The Minister of Municipal Affairs has never been elected

by three to one; he's never even received one-third of the vote in his

two-man riding. Three to one was the previous vote in favour of the

Islands Trust. If it were held, today ten to one in favour of the Trust

would be the result.

No wonder the minister doesn't want to

keep a promise he made just a few short months ago. I wonder if he

remembers what the promise was. He's looking skyward; maybe he doesn't.

The minister said that if he were to contemplate any significant change

in the present status he would call a referendum.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Wrong again.

MR. BARBER:

Wrong again? I've read your press releases. I've no idea why you think

that you were wrong then, but you are wrong now if you think that's not

what you said then.

Mr. Speaker, the minister clearly

indicated that a significant change being contemplated would justify a

referendum. The residents of the islands who have spoken on this issue

have spoken with one voice. They have said that they want the minister

to keep his promise. They have said that they have confidence in the

results of a referendum. They have said they believe that a referendum

would authentically reflect the views and interests of the people of

the islands, They have asked for a referendum; hereby so do we.

The

official opposition formally now demands that you delay this bill

altogether, and demands as well that you keep a promise you made, that

you honour a tradition that was established....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You're in no position to demand.

MR. BARBER:

We are in a position to demand by equal right as legislators in this

House. We formally demand that you hold a referendum on the Gulf

Islands in the Trust area, and that you put to them a question devised

on a bipartisan basis between your House leader and ours…

MR. SPEAKER: Address the Chair, please.

MR. BARBER: Through you, Mr. Speaker.

...so

that the question will not be rigged in order that the outcome can be

rigged. A bipartisan question acceptable to both sides of the House

must be put to the residents of the Gulf Islands in the Trust area.

That question plainly and simply should ask whether or not they favour

retention of the Islands Trust. It needn't go any further than that; it

needn't be more complex than that; it needn't be an attempt by the

government to twist the outcome by wording it in so deliberately clumsy

a way that no one can make sense of it. We formally here and now demand

a referendum on the islands in the Trust area.

We insist

absolutely that you must canvass and hear the opinions of the people

whose lives you are changing, and whose future you are changing by this

proposed law. If you are afraid to call a referendum, you must be

afraid of the results. If the government is afraid of consultation they

must be afraid of the advice. If they are afraid of the islanders they

have no business bringing in this bill; if anything, this bill should

give greater authority and greater permanence to the Islands Trust. To

destroy it — as imperially as they propose to do, Mr. Speaker — is to

destroy the ability of the islanders to exercise home rule and be

responsible for their own planning affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I

charge that if the government does not accept our call for a referendum

on the islands, it will be specifically because the MLA for Saanich and

the Islands refuses. The MLA for Surrey, the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), in a sense has nothing to lose. Twice

previously the bill in its earlier form died on the order paper.

Although he was embarrassed by it, he didn't lose a lot of face. It's

okay to allow a bill to die if what comes back is better. For that you

shouldn't lose face at all; you should be commended. So he's got

nothing to lose, because twice already this bill has died on the order

paper. Let it die a third time, and as it dies, let the government take

a referendum and consult the people. The member for Surrey has nothing

to lose. He's not going to lose a single vote if the Islands Trust is

destroyed. The people of Denman Island do not live in Surrey. They are

no doubt happy for this. Be that as it may, the only MLA in this House

whose seat is at stake in the next election as the result of this bill

is the MLA for Saanich and the Islands. The only MLA who may lose his

seat in the next general election is the MLA who can say yes or no to a

referendum.

My colleague from Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs.

Wallace) has islands in her area as do my colleague from Nanaimo (Mr.

Stupich), most certainly my colleague from Comox (Ms. Sanford) who is a

valiant defender of the Trust and my colleague from Mackenzie (Mr.

Lockstead). All of these New Democrats have islands in their areas, but

each has only a few. The voting population is relatively small, and

their own margins of victory in the last two and three general

elections have been far more considerable than would be affected by the

outcome, even if it were 100 percent in the negative, of a vote on,

say, a Lasqueti Island or Denman Island. The votes of those people are

terribly important, but the political reality is that they probably

wouldn't make the difference between winning or losing for any of those

MLAs.

However, there are two Socreds whose seats include

islands in the Trust area. One of them is the current Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Williams). As with my colleagues on Vancouver Island, his

margin of victory in the last several campaigns has been great enough

that even if all of Bowen Island rose up in indignation against him, he

probably won't

[ Page 9075 ]

lose

his seat. But that rule of political life does not apply to the MLA for

Saanich and the Islands, because his district includes Saturna,

Galiano, the Pender Islands and Saltspring. among others. Saltspring

has traditionally been a strong pocket of Social Credit support. During

the 1979 general election, at one point in the evening the race for

Saanich and the Islands was so close that the CBC actually declared

that John Mika had been elected. Mr. Mika didn't win that time because

it took a little while longer to count the vote from the islands and

the vote from the islands saved the seat of the MLA for Saanich and the

Islands. That's a matter of public record. Anyone can go and check the

results of that election.

If our call for a referendum on

this bill — and specifically on

section 190 of the bill, that feature

which kills the trust — is refused, I tell you simply this: the one

person who stands to lose is the MLA for Saanich and the Islands. He is

the one person who can say yes or no, the one person whose seat is at

stake. Everyone else has a wide margin. The member for Surrey has a

wide margin. He won't worry about how people on Lasqueti feel about him

in Surrey, because it's of no consequence. I charge that the MLA for

Saanich and the Islands will be guilty of dereliction of duty if he

refuses to accept the apparently unanimous demand of his own

constituents in the Gulf Islands, that he and his government hold a

referendum. If Social Credit isn't afraid of the results, why should

they be afraid of a referendum?

If they're worried about the

outcome, we know why they won't permit the vote. It's perfectly clear

that the MLA for Saanich and the Islands pretended, in 1973, to support

the principle of local control at the Trust and island level. In 1974

he actually moved a hoist, which is recorded in the Journals of this

House, to kill the Islands Trust, through the usual six month ancient

and parliamentary device that has always been used, and that we will

use ourselves to try to kill this bill and thereby protect the Trust.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have leave from the House to introduce a guest who has just come into the gallery.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted to interrupt the proceedings?

Leave granted.

MS. BROWN:

Seated in the gallery is Miss Kathlyn Benger from Galiano Island. I

wonder if the House would join me in bidding her welcome at this time.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER:

My colleague asked if she could have leave. I said: "Sure, I'll yield

while you ask leave." That's fair enough. You guys do it all the time,

and we grant leave.

For the record, it should be said that

the Socreds frequently ask leave during the middle of speeches to make

introductions, and we grant it. My colleague asked for the same. Why

would you object to that?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You handed her a name.

MR. BARBER: I didn't hand her any names. What are you talking about?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the Minister of Municipal Affairs is

saying that my colleague the first member for Victoria handed me a

name. That is not true.

MR. SPEAKER: This is not a point of order.

MS. BROWN: Miss Kathlyn Benger is known to me.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BARBER:

I've been discussing the political responsibility of the MLA for

Saanich and the Islands for the destruction of the Trust. I have

formally demanded, on behalf of the official opposition and the

residents of the islands, that the government hold a referendum. We

have served verbal notice that we will move a hoist motion.

Earlier.

we disclosed for the first time the attempts at political intervention

on the behalf of developers made for them by Social Credit cabinet

ministers. We established that they're in a pattern of preference. One

of the areas of preference exercised by the Socreds, who never do it

for neighbourhood groups or Greenpeace types — but they sure do it for

developers — is reflected in a letter which I would now also like to

read into the record. It just came to my attention a few moments ago.

It is dated November 8, 1978, and concerns the Cudmore matter.

The

Minister of Finance was understandably very upset today with my

questions in question period. As you know, he threatened me with

lawsuits and all the rest of it. I wish now to read into the record

more of the background so the House and public may understand our view

of the very difficult problems created when ministers conspire in

private to bend, twist and manipulate in order to benefit developers,

in this case, Gordon Cudmore, the man who pinched the petroglyphs on

Saltspring, in the name of Grace McCarthy, apparently.

November 8, 1978, Marc Holmes, then the chairman of the Islands Trust,

wrote to the then Minister of Municipal Affairs. The letter says:

"Dear Mr. Curtis:

refer to the meeting of October 24" — this was the one that the

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) referred to as well —

"concerning subdivision proposals put forward by Mr. Gordon Cudmore. I

regret that most of those present did not have an opportunity to

express, in a calm and orderly manner, their concerns and legitimate

interests. Mr. Cudmore continually dominated the meeting, and I left

with the knowledge that I had not brought forward the facts and

opinions that it was my duty to do.

"The in-stream status argument appears of doubtful validity.

All over the islands we have situations where some work was done prior to later

restrictive bylaws which have been enforced for years. In Mr. Cudmore's

case, he did not even have a preliminary layout approval, unlike numerous others.

"I would like to state that if I had sufficient reason to believe that four or five 5 small lots, and possibly a

[ Page 9076 ]

further 40 or 50, are going to be allowed without an opportunity

for fullest prior consideration and recommendation by the Saltspring Island

Trust Committee, then I would publicly resign immediately. I could not accept

a situation where I tacitly, at least, acquiesced in open breaches of Saltspring

Island bylaws in several specific regards. Presumably I would be accused of

collusion and of concealing important information from the public.

"Especially,

it is essential that no precedent be set that the averaging concept can

be cast aside by creating small lots without compensating large ones.

This principle has been enforced many times. with perhaps a degree of

hardship resulting in order that the principles and effectiveness of

island implementing bylaws and community plans be maintained.

"Within

the existing bylaws there appears to be no reason why the subdivision

discussed could not be accommodated with the usual restrictive

covenants relating to subdivision of remaining large parcels, provided

that there is an adequate community water supply and that road and

sewage requirements can be met. Since this matter has raised hitherto

unanticipated criteria, the other two general trustees particularly

wish to clear up the issue of how to enforce compliance with bylaws in

the case of future applications which may have stronger reasons for the

granting of appro