1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 1985

Morning Sitting

[ Page

5637 ]

CONTENTS

Ministerial Statement

Islands Trust Amendment Act debate. Hon. Mr. Ritchie –– 5637

Mr. Blencoe

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

On the amendment

Mr. Blencoe –– 5637

Mr. Davis –– 5643

Division –– 5644

Mr. Macdonald –– 5644

Mr. Cocke –– 5645

Mr. MacWilliam –– 5648

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 1985

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We're delighted to have joining us today a

number of grade 7 students from Southlands Elementary School. They are:

Laura Battye, Susan Shirkoff, Cameron Cronin, Patricia McCormick and

Nikki McCloy. They're in company with Mr. David Stephen, their teacher.

I'd ask all members to bid them a most hearty and cordial welcome.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I've just been informed that in the

legislative precincts today there are a number of students from Quadra

Elementary School in Victoria and some of their teachers are

accompanying them. I wish the House to make welcome those children and

their teachers from Quadra Elementary School.

ISLANDS TRUST AMENDMENT ACT DEBATE

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a brief ministerial statement.

On April 12 the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) issued a

press release entitled "Islanders Can Claim Victory in Bill 30 Debate."

This would demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of that member of

the rules of this House. It offends the order paper of this House, it

misleads the press and it certainly misleads the people of the islands.

The member should realize that he does not represent all of the

residents of the island.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, is there a response?

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, it's well known, even under the new

rules, that the government had the option of calling Bill 30 on Friday

after statements were concluded and that government in its wisdom did

not call Bill 30. Indeed the minister decided to run from this House to

go talk about partnership and cooperation, at the same time that he's

down in this House with a dirty piece of legislation taking away

partnership and cooperation from the islands. He ran from this House...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR.BLENCOE: ...and for two days, Mr. Speaker, we had no discussion of this important piece of legislation.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, order please. The Chair cannot help but pass

an observation that inasmuch as we still have an opportunity for debate on a

bill before us, it seems almost inappropriate that either the ministerial statement

or the response to the ministerial statement was needed, when both those statements

could have been made in the full context of the debate presently before the

chamber.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 30.

ISLANDS TRUST AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, it would appear that this government is so

nervous and anxious about Bill 30 that the minister had to run from

this House and couldn't stand to take the heat in this House and the

pressure that is coming from the Islands Trust. Now they get their good

Social Credit friend, Mr. Jim Hume, to write a good column this

morning. Oh, Mr. Speaker, how desperate they are. That objective,

marvellous reporter and columnist, Mr. Jim Hume, does his little number

in favour of the Social Credit government. Was he fishing? Was he on a

little fishing trip with his friends on the government side in the last

few days? Or did it happen in a local bar downtown that Mr. Hume and

his friends got together and had a little discussion about Bill 30? Is

this what happened?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BLENCOE: Well, Mr. Speaker, we all know that Mr. Hume is

a very close friend of this government, and today he does his little

defence to try to introduce personalities into this debate. But we

categorically say that this bill is above personalities. This bill is

critical to the future of the Gulf Islands, and the minister couldn't

stay in this House on Friday or Monday and couldn't have anybody else

on the side of the government talk for this bill except the member over

here. No member of that government except the minister and the member

for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) has had the guts to stand

up and defend this innocuous, disgusting piece of legislation. That's

what it's all about, Mr. Speaker.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like your advice. This

member said that people on this side didn't have guts. I think that's

an unparliamentary word. I'd like you to rule.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, temperate language in debate is

always a hallmark of this hallowed institution. I would commend members

to that longstanding tradition.

Hon. member, I see that the regular time for the member's statement

has expired. However, for the information of the House, the member has

informed the Chair that he is the designated speaker on the amendment.

The member continues.

MR. BLENCOE: Perhaps the appropriate term, Mr. Speaker, would

be "intestinal fortitude." Maybe that's the correct term for this

government. With deference to the Minister of Transportation and

Highways, we'll use that term.

We had hoped that this government would listen to reason, would

listen to the wishes and desires of the Gulf Islanders and the trustees

— all those islanders who are concerned about those beautiful islands —

and would seriously consider the reasoned amendment put forward by the

[ Page 5638 ]

Leader of the Opposition. We happen to think it is

an appropriate amendment at this time, during the debate on this very

important legislation, and I will just remind the government what that

amendment states: "that the government, through its failure to consult

with the local representatives, has created a situation respecting the

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

self-government and local autonomy."

[10:15]

I think it was telling of the hypocrisy of this government, and this

minister in particular, when the minister ran from this House for two

days to talk with locally elected people about the theme of cooperation

and partnership with the Social Credit government, about their being

serious about working with local government. I understand that he

wishes to get all his legislation and estimates through so he can go

across the province to try to convince those municipal governments and

towns and villages that they are serious about cooperation and

partnership in British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: This government relates one message to the

people of British Columbia, and to the municipalities and local

government, about partnership and cooperation: that they have the

interests of local government at heart. At the same time we have on the

floor of this House a piece of legislation that clearly violates those

expressed intentions of this government.

It is sheer hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker, and you're not going to be able

to con local government that you're serious about cooperation when you

introduce pieces of legislation like Bill 30, which clearly takes away

the autonomy of the Islands Trust. It affects their ability to govern,

their ability to direct staff, and all the good work they have done in

the last 11 years.

How can the people of British Columbia and local government take

this government seriously? All the fine rhetoric, all the fine news

releases and reports that they can relay to local government, all the

public meetings the minister wishes to hold to say that they are

serious about cooperation.... At the same time we have a piece of

legislation that is basically a power-grab, taking away the autonomy of

local government, and specifically of the Islands Trust.

This government has consistently, over the last few years,

centralized power, moving into the area of traditional responsibility

held by local government that has been respected and upheld for years

and years. And we now have another example in Bill 30 that guts local

autonomy in the Gulf Islands. If this minister and this government are

to be taken seriously about cooperation and partnership and conferring

with local government over common concerns, issues and priorities, then

they have to be honest and candid about partnership and cooperation. We

cannot emphasize that point enough, Mr. Speaker.

On Friday and yesterday no other member of this House was allowed to

speak to this bill, because they pulled it from the agenda, so we had

hoped the government was indeed starting to listen to reason and to the

views of the Gulf Islanders and many British Columbians. We had hoped

that there was a sense of reason here. In a minute I'm going to table

hundreds of letters. I have some of them that have been coming in to

this government. The phone calls and telegrams from concerned citizens,

from people of all political persuasions.... We had hoped all these

were having an impact on this government, and that they were prepared

for once to consider a reasonable approach to the governing of the Gulf

Islands.

I think the people of British Columbia are asking and demanding that

we pull back from our entrenched views, that we not necessarily always

think about who is right, but what is right for the province of British

Columbia and the people living in this province — not who is right, but

what is right. Too often, as elected officials who are all guilty of

this to some degree, we get involved in defending our own personal

views. We get dug in, Mr. Speaker, and we cannot see our way clear to

achieving some compromise and some resolution, so that both sides in a

particular controversy feel they have been part of the process that

resolves problems. I think the people of British Columbia want that

kind of positive approach to problems.

We've had the opportunity — and we still have the opportunity, for

this government to sit down, for the minister to sit down, and work out

a compromise. We have tried to suggest in a reasoned amendment that

they are violating the so-called principles of cooperation and

partnership that they supposedly are telling the people of British

Columbia they hold dear. But now we're saying that this government

should take the opportunity — and should have done it in the last few

days and over the weekend — to work out, with the Islands Trust

trustees and all those people who are duly elected by their

constituents on the Gulf Islands, a reasoned approach and a reasonable

compromise.

That is not too much to expect, Mr. Speaker, and the people of

British Columbia and the Gulf Islands are looking for that

problem-solving process. They wish the decision-making process to be,

at times where possible, one of resolution of issues and of both

parties to a dispute coming together. That's what the art of politics

should be all about.

Politics is the art of compromise, the art of what is possible, and

it's an honourable component of the political process. All we are

asking is that this government reintroduce — and we're prepared to do

that — some reason into this process, rather than digging in and both

sides saying they're right — one side saying it's right, and then the

other side saying it's right. Where is the middle ground? Where is the

common ground? Mr. Speaker, Mr. Humphries, chairman of the Islands

Trust, and the Islands Trust trustees have indicated to the minister

quite clearly that they do wish to meet with him and to achieve some

compromises on this particular issue, that both sides can be

accommodated in their desires.

I have a number of letters here from many people on the islands.

Many of them came during the Campbell process, many have come since the

debate on Bill 30, and every day there are more coming. I am getting

copies of these letters, and I would like to table these at this time,

Mr. Speaker, as part of this call for reason and understanding in

trying to find some common solutions. All these letters ask the

government to reconsider their position and try and meet with the

trustees and the key people in the Trust to find some resolution to

this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I want to continue on this theme that the Islands Trust

has been reasonable and has wished to find some sensible solution to

this issue. There are a number of pieces of correspondence from the

Islands Trust, in particular from Mr. Humphries to the minister, going

back a few weeks and much longer than that, asking the minister for some

[ Page

5639 ]

meetings, asking the minister to consider some amendments that would allow

him to do his housekeeping but allow the Trust to retain the ability to set

the direction of their staff. One letter is very interesting, and I'd like

to read it into the record. It is a letter from Mr. Humphries to the Premier

of the province written back on March 4 this year, when Mr. Humphries and the

Islands Trust learned that there were going to be some changes to the Islands

Trust Act, and asking, I think in a reasoned approach before the legislation

hit this floor, for some problem-solving, for some quiet meetings with the

minister or with the Premier to find a way that both sides could be satisfied

on this issue. I keep saying that, Mr. Speaker: both sides can be satisfied

in this issue. I would like to read this letter:

"Dear Mr. Premier:

"I am writing at this time to request your consideration

of a matter essential to the effective administration of the Islands Trust Act.

This is done in compliance with the

section of the Islands Trust Act that requires

me to recommend to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-CounciI on matters pertaining

to our mandate.

"On February 13, 1985, I was advised in confidence

by your colleague, the Hon. Bill Ritchie, that I should not appoint a manager

of the Islands Trust, because legislation was being proposed that would amend

the Islands Trust Act. I was led to believe that the intended legislation would

amend

section 13, thereby removing the authority of the general trustees to

appoint employees and designate their title, office and responsibilities.

"In brief, the authority to appoint and manage our

staff would be removed from the control of the duly elected officials of the

Islands Trust, and our staff would be placed under the direct control of the

Ministry of Municipal Affairs. As nothing was said about other aspects of our

act, I conclude that the Islands Trust is to be continued.

"Since that time, in the best interests of the residents

of the Trust area and the administration of our act, a manager has been appointed.

This action was taken with the knowledge that the Trust has both the authority

and duty to ensure the effective administration of the act, despite the possibility

that changes may occur sometime in the future.

"The proposed legislation change would in some unspecified

manner amalgamate the staff of Municipal Affairs and the staff of the Islands

Trust. Such a step would seriously disrupt the planning and development services

now provided to the communities in the Trust area. It would be viewed by our

elected officials and the communities they serve as a direct and totally unwarranted

interference in the management of Trust affairs. It would have the same effect,

one might expect, if the staff of regional districts and municipalities were

to be placed under the authority of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Imagine

the impact if the minister were to propose a similar decision on the Capital

or Greater Vancouver Regional Districts!

"At issue here is whether staff can work effectively

while serving two masters. To whom are they responsible, and from whom do they

take direction? At present our staff are directed to prepare land use bylaws

to accomplish the wishes of duly elected local officials, who are in turn responsible

to the communities they serve. The content of such instruments is determined

by the communities on each of the 13 designated islands within constraints determined

by relevant provincial statutes. Thus are local interests protected. The provincial

interests are protected through a process of referral to other government agencies

and by a requirement that the Minister of Municipal Affairs approve all such

bylaws before they become law.

"At present, like regional districts, we have a workable,

arm's-length relationship with all government agencies. Including Municipal

Affairs, which ensures that both local and provincial interests are independently

protected and administered."

If I may just break from the letter, Mr. Speaker, very briefly,

these points are critical to this issue. The one that I remind the

government of is that at this point the minister has the power to hold

back any decision in terms of bylaws that the Trust comes forward with,

and his interests or the governmentos interests are protected. That's a

very critical factor. We must clear up the notion that the provincial

interest is not protected. It is indeed protected under the rules of

the Islands Trust. The minister constantly — and I think sometimes in a

negative fashion — does hold back important decisions the Islands Trust

has made.

[10:30]

Going back to the letter:

"If the staff of Islands Trust were to be merged with

that of Municipal Affairs, not only would the staff be placed in an impossible

position, the elected officials and the various island communities they serve

would see it as a direct and unjustified interference in the management of island

affairs. It would be viewed as a threat to local autonomy, a matter of considerable

local concern, as can be seen in the hundreds of responses submitted to Mr.

Dan Campbell's inquiry into the Trust."

Many of those letters I tabled this morning, including letters that have also come during the debate on Bill 30.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, on that point I must advise that until leave of the House is obtained, the letters cannot be tabled.

MR. BLENCOE: Okay. At what point do I do that, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: Now.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to have those letters I've referred to be tabled in the House.

Leave granted.

MR. BLENCOE: Back to the letter, Mr. Speaker:

"Should the government's intentions become public

knowledge, the affected communities will respond in a most negative fashion.

It will be seen as one more attempt to centralize bureaucratic control in Victoria

at the expense of small rural communities. Such reactions, if they occur, and

I am sure they will, can only have a detrimental effect on a series of development

proposals already in stream or about to

[ Page 5640 ]

be initiated. Only by virtue of the diplomatic efforts of

trustees operating with the earned respect of the affected communities has it

been possible to obtain local support for major developments on Saltspring,

South Pender and several other islands. Should the trust be viewed as other

than autonomous in serving the needs and interests of these and other communities,

I fear that such support and cooperation as has been achieved will evaporate,

cooperation and trust will disappear, and these and other development proposals

could be at risk."

Mr. Speaker, I'll break from the letter. What the Trust is saying is

that they are prepared to cooperate; they are prepared to develop

development proposals. They are prepared to look at change, but it's

got to be done in a cooperative framework with senior government.

What's happening in this legislation, as we've had in the past, is an

abuse of that cooperative spirit and framework. I believe that the

Trust is indicating.... And I also read certain sections from other

letters which show that the Trust is working on economic development

issues and on streamlining their bylaws and some of their community

plans, and is trying to meet some of the concerns of the minister and

of this government; and they're doing that within a cooperative

framework. On their part they are prepared to cooperate and to try to

take seriously the minister's and this government's intention vis-à-vis

partnership. I think that should be honoured and supported. And I think

this minister and this government should take up the Islands Trust

within that framework of cooperation and partnership, and meet the

spirit of those intentions.

I go back to the letter, Mr. Speaker. Remember, this letter is to the Premier.

"Following the recent speech by the Premier announcing

his intention to seek cooperation and partnership involving the provincial government

and local communities in attempts to provide economic recovery, I spoke to the

Islands Trust council, urging that we become part of the process"

I re-emphasize that part: "urging that we become part of that process."

"To that end, a special committee of council was established

to investigate ways and means by which island communities can become involved.

The committee intends to consult with the relevant ministers and government

agencies to determine how the Trust can ensure the cooperation and participation

necessary to accomplish the Premier's objectives within the Trust area.

"In my view it would be regrettable indeed should the

anticipated positive goals be placed at risk because of a poorly conceived piece

of legislation that does absolutely nothing to further the provincial interest."

There's a very important statement there, Mr. Speaker. It's regrettable

that the anticipated positive goals of working with the government on trying

to develop economic initiatives on the Gulf Islands and being prepared to work

in a cooperative framework, Mr. Speaker — in a bond of trust, if you will, with

the local Islands Trust and this government — to develop initiatives that would

benefit the Gulf Islands and benefit all British Columbians....

What the chairman of the Islands Trust is doing, Mr. Speaker, in a

very diplomatic and reasonable approach, is offering an olive branch,

if you will; he's offering the hand of partnership. He is offering an

approach that I think we all wish to see in the province of British

Columbia: that is, a process where we can work out our problems rather

than get into contentious legislation that can only hurt the process

and, in this particular piece of legislation, in the long term and in

the short term hurt the interests of the Gulf Islanders and that

particular unique environment that we all wish to protect.

Again, the chairman says that we will be risking the opportunity to

enter into that kind of agreement of partnership and cooperation and

economic revival on the Gulf Islands. Here is a grand opportunity. Here

is perhaps the first opportunity for this government to meet its

so-called announced aspirations in terms of partnership and

cooperation, of renewal, with local government. Here is an offer that

the minister should not turn down. He should grab it, take it. Here is

a letter to the Premier of the province of British Columbia which is an

olive branch, an offer to work with this government in the interests of

all Gulf Islanders and of all British Columbians. It is a fine gesture

that should be taken immediately by this government. It is a fine

gesture to the Premier of this province and to this government, and it

should not be turned aside or spurned. It is serious, it is sincere,

and it is my understanding that the offer is still there.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Back to the letter, Mr. Speaker.

"Tinkering with the structure and function of local

government can never be in the provincial interest unless it can be clearly

demonstrated that it serves some significant economic, social or administrative

purpose."

I will break from the letter.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: Where is the cabinet? Where is the back bench?

MR. BLENCOE: Well, Mr. Speaker, there is nobody on the

government side who is prepared to defend this bill, except the

minister and the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds).

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), the member for Saanich and

the Islands — and many of the islands in the Islands Trust are in his

constituency — has not been in this House to debate this issue. He's

come in once or twice but has quickly left when it came up.

What is happening with this piece of legislation? Whose interest is

it serving, as Mr. Humphries indicates? For whom is it put forward?

What economic purpose does it serve? What social purpose does it serve?

What administrative purpose does it serve? Who is going to benefit from

this piece of legislation? The Islands Trust? No. The Gulf Islanders?

No. The minister says it's only housekeeping, so technically it's not

going to benefit him in any of these ways. Who's calling for it?

Particularly when we consider that it really is not necessary.... By

pursuing the legislation as it stands now, and not being prepared to

compromise, you are risking an opportunity to work with the Islands

Trust. Those 13,000 to 14,000 Gulf Islanders were prepared to

participate with this government in economic revival and economic

reconstruction in the province of British Columbia, and particularly in

the Gulf Islands. In whose interests is this bill being put forward? We

have yet to have an explanation of that. There

[ Page 5641 ]

are certainly very few government members able to

describe why it's being put forward. Mr. Humphries clearly asks: "Why

is this legislation being put forward?" The minister has all the

ability now to review anything that comes forward from the Islands

Trust. We don't disagree with that.

Unless this minister is prepared to accept some changes to this

legislation which, in the interests of partnership and cooperation,

meet his housekeeping requirements yet allow the Islands Trust to

flourish and direct its staff, it can only be seen as a blatant power

grab and the start to radically changing the Gulf Islands and changing

that whole environment. That's the only thing we can see. But we ask to

be proven wrong. We ask the government to show us that they don't want

to do that. We sincerely ask the government to indicate to us that they

don't want to do that. We have the amendments put forward by the

Islands Trust, and an amendment that I have prepared for committee

stage on this bill which will clearly meet both sides in this issue and

put to rest the idea that this government isn't serious about the

Islands Trust. If that doesn't happen, then we have a gross hidden

agenda for the Gulf Islands — centralization, power grab — and we are

going to see, I suspect, a massive redevelopment of those islands. That

would not be in the interests of either British Columbia or those

islanders. Unless the government can prove that that is not accurate by

changing or by withdrawing this legislation, they stand accused of

sheer hypocrisy regarding partnership and cooperation with local

government, and we know that the statement that this is a hidden agenda

for major changes to the islands is indeed accurate.

I'll carry on with the letter:

"As I pointed out in a letter to Mr. Ritchie, if his

concerns relate to the cost of providing development service to the islands,

consideration might be given to an amendment to the present financing formula.

While no taxpayer welcomes an increase in taxes, I feel certain that most taxpayers

in the Trust area would prefer to carry a slightly higher tax burden if that

were to be the price of retaining local autonomy."

Here is another offer from the chairman of the Islands Trust, saying that he

is prepared to recommend to his taxpayers and trustees that, to preserve their

precious autonomy, they take a far greater financial load.

I would think this government would be interested in such an offer.

I would think the minister would jump at this. Well, Mr. Speaker, they

are not, it would appear, and again I have to ask why. Why not take up

the offer by the Islands Trust? If they don't, then we have to come

back to the fact that the government has a hidden agenda for the

islands and they want to control the development; they want to

centralize the power and the decision-making process in the hands of

the provincial government. That can be the only conclusion. We have

compromise, we have amendments, we have an offer by the Islands Trust

to take over the financial control and meet the tax requirements. We

have offers by the Trust to participate in recovery, to participate in

streamlining the processes on the islands to accommodate this

government's wishes vis-à-vis development concepts. Everything they are

doing in terms of trying to cooperate with this government is being

spurned, turned aside.

[10:45]

Why is it being turned aside? That's the question that's got to be

answered. The Gulf Islanders and the Islands Trust have a right to

those answers. So do the people of British Columbia, because they

recognize that these islands are a jewel.

They're filmed, they're written about by visitors from all over the

world. As I've said before, every British Columbian who goes there

raves about what has been done in the islands. I go back to the letter,

Mr. Speaker:

"It should be pointed out that the Minister of Municipal

Affairs has the authority to determine how much of the Islands Trust budget

can be raised from local taxes and how much will be paid out of the consolidated

revenue fund.

"For these reasons, Mr. Premier, I respectfully request

your serious consideration of the wisdom and effectiveness of the legislation

being passed by your colleague, the Hon. Bill Ritchie. In my view, this is a

time when we must all cooperate and work together to achieve common goals. It

is not a time to irritate or alienate even small communities in British Columbia.

In various ways the Islands Trust has attempted to cooperate with the provincial

government, while at the same time fairly and honestly to represent the concerns

of the communities we represent. We sincerely intend to continue in this fashion,

but we will need your help to convince our island communities that a spirit

of goodwill and cooperation is reciprocated by the government you represent."

It's signed by Dr. Mike Humphries, Chairman of the Islands Trust.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I challenge the quorum.

MR. SPEAKER: The quorum has been challenged. It would appear

that we do not have the requisite number of members in the House

pursuant to our standing orders. I will summon members by ringing the

division bells.

The quorum has been satisfied. Please continue, hon. member.

MR. BLENCOE: It's nice to get some members from the government side back again.

AN HON. MEMBER: If you make it interesting we may stay.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's not only an interesting

issue but a very important issue, and critical to the future of the

Gulf Islands. We do not take that issue lightly. As a matter of fact,

that is one of the most important areas in the province, and we are

here to speak for it and to defend it; to look for some answers and

alternatives, to find some solutions to what the government is putting

forward. That's our job. In a constructive fashion we have indicated

how that can be accommodated. We will continue to be positive, continue

to pursue alternatives to the point where this government's credibility

on this issue will be totally negated. We will have had all the ways

that these things can be achieved.

I have read this morning a very important piece of correspondence to

the Premier of the province of British Columbia. This piece of

correspondence, I think, indicates quite clearly that the Islands Trust

is willing and able and prepared to sit down, in a framework of

cooperation and consultation, and achieve some answers to these

important problems. This particular bill, and the reason why I've

introduced the amendment, does indeed risk the very things that Mr.

Humphries refers to in his letter.

[ Page 5642 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Who cares?

MR. BLENCOE: That's the unfortunate position of this

government on this particular bill, Mr. Speaker: who cares? Many people

do indeed care. We certainly care, and the islanders care. If you did a

study or a poll you would find that most British Columbians do indeed

care about those islands and become deeply concerned when any

government makes moves to take over and control their destiny, without

telling us what they want to do with that control.

MR. R. FRASER: We've done more for the islands than you'll ever know.

MR. BLENCOE: You haven't done it. The member says they have

done everything for those islands. This government hasn't done it; this

side of the House here hasn't done it. It's the Trust and those

islanders dedicated to the preservation and enhancement of the islands

who have achieved what has been done in the Gulf Islands today. They

have done it, and let's give them credit.

The government may be interested.... There have been a number of

editorials all castigating the government's action on this particular

piece of legislation. The Times-Colonist clearly said: "Hands off." Yesterday in the Vancouver Sun there was a very important editorial. The headline read: "Betraying a Trust." Let me just read it, Mr. Speaker.

"The provincial government can't keep its hands off

one of the most beautiful treasures nature has bestowed on British

Columbia. It seems bent on destroying the Islands Trust, a body that

has proved an embarrassing obstacle in the past and which it foresees

as a future pest.

"Even the government's friends on the Trust are

complaining about the undermining of their role, which was intended as

guardian of that precious string of jewels strung across the Pacific

between the mainland and Vancouver Island.

"The objectives of the government — mining on Gambier

Island, an airstrip on Mayne island, and so on — do not always coincide

with those of the Trust. The government has consistently threatened the

Trust: a previous minister wanted to abolish it, and others have

encouraged development by special interests and circumvented the

planning process.

"The latest move is legislation sired by Municipal

Affairs minister Bill Ritchie that would transfer the Trust's employees

to his own Victoria bureaucracy, thus diminishing its autonomy and

independence.

"Leave the islands alone, Mr. Ritchie. Don't meddle any more with this priceless asset."

That's the message that's been coming over and over to this

government and this minister through letters and telegrams, editorials

and articles. Only one particular member of the media is trying to turn

this issue into a personality clash.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Only one, Mr. Speaker, who is the defender of this government over and over again, who uses his pen to defend his friends....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the amendment before us deals

with consultation, the principles of cooperation and self-government,

and local autonomy. It does not deal with what the member is addressing

now, Will the member speak to the amendment or take his place.

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

I heard that member make reference to my acting on behalf of my

friends. Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia are my friends. I

am acting on behalf of the people of British Columbia in this position,

and I resent.... I ask that member to withdraw that remark.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair heard nothing offensive, hon.

member; further, that doesn't appear to be a point of order. But I will

once again remind the second member for Victoria that we have a

specific amendment before us, and debate must relate specifically to

that amendment. Otherwise, the member will be asked to take his place.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm sorry that every time I use the word

"friends" the minister gets a little uptight and upset. I think every

British Columbian wishes to be a friend, Mr. Speaker, to all of us in

this Legislature. On this particular legislation I think the people of

British Columbia wish us to befriend the Trust and all they stand for;

that's a great part of the issue.

What I was saying, Mr. Speaker, is that editorial writers and media

people, who are a measure of public opinion, are stating quite

categorically.... And despite what we might think about the media, they

are indeed still a credible measure of public opinion in British

Columbia. Here we have in the learned daily journal, the Vancouver Sun ,

the headline "Betraying a Trust." We have had other editorial headlines

and other stories saying virtually the same thing. This government is

indeed betraying a trust — a trust that was established for 11 years.

"Mr. Ritchie, leave the islands alone. Don't meddle

any more with this priceless asset." Mr. Speaker, we only have one

person in the media, as we all know, who doesn't see the islands as a

priceless asset, and we all saw that this morning.

Mr. Speaker, I have other pieces of correspondence that I will table

not today but during the committee estimates, indicating a willingness

on the part of the Islands Trust to cooperate and be reasonable on this

particular issue.

I wish to conclude on this reasoned amendment this morning that indeed it is a reasoned amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Time.

MR. BLENCOE: I haven't quite finished yet, Mr. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were finished a long time ago.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. To the amendment, please.

MR. BLENCOE: I would hope that maybe those cabinet ministers

would get up and speak to this particular piece of legislation. It

would be useful to see how they can defend this bill.

I would ask the government, Mr. Speaker, to consider the views of

the Islands Trust chairman and the general trustees, to consider the

amendment as a reasoned approach; that we

[ Page 5643 ]

can achieve some compromise and find resolution. We

are concerned that this government is betraying a trust. They have not

proved to this House or to anybody on the islands or anybody in British

Columbia the rationale for this apparent power-grab. There seems to be

absolutely no reason for this, because the minister's wishes can be

accommodated in a very normal housekeeping method, allowing the House

to proceed as usual. We want some reason, or otherwise this issue is

going to become hotter, more critical and more embittered. You're going

to put those trustees up against the wall in terms of defending their

islands. They've done it before, and they'll continue to do it unless

there is some reason and rational thought introduced into this debate.

Either pull the bill or consider our amendment, consider the

suggestions of the islands trustees and the amendments that we'll be

putting forward later unless the bill is called back. Let's have a real

solution to this issue, not one where both sides dig in and the

trustees have to defend their homes against centralized power of this

government. Let the Trust get on with the job that it's done for 11

years.

I conclude our debate on the reasoned amendment.

[11:00]

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the amendment before the Legislature

now is really one of censure. It says there has not been sufficient

consultation between the Islands Trust directors on the one hand and

the Minister of Municipal Affairs on the other. It includes a plea for

not only greater consultation but cooperation.

First, as to discussion, I read from a letter addressed to the Hon.

Bill Ritchie, February 20, 1985, and signed by the chairman of the

Islands Trust. Obviously on February 20 the chairman of the Islands

Trust knew what the substance of the present bill was, because in the

second paragraph he says: "From our conversation on February 13, 1985,

I infer that there is an intention to amend

section 13 of the Islands

Trust Act, removing the power of the general trustees to appoint

employees and a manager." So the essentials of this tiny bill were

known and had been conveyed orally at least by the minister to the

chairman and through the chairman to the other directors of the Trust

as early as the middle of February. I can't fault the minister for not

showing the precise wording of the bill to the members of the Islands

Trust in the ensuing weeks, because that would offend the conventions

of this House. Indeed, the members of this Legislature should see the

bill before anyone else. So I don't agree with the censure aspect of

this amendment. The more serious part of the amendment relates to

cooperation in general terms between the government in Victoria and the

members, the chairman and directors of the Islands Trust.

Now the opposition obviously takes the view that the Islands Trust

legislation sets up yet another level of government, that the Islands

Trust membership is democratically elected and should be viewed as

having many of the powers, prerogatives and responsibilities of a

municipality or, perhaps more appropriately, regional district.

Certainly the structure of the Trust, the legislation, points in that

direction.

I think it's really unfortunate that we should be looking at the

Islands Trust as another level of government. I really think that as

all the laws of Canada and British Columbia and the administrative

dictates of the various ministries apply throughout the Gulf Islands,

we don't need another planning authority. We don't need another level

of government which has the power to tax and so on.

What we do need is a unique Trust, a Trust limited in its membership

but very forward-looking, imaginative and sensitive in its views. Its

job is to look after a unique part of the world, a unique part of this

province, and its principal concern has to be environmental. It has to

be the protection of the environment in which these islands continue to

exist and the protection of the islands, their amenities and their

unique and natural features from ravages of various kinds, including

those which may be imposed on them by the people who live in the Gulf

Islands or who have property in the Gulf Islands.

Indeed I think one could well argue that those who would take that

broad, imaginative view aren't necessarily residents of the Gulf

Islands at all. They are people with a very broad view, certainly with

technical competence among other things, and their main job, as I said

in earlier remarks, would be to preserve the Gulf Islands as a unique

park area — admittedly with residents, admittedly with some commercial

activities — and to preserve the essentials, the unique ecology, of

these different islands with their different features.

So I would think that the best kind of Trust would be a Trust which

was perhaps appointed by several levels of government, primarily the

province, with this overview of the Gulf Islands very much in mind.

That would not be, Mr. Speaker, another level of government. It

wouldn't necessarily be elected — at least all of its members would not

be. Indeed, I would argue that a minority only of its members should be

elected locally, if elected at all.

The legislation before us, which this amendment condemns, really

relates to the nature of the Trust, and the Trust is the entity with

which cooperation is requested. I have some difficulty with the bill

itself, because it appears to reverse legislation which was proposed by

the present government and passed in 1977. Just to refresh our

memories, back in 1969 the former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, brought in a

ten-acre freeze on the Gulf Islands. This freeze was to continue until

an Islands Trust or some similar body with an overview of things was

set up and could ensure that development of the islands proceeded in a

way that was compatible with the basic ecology of those islands.

From 1972 through 1974 an all-party committee toured the Gulf

Islands and came up with recommendations. Basically these

recommendations were as follows. Firstly, that an Islands Trust Act be

passed by the Legislature and that that act provide for two locally

elected trustees for each of 13 major islands. Secondly, that the

cabinet appoint three general trustees to oversee the 13 major islands

and 450 smaller islands, and to appoint staff. Incidentally, it was the

government who was going to appoint staff in that case. And thirdly,

technical planning through the seven regional districts with trustees

holding the power of veto. So technical planning would be through the

regional districts.

In 1977, with most of the community plans and regulatory bylaws in

place, the then Municipal Affairs minister, the Hon. Hugh Curtis, led

in the amendment of the Trust Act to have all trustees elected, to

transfer land use planning from regional districts to the Islands Trust

and give the general trustees authority to appoint and direct their

staff. So Bill 30, the bill which the opposition now wishes to amend,

goes in the opposite direction to the legislation of 1977. Tersely,

it's to enable the Minister of Municipal Affairs to provide exclusive

staff support for the Trust. In other words, the Trust will no longer

have its own staff but will rely on the ministry.

What is the basic reason for this? Is it to control expenditure? Perhaps that's the reason. Is it to control the nature of

[ Page 5644 ]

the appointments? I think an Islands Trust suitably

set up either needs a small staff with a budget to appoint or retain

consultants. But again, I would see it taking the broad environmental

point of view and not duplicating any of the powers, any of the

authorities, of existing levels of government, particularly the

regional districts and so on.

Or is the concern that of land use planning? Is the government

really concerned about the nature of developments, which with the

present administration — with the present Islands Trust directors,

anyway — might occur? I notice in the correspondence between the

directors of the Islands Trust and the minister, which has now been

tabled by one of the members opposite, that the Islands Trust even

suggests not only some local taxation, if necessary, to meet the

budgetary problem but a willingness to get on with some kinds of

commercial, even industrial, development. I think this is beside the

point. I think that an Islands Trust should be concerned with the

ecology and not with development that's covered in other ways and by

other levels of government.

I don't see any sinister purpose in Bill 30. I think if one wanted

to stretch his imagination, he could read this morning's Vancouver Province

and see where British Petroleum is drilling for natural gas on

Vancouver Island, and that the sedimentary basin in which they're

drilling extends through some or several of the Gulf Islands and into

the Georgia strait. Well, that's an old debate, and I doubt very much

whether there's any likelihood of any drilling taking place in the

Strait of Georgia. Certainly when I was a federal minister we made sure

that that didn't happen. You can count on the federal side, if not the

province, to ensure that that kind of development won't take place.

But again, I see an Islands Trust as something which doesn't

duplicate present levels of government. It is not another level of

government that has to have many powers — like the power to tax or to

decide land use in great detail. But I still would like to hear from

the minister precisely why his ministry should supply all the staff. I

think that staff or consultants supplying support to an Islands Trust

properly set up would be drawn, if they're drawn from government, from

Lands, Parks and Housing, from Environment, even from Highways and

certainly from Health. So I would like to hear from the minister

whether money is the problem, and how he is going to cover the

environmental, health and other aspects of staff support for the future

Islands Trust.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that Bill 30 in second

reading be amended by a reasoned amendment which states: "The

government, through its failure to consult with local representatives,

has created a situation respecting the Gulf Islands Trust area which is

contrary to the principles of cooperation, self-government and local

autonomy" — standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

Macdonald

Dailly

Cocke

Howard

Skelly

Stupich

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Williams

Lea

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

MacWilliam

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Blencoe

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Segarty

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

Kempf

A. Fraser

Parks

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Bennett

R. Fraser

Schroeder

Davis

Mowat

Ree

Strachan

Veitch

Reynolds

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

MR. SPEAKER: On the main motion, the first member for Vancouver East. [Applause.]

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to have the applause after they have heard what I am about to say.

I don't know what this minister is up to, and I've listened with

care to the debate. I haven't got a personal interest in the Gulf

Islands, apart from a small cottage with its adjoining outhouse. I

should declare that interest before I speak.

What we're really embarked upon here in the Legislature is embracing

a very pernicious principle. I'm going to talk a little bit about the

Gulf Islands, but I'm also going to talk about your board of school

trustees, Mr. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich). If this

principle is in order as it is applied to the 26 elected

representatives of the Islands Trust, in the sense that the government

can switch and pull their employees, would it apply to school boards?

Will that be the next extension? If the principle is sound....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, would it? Because that is the principle

we're debating, if you can call it a principle in this bill. If the

Islands Trust can have its manager appointed and then moved by this

government, would you think it proper, then, that the federal

government, which after all has an interest in many of the joint

programs in education and in many other fields, should have the power

in areas of provincial jurisdiction to remove the staff and to assign

the staff to administer the programs? Do you think it's proper in the

field of municipal affairs? Here is the minister who does not give us a

proper explanation of why this particular change is necessary — who

refuses to sit back, consult with the people of the Gulf Islands and

see whether there is some other plan.

I've been listening carefully to the second member for Victoria (Mr.

Blencoe), who has put up a magnificent and reasoned defence against

this bill. You know, Mr. Minister of Municipal Affairs, if you do this

here, would you perhaps think of doing it to the Greater Vancouver

Regional District? Their planning department has been kind of gutted by

this government already, but they still have their own staff. Would you

stop at this bill? Will you give the House your assurance that this is

the end insofar as this principle goes, that it will never be applied

by this government to other bodies such as municipal councils, regional

districts and boards of school trustees? There are other examples.

So you ask yourself: are we accepting a principle here that is inherently dangerous to democratic government? You

[ Page 5645 ]

ask yourself: what are the reasons for it? And the

minister says, I suppose — but he hasn't spelled it out.... He might

say that they're spending too much money on staff. Well, you can look

after that by consulting with them to begin with, and then this

government can look after that, if necessary, by other means. They've

done it in other cases. They've done it with the school districts. They

may say that they are appointing the wrong people, but elected

government at the local level is entitled to some autonomy and

self-respect in this province of British Columbia, and we see that

being eroded.

What the minister is doing, Mr. Speaker, is taking on the very

principle of local autonomy, not only with the Gulf Islands but

throughout the whole length and breadth of the province of British

Columbia. The principle in this bill is a bad one. The trustees meet,

and they say: "Well, we need a manager." I think there are 26 major

islands involved, and I suppose they do need a manager.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: There are 13 major islands and 26

representatives from the islands — and some smaller islands too, I

believe. They meet and they say, "We need a manager if we're to

preserve these islands with the kind of planning that will make them

the sort of place we want to live in, " and this government says: "We

will provide your manager, and if the manager makes a misstep, let it

always be remembered that we have the right in this bill to pull the

rug out from under him." Now that has definitely eroded the powers of

the trustees in a very significant way.

I agree entirely with the second member for Victoria. I don't want

to repeat what he said, Mr. Speaker, but that is a pernicious

principle. It's not a principle that's confined to the Gulf Islands.

It's a case of Big Brother government extending its reaches from

Victoria into areas where it has no right to be whatsoever in terms of

interfering with local autonomy. I think every school board, every

board of school trustees, every regional district and all of the

municipal councils should look at this bill and say: "What is the

philosophy of this Social Credit government of Victoria?" They are

power grabbing. They are destroying local autonomy. They are eroding

the right of people to decide local affairs at the local level. It's a

pernicious principle, very well exposed by my friend the second member

for Victoria.

I wonder why the minister would not at least stand down this bill.

He says that he's consulting, he's open, he listens; that was part of

his opening remarks. Who told you to bring in this bill, Mr. Minister?

You didn't tell us that. You've listened? Who did you listen to? Is

there some plan behind this bill, for some kind of an industrial park

somewhere? If so, come up front and talk about it. Or are there some

major sewer connections that may or may not be wanted by somebody on a

particular island? What's really the answer?

The minister is not being upfront with the Legislature. His brief

remarks introducing this bill did not explain why it was necessary to

thus drastically interfere with the local autonomy of the Islands Trust.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: You have a suspicious mind.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I've got every reason to have a

suspicious mind in a case like this. When you apply a principle that is

manifestly wrong in one area in terms of local government, you ask

yourself: can that be extended, and why is it being done? You have to

ask that second question.

So, Mr. Minister of Municipal Affairs, all you have to do — the

Legislature is not going home tomorrow morning — is go back and listen.

You say you're willing to listen. Tell us what groups or interests

really want this change. Who wants to adopt the principle that Victoria

appoints staff on locally elected boards that have their own

jurisdiction? What's the interest? What's the real reason behind the

bill? The principle is bad. When this Legislature adopts a bad

principle, time after time we have seen that principle extended into

other areas. Let's stop it before it starts.

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

[11:30]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, naturally I oppose the bill. One can

think no other way if one thinks the question through. I was interested

— and I wish he were still here — in the remarks from the member for

North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis). The member accurately went through

the history of the islands and the Islands Trust, indicating exactly

what happened chronologically. It strikes me that he favoured what

occurred in 1977: setting up the Trust as we know it now, with the

authority to have their own planning staff. He went back to the W.A.C.

Bennett days in 1969 when a ten-acre limit on development was

established. Then he also talked about the NDP Municipal Affairs

Committee that visited all those islands and finally came up with the

Trust idea, and then the amendments that followed in 1977.

Now the author of those amendments, Mr. Speaker, hasn't been in the

House during the debate. I recognize that he's off on a flight from

here to London to wherever else they can find money, and then finally

Japan and back.

MR. MACDONALD: He's going to Tokyo via Paris.

MR. COCKE: Whatever.

But the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), then Minister of

Municipal Affairs, I would think was trying to look after the interests

of those islands by recognizing that there were conflicts between the

various regional districts involved which couldn't be reconciled. We

rather thought that they could be, when we were government. But what

history taught us was that they could not be reconciled. Some of the

regional districts were for one thing and some for another, because the

islands include various regional districts. So the whole idea here was

to set them up as an autonomous body with their own region, so to

speak, and exclude them from the regional district planning situation.

Now I believe that that will ensure that the future of those islands

will be protected. Suddenly a minister of the Crown, recently

appointed, has come along and was trying desperately to follow in the

footsteps of another minister from his general region in the Fraser

Valley. That was Wild Bill Vander Zalm. This minister will never be

able to emulate the particular abilities — and sometimes disabilities,

I guess — of the former member for Surrey, but he's trying, and I think

he's making a terrible mistake. He's making a terrible mistake in Bill

30, because there has not been one word from the government side that

has indicated any good reason for it. There has not been one word from

the government side in real support of the minister's direction in this

matter.

[ Page 5646 ]

Now the member for North Vancouver–Seymour hasn't spoken on second

reading. But if he speaks on second reading the way he spoke on the

amendment, I fail to see how he could vote for this bill, because what

he supports and what I support — and what every thinking person should

support — is the direction that was taken in 1977, which is an

autonomous staff.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I have heard from the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds). I read every word he had to say in the Blues

again, after hearing him in the House, and I don't really think that if

I were a government member I would want the kind of support that he

offered, because it was totally hollow. He spent most of his time

railing against the opposition, and then he talked about governance on

the islands and indicated that there were 280 representatives elected

from the Islands, and so on and so forth. Of course he was talking

about everybody from school board people to, you know, everything he

could find — everything he could dredge up. The fact of the matter is

that he was telling us that 11,500 people are governed by 280. It has

nothing to do with this bill whatsoever, absolutely nothing. The

Islands Trust is composed of 26 elected people. He indicated that they

were receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars for all this

over-governance, when the truth of the matter is that $60,000 is what

the total proceeds are that are paid out to those 26 people who work

their butts off on behalf of the islands — $60,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: A little misleading, isn't it?

MR. COCKE: Just a trifle misleading, because we are talking

here about the future plans for those islands. Incidentally, anybody

who is working as a trustee in the Islands Trust is doing so out of the

goodness of his heart and his concern — or her concern — for the future

of those islands. It certainly is not in any way a pecuniary motivation

that's pushing people into that particular responsibility. Having said

that, Mr. Speaker, we have a minister who comes along and says: "We're

going to take away your ability to get things done the way they should

be done, according to your direction."

MR. MACDONALD: If you ask the manager to do something, he thumbs his nose at you.

MR. COCKE: That's right.

Once this bill is passed, the Islands Trust trustees go to their

manager or staff and say: "This is what we would like to do. We would

like to pursue this particular objective." And the staff say: "We'll

have to go to find out what the minister has to say about that." Then

they can't possibly go to....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The mumbling Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) says: "Not true." He hasn't been in this

debate, Mr. Speaker. He hasn't been up to defend his colleague. It is

true. It's absolutely true that this is the direction of this new

amendment to the Islands Trust Act, Bill 30. It is to take away their

ability to operate as responsible elected officials on behalf of the

area.

Another thing that the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound was talking about

was the limited population — 11,500 or whatever. Well, there is no question

that there is a need for limitation of population on those islands. There are

many islands now that are drawing salt in their drinking water. You can't

overtax vulnerable environments. Either one way or the other, you cannot draw

too much water, nor can you produce too much sewage. We don't know specifically

what's planned. I threw a remark across the floor that maybe they planned

to build a highrise hotel on Bowen Island. You just don't know.

MR. REYNOLDS: They should build a hotel there.

MR. COCKE: What kind of study has that member done?

The reason that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), the

member for Saanich and the Islands, put through the original amendment

in 1977 was the fact that he recognizes some of the damage that's being

done. But even his recognition of that hasn't given him enough

motivation to try to stem the tide on Saltspring vis-à-vis that sewer

that's going in on that particular island, which stands a very good

chance as a matter of fact, I think it's absolutely a certainty of

polluting that harbour.

Mr. Speaker, what this bill would do — what this bill does, in fact

— is to endeavour to make an advisory board out of the Islands Trust

trustees. There cannot be this kind of situation that develops in this

province and that goes unheeded by the opposition. I am pleased that

not only are the opposition stating their concerns on this matter but

that the islands' residents are up in arms. They are absolutely up in

arms about this question. They recognize the vulnerability of the

islands upon which they live. They recognize the great responsibility

that has been accepted by the trustees, and they recognize that the

trustees are the ones to best defend the interests of those islands.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard not only from people who reside on the

islands but from people all over the province who have concerns for

those islands. I would like to see those islands not deteriorate. I

would like them to be a place where my grandchildren can go someday,

and not just another plastic America. We must conserve the beauty, and

in so doing we must conserve the entire environment. There's no greed

among the people who want to conserve these islands. It's largess,

because they're saying the generations to come should have access to

such beauty.

When W.A.C. Bennett set up the ten-acre minimum for development in

1969, he did so because he knew something about it. He spent many of

the months and years he was here on Saltspring Island. As a matter of

fact, often when I would leave the Legislature for Vancouver I would

see the Premier in the row at the ferry going to the islands — him

heading his way and me heading back to the mainland. He had a love for

those islands, and he showed that love for those islands by trying to

protect them from overdevelopment.

[11:45]

That was just the first halting step, and then the progression was

made to date, as the member for North Vancouver-Seymour outlined. Now

suddenly, after that progression, we see a minister come along, without

adequate.... The member for North Vancouver–Seymour said something

about there having been some consultation; it doesn't sound like very

much consultation to me, even the evidence that he gave. But let's say

that the minister had told the chairman of the Islands Trust that this

was the direction that we planned to take. Is that consultation —

telling somebody that this is the

[ Page 5647 ]

direction you're going to take? It doesn't sound like consultation to me.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, it sounds more like the minister doing his

normal thing — that is, indicating: "I'm the boss. You'll take it or

leave it, because I have a bunch of puppets around me who are prepared

to vote for the legislation that I bring into this assembly."

Mr. Speaker, that isn't consultation. Consultation after the fact is

never consultation. If I were to say to anybody that I'd made my mind

up, that this is what I'd made it up about, and then come back to this

Legislature and say that I had consulted, I would expect to be looked

upon as somewhat of a person not to be terribly trusted.

If there were any good parts to this legislation, then those good

parts would by now have been brought out by residents of the islands. I

ask all the government members to tell me about any piece of

correspondence or any phone call from an ordinary resident of the

islands who supports Bill 30. If you got any, they were so few and far

between it's unbelievable. Judging from our correspondence, telephone

calls and the like, there is no support among those 11,500 people for

this legislation.

But we're not just talking about 11,500 people. We're talking about

thousands and thousands of acres of the most beautiful part of this

province. The reason we're concerned is the vulnerability of those

islands. We see islands for sale. We see situations in which the

government has not shown any interest in protecting not only those

islands but many other beautiful places in the province.

We see arguments that the productive way to handle the islands,

rather than having them in the area of the 26 elected representatives,

is to establish all direction in the minister's office. That is

absolutely arbitrary and undemocratic, and in the long run it's stupid.

The minister has shown no feeling whatsoever for those islands. He's

insensitive to the wishes of the people on those islands. And he comes

into our Legislature, this assembly, with the arrogance of a person

whose newly found authority has gone to his head. But the thing that

bothers me the most about it is the fact that he's getting support from

the muppets and the puppets...

MR. REID: Everyone likes him. Everyone.

MR. COCKE: ...like the member for Surrey, poor fellow, who

obviously hasn't thought this question out either. But you will notice

one thing, Mr. Speaker, about the member for Surrey and the other

members of that particular party. Are they up here defending the

minister? Not on your life.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. To the bill, hon. members.

There are many more speakers left to speak, and I'll ask the member to

speak to the bill or take his place. J

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I rather thought I was speaking

to the bill when I suggested that there obviously is not the kind of

support that the minister wishes. Otherwise he would have some debate

in his favour going on from that side of the House, other than catcalls

and the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) — who I believe

really is very much opposed to the bill.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: He really did. He indicated that the 1977 amendment was where his heart lay. He very clearly made that statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where does his vote lie?

MR. COCKE: We'll see. Maybe it will be among the muppets and

the puppets. Hopefully not; hopefully for once the only free member on

the Social Credit side, the only one without a portfolio or a

secretaryship....

MR. WILLIAMS: Less expensive, not free.

MR. COCKE: Yes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. To the bill.

MR. COCKE: The only one who is free to vote his heart of hearts — let’s see what he will do.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Wouldn't you like me to! I would just like to say

that I haven't visited every island, as the member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) seems to have, but those islands

that I have visited — and it's many — have really raised my imagination

about the way they should be preserved for the future.

I only wish that, rather than do something like we're doing here,

this government would see their way clear to doing as we did in 1973:

that is, on such an important matter as this, by moving a committee of

the House around those islands to talk to the people and get some

inkling at the source, at the point, of the possibilities that those

islands could provide for this province. Instead of that, instead of

moving committees of this Legislature around, we have ministers

arbitrarily making decisions about the future of our islands that are

not in the best interests of this province. It's not the first time

that they've done that sort of thing; nor, I'm sure, will it be the

last. But I think these islands are far too precious to turn them over

to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who can't even handle the job

that he's got right now.

If this bill passes, the Minister of Municipal Affairs has done a

tremendous disservice to his colleague the Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Curtis), who is out globetrotting at the moment. What he's actually

done is to ensure the defeat of the Minister of Finance.

MR. HOWARD: It's worth it, then. I think I'll vote for the bill, if that's the effect.

MR. COCKE: The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) just lost his

marbles for a second. Nothing, even the defeat of that minister, is

worth turning over those islands to the Minister of Municipal Affairs,

who has absolutely no sensitivity or feeling towards the future of

those islands. It strikes me that maybe what he should do is just sit

on this bill for a short while, leave it languishing on the order paper

until such time as the Minister of Finance is back. Then it may have a

few hours of discussion, because while I'm not totally satisfied by any

means by what the Minister of Finance has done with

[ Page 5648 ]

respect to those islands, he has, in my opinion, shown more sensitivity than the present Minister of Municipal Affairs.

I would hope that before this debate is over and before this bill

can get to committee, where it can be thoroughly gone over again, the

minister is going to see reason and think about the whole democratic

process. He was elected — that minister — not as a minister but as a

politician and as a representative of a political party. If he thinks

in terms of that election process and what he's doing to it in another

arena, then maybe he will rethink this bill and take it back.

It should never have been introduced, but having been introduced

now.... The minister's ego must not stand in the way of its being

withdrawn. It's the thin edge of the wedge for the death of the entire

Islands Trust concept, a concept that everybody's been comfortable with

because that Trust has been defending those islands and will continue

to defend those islands.

Mr. Speaker, I see my red light is on, so I'll just wind up by

indicating that you must not take away the administrative aspect of the

Islands Trust. If you do you've ruined the whole thing.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, I have a few things that I'd

like to say about this bill, but in light of the time, I would at this

point move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the

House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12 noon.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1986,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada