[ Page 3237 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

Distribution of Hansard Blues. Mr. Speaker — 3237

Increased payments by Department of Human Resources. Hon. Mr. Levi — 3237

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Provincial revenue and expenditures to March 31, 1974. Mr. Fraser — 3238

Gas price guidelines. Mr. L.A. Williams — 3238

Proposed plans for the Inner Harbour area. Mr. Morrison — 3239

Cost of increased social allowance payments. Mr. L.A. Williams — 3240

Number of people employed under vote 222. Hon. Mr. Hartley — 3240

Square footage of Victoria Times building. Hon. Mr. Hartley — 3240

Advertising for staff for rentals man department. Mr. Smith — 3240

Examination into provincial steel needs. Mr. L.A. Williams — 3241

Details of employees working under unauthorized legislation. Mr. Gibson — 3241

Whereabouts of Mrs. Johnson. Mr. Morrison — 3241

Appropriateness of hospital services pricing structure. Mr. L.A. Williams — 3241

Prejudgment Interest Act (Bill 66).

Report and third reading — 3242

Legal Professions Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 33). Committee stage.

Amendment to section 8.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3242

Report stage — 3242

Transit Services Act (Bill 70). Committee stage.

Amendment to section 11.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3242

Report stage — 3242

Lotteries Act (Bill 83). Committee stage.

Amendment to section 2.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3242

Amendment to section 5.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3243

Report stage — 3243

Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act (Bill 88). Committee stage.

Amendment to section 1.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3243

Amendment to section 3.

Mr. Curtis — 3243

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3243

Report stage — 3243

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 11). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3243

Succession Duty Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 12). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3244

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3244

Mrs. Jordan — 3245

Elderly Citizen Renters Grant Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 8). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 3246

Mr. McClelland — 3246

Mr. Gibson — 3246

Mr. Fraser — 3246

Mrs. Jordan — 3247

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 3247

County Courts Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 74). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3247

Mr. Smith — 3248

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3248

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3248

Criminal Injuries Compensation Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 73). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3248

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3248

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3248

Emergency Health Services Act (Bill 93). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 3248

Mr. McClelland — 3249

Mr. Morrison — 3250

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3250

Mr. Fraser — 3251

Hon, Mr. Cocke — 3251

Special Provincial Employment Programmes Act (Bill 101). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. King — 3253

Mr. Fraser — 3253

Mr. Gibson — 3253

Mr. Wallace — 3254

Hon. Mr. King — 3254

Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission Act (Bill 120). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 3255

Mr. McClelland — 3256

Mr. Wallace — 3256

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 3258

Islands Trust Act (Bill 112), Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3258

Mr. Fraser — 3259

Mr. Curtis — 3260

Ms. Sanford — 3263

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3265

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3266

Ms. Brown — 3267

Mr. Bennett — 3269

Mr. Wallace — 3270

TUESDAY, MAY 21, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Monsieur l'Orateur, je voudrais dire à les étudiants de "la belle province" avec nous ce jour — "bienvenu et bonne chance."

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the House to welcome a group of students who are visiting with us today from that very great constituency of Coquitlam. They are from the senior secondary high school of Port Coquitlam.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): This morning, visiting the House there were some students from the Surrey Centre School in Cloverdale. I think some of them may be in the gallery today and I'd like the House to welcome them as well.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, seated on the floor of the House to your right, starting from the far end, are: Mr. Russell Stanton; Mr. Doug Mowat, the executive director of the Canadian Paraplegic Association; Mr. Doug Wilson from the Canadian Paraplegic Association; and Mr. Don Voe, also with the Canadian Paraplegic Association. I'd also like to point out that Mr. Wilson was a member of the first Wheelchair Olympics and represented Canada, as did Mr. Mowat, who was the team manager.

They're over here to meet with various Ministers and I might also add that they participated in the Advisory Committee on the Handicapped which was formed after the handicapped conference last fall. The advisory committee will be travelling throughout the province in the next two months to hear representations from various people who work with the handicapped and are handicapped as to what their needs are. I would ask the House to welcome them.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I draw to your attention an editorial that has come to hand from the Province which is headed "'Truth' Stranger Than Fiction," dated Wednesday, May 15 — last week. It states:

"Anyone for a round of 'now you say it, now you don't'? Those interested in participating in this popular political game don't even need an excursion to Washington, D.C. They can find it as close to home as Victoria, B.C.

"There, thanks to House Speaker Gordon Dowding, anyone with a speech to delete can play."

The editorial then goes on to describe what can be done to the transcripts here. For the peace of mind of every Member and the public of British Columbia, I wish to table the only two transcripts which have come into contention in this House, which happened last week, both of which I went over as a referee to determine what was on the tape and what was transcribed in the record. I table them now in the House.

I also wish to make a further statement with regard to the unofficial Blues that have also been the source of some discussion. I met with Messrs. Hall, Bennett, Anderson and Wallace — that is, the spokesmen for the various parties — respecting the problem of the unofficial publication of Hansard advance copies.

The present unsatisfactory state of the law relating to distributing of such material, so far as loss of immunity is concerned, was discussed. Each Member should be aware of possible implications of the distribution of these copies, although naturally each person must bear the responsibility for his own actions. It was agreed that a general indication of the problem be circulated, and I'm doing that today so every Member knows what the problem is all about.

The other thing is that the Blues will be given to each caucus room as well as in the chamber at 12 o'clock each day. At 11 o'clock you would be urged to have your corrections, if any, back to Hansard — that is, each day — or that interval of time between the two.

I point out to you that if Members do not read their statements in the Pinks and return corrections of manifest errors — and I want to emphasize the words manifest errors — in the reporting by 11 o'clock, the record will go as shown unless caught in the official printed edition.

For the benefit of everyone, including the public, I quote from Parliament and Its Sovereignty by Hollis:

"A Member may correct mistakes of reporting, but he must on no account alter the substance of his speech. What he has said, he has said."

And that is the view I take of the duty of Hansard and my own duty as a referee in these matters.

Introduction of bills.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I want to announce today the increased payments by the department for social assistance allowances, nursing home and private hospital care, comforts allowances, child care and foster care for children.

[ Page 3238 ]

On July 1, 1974, social allowance basic payments will be increased by $20 for each family. One person will receive $160 per month; two people in the family will receive $270 per month; three people in the family will receive $320; four people will receive $370; five people will receive $420; six people will receive $465; seven people, $505; eight people, $545; nine people, $585; and 10 people in the family unit will receive $625 monthly.

We are concerned about the effects of the cost of living in respect to minimum- and low-wage earners who are finding it extremely difficult to financially manage, particularly those with children. Increased family allowance benefits of $20 per child instituted by the federal government in January of this year have substantially assisted social allowance recipients and low-income earners in keeping pace. The new Residential Premises Interim Rent Stabilization Act limiting rent increases to 8 per cent, recently introduced by the provincial government, has further assisted low-income groups.

I want to make it clear that any wage earner whose net income from employment is less than an equivalent sum that could be received as social assistance can contact the local office of the Department of Human Resources for subsidization of earnings.

Mr. Speaker, more and more we are becoming convinced that we must move towards a more rational system of income security for all people, based on models of guaranteed minimum income, negative income tax and social insurance concepts. The department is undertaking ongoing research in these areas.

On June 1, 1974, payments for private hospital care will increase to a maximum of $525 per month for any residents requiring subsidized care. Where residents requiring subsidized care are receiving intermediate care, in rest homes or in other special-care facilities for senior citizens, new rates will range between $250 per month for residents, and $400 per month depending on the nature of the programme. The new amount paid for personal care will range between $225 and $250 per month.

I would like to differentiate between intermediate care and personal care. Intermediate care facilities are for room, board, daily professional nursing supervision, and for some psychiatric supervision, plus assistance for some of the activities of daily living and help to become involved in social and recreational activities.

Personal care requires a lesser level of daily supervision. The provisions for persons utilizing this latter level of care, in addition to room and board, are for limited lay supervision, assistance with some of the activities of daily living and aid in becoming involved in social and recreational activities.

Effective July, 1, comforts allowances for patients in need in the various special-care institutions and mental health facilities will receive the uniform rate of $25 per month throughout the province.

On June 1, 1974, rate increase for subsidizing child day care in day-care centres will rise by $10 per child to a maximum of $120 for a full day. Subsidized payments to provide as a family day care, and day care in a child's own home will rise by $15 per month to a maximum of $90 a month for a full day.

Subsidized payments for nursery and kindergarten will be raised by $5 per month to a child, to a maximum of $40 a month. Subsidized payments for before- and after-school care will also rise by $5 per child per month to a maximum of $50 monthly.

On July 1, 1974, the child foster payments will include clothing, food and other personal-care costs will increase for some, but not all age categories. Payments for foster children who range in age up to and including five years of age amount to $69 a month plus $20 family allowance, or $89 per month per child. Payments for foster children aged six to 11 inclusive will be $112 including family allowance. Payments for foster children ages 12 and 13 will be $137 per month, including the family allowance. Payments for foster children 14 and over will be $152 including family allowance.

Oral questions.

PROVINCIAL REVENUE AND
EXPENDITURES TO MARCH 31,1974.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier and Minister of Finance. Could you advise the House what the actual revenue and expenditures for the Province of British Columbia were as of the end of the fiscal year March 31, 1974?

MR. BARRETT: I'll take the question as notice, Mr. Member.

GAS PRICE GUIDELINES

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Attorney-General: In connection with the current controversy over the application of guidelines for the price of gasoline in British Columbia, would you advise the House whether or not the chairman of the Energy Commission has been in touch with the ARA — I believe it is — that controls the service station dealers, to determine whether or not any cooperation can be obtained from them in standing to your guidelines?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the energy, board and Mr. Lloyd Kinneard have been in

[ Page 3239 ]

touch with one another. Of course, there are no guidelines as such relating to the dealer markup. It is the charge to the station that we are concerned to protect.

Perhaps I should say that we've had acceptance of our provincial guidelines, I believe, from Imperial, from Pacific and from Standard. I don't think we've heard from Mohawk and Union which are small companies. We've had a little bit of disagreement from Gulf Oil of Canada and Shell Oil. Therefore I've asked the energy board to write to these two companies — and I believe they've done that today — requesting them to attend a hearing to be held in the board room of the Energy Commission on June 4 at 9 o'clock to justify, if they're able to justify it, their declining to go along with the provincial guidelines. The two companies, whose names I've given, are to let the board know by May 28 whether or not they will attend such a hearing, at the request of the Energy Commission.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: A supplemental. I appreciate what the Hon. Attorney-General says, Mr. Speaker, concerning the effect of guidelines upon the refiners, and therefore the wholesale price. But it appears that some dealers are raising the price as much as 2 cents, and that the chairman of the Energy Commission has suggested that perhaps one half a cent is justified. I wonder to what extent this matter has been examined into and if further discussions will be held at dealer level.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'm sure there will be continuing discussions. This is really a request to the dealers to exercise restraint in this period.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): On the same subject, to the Attorney-General: Has the Attorney-General been made aware of significant price increases in northern and eastern sections of the province, quite above the increases which have been experienced on the lower mainland and Vancouver Island?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No I'm not fully aware of the various price fluctuations that have taken place all across the province. That data is still being assembled.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Is the Attorney-General saying then that there are, in fact, no guidelines at the retail level that have been specified at the moment? Is there simply the wholesale guidelines and he is not prepared at the moment to give any retail guideline figure?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Only suggestions at the retail markup level.

MR. GIBSON: And what exactly is that suggestion?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Hold the line and leave the markup the same.

MR. GIBSON: In other words, 8 cents, no more, at the retail level.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mind you, the dealer markup varies; it goes from everywhere from 12 cents in one station to 14 cents somewhere else, to even more where a very small volume of gas is retailed by the dealer. So they vary all over the province. We've just asked them if they could, in this difficult period of inflation, exercise restraint and maintain the dealer markup at the same levels as heretofore.

MR. GIBSON: In percentage terms or absolute terms, if I might follow that up once more?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, I'd prefer absolute terms, because if they use percentage then, of course, that really means an increase, doesn't it, in view of what the refiners have done? In absolute terms, we'd request them to maintain that existing markup.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): A supplemental on the same subject. If the Attorney-General has made provision for the wholesalers of gasoline to meet with the energy board concerning the guidelines and adherence to it or otherwise, is he prepared to extend the same privilege to the members of the retail auto association who dispense gasoline at the pumps, so if they have a legitimate case, this can be made with respect to the markup they put on the gas that they receive from the wholesalers?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'd just point out to the Hon. Member that it's two companies that we've requested to attend the hearing, two only, not all of them. The door is open to the ARA, and communications with the Energy Commission should be maintained as they have been in the past, but that's simply an open-door situation with the ARA.

PROPOSED PLANS FOR
THE INNER HARBOUR AREA

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): My question is addressed to the Premier and Minister of Finance. Now that the province has acquired the Reid property in the Inner Harbour, could he advise the House what other properties they might intend to acquire in the Inner Harbour, and could he tell us what the long-range plans of the government are for

[ Page 3240 ]

this Inner Harbour area?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't think the question is in order, it's a matter of policy.

MR. SPEAKER: It's future policy by the sound of it.

COST OF INCREASED
SOCIAL ALLOWANCE PAYMENTS

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: To the Hon. Minister of Human Resources: in connection with the statement which he delivered to the House this afternoon, first of all, is the Minister prepared to make copies available to the Members?

HON. MR. LEVI: The Members do have copies, Mr. Member.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, dealing with the same matter — can the Minister indicate what the current cost of the programme is, and what the likely increase of cost will be, effective July 1?

HON. MR. LEVI: I can deal more specifically with the increase. The increase for the welfare rates will be $9.6 million, and there will be a $6 million increase in respect to the personal care and the chronic-care field, the foster care, day care and the comforts allowance for a total of just over $15 million.

NUMBER OF PEOPLE
EMPLOYED UNDER VOTE 222

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): The Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) asked the number of persons employed under vote 222. That number is 323 persons.

SQUARE FOOTAGE OF
VICTORIA TIMES BUILDING

There was also a question asked with regard to the square footage of the property known as the Victoria Times building.

The total square footage of building space is close to 80,000 feet and the acreage is about 1.9 acres; it's almost two acres on Douglas Street, just south of Hillside. The cost of the office space works out to about $17.50 a foot. At today's building costs it would cost us at least $35 a square foot to build office space.

MR. SPEAKER: There's one thing I point out to the Hon. Members. The Hon. Minister, I understand, gave an undertaking to give answers to these questions that he couldn't answer during his estimates. The question is whether he should do it during question period. I think he should do it during the question period in case other questions revolve around the answer. Now maybe you don't believe that; if you don't, tell me.

ADVERTISING FOR STAFF
FOR RENTALSMAN DEPARTMENT

MR. SMITH: I have a question to the Hon. Attorney-General. I have to preface the question with a reference back to the oral question period of April 30, 1974, when I questioned the Attorney-General on the propriety of appointing a rentalsman for the Province of British Columbia prior to the time that the Landlord and Tenant Act had been through debate, second reading and final approval in this House.

I believe, in paraphrasing the Minister's remarks, he indicated that this was an order-in-council appointment and therefore was not advertised and probably would not be required; but if people were required by this department, then certainly they should be advertised for in a proper manner, and so on, after the bill had been through the House.

I'd like to ask the Attorney-General who authorized the placing of four ads in today's copy of The Province, which requests people to apply for the positions of director of finance, officer manager, director of information and an economist statistician for the rentalsman department, when we are still in the position that the bill has not been through this House or debated or passed?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the particular ads. I do know that we're looking…. I don't think that anybody could be appointed to a non-existent body or be paid a salary by a non-existent body unless, or until, this Legislature acts. But because of the social urgency related to this matter, I dare say that people are already scouting for suitable people who will be part of the staff. Frankly, I am not aware of the ad as such.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental question, Mr. Speaker. The ads are placed in such a manner that they clearly say "for senior appointments;" and they also indicate the salary range that these people can expect if they apply for the job. Yet the bill has never cleared the House setting up the Landlord and Tenant Act, let alone anything else.

Is the Attorney-General aware of that? Or will he take steps to see that it doesn't happen again?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take steps to make sure that anything of that kind will be subject to the Legislature. Of course, there can

[ Page 3241 ]

be no such jobs until the Legislature deals with the matter.

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary. I just wonder, in the light of the Attorney-General's comments, whether he considers that the people appointed and hired by the community resources board in Vancouver are illegally operating their positions, since the legislation has not passed through this House.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think you can call upon the Attorney-General to give a legal opinion.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You'd have to ask a lawyer.

MR. McCLELLAND: You gave us one earlier.

MR. SPEAKER: That must have sneaked through. We have a lawyer now.

EXAMINATION INTO
PROVINCIAL STEEL NEEDS

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I will be happy to for a small fee, Mr. Speaker.

To the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce. With reference to arrangements concluded during his successful trip to Japan for the supply of steel to this province, has the Minister or his department concluded the examination indicating the specifications of the steel which this province will require?

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, the investigations are still ongoing, but the bulk of that information is being collated now.

I expect that it will be coming in in dribs and drabs — the balance of the individuals that use steel that would wish to operate through our office to get a steel supply from Japan.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: A supplementary. Am I to understand from the Minister that under this arrangement steel shapes will be available as well as rebar and sheet steel?

HON. MR. LAUK: Yes.

DETAILS OF EMPLOYEES WORKING
UNDER UNAUTHORIZED LEGISLATION

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in this comparison between the rentalsman position advertising and the community resource boards. I wonder if the Minister of Human Resources could tell us how many people are currently working in positions which are yet to be authorized by that particular legislation.

HON. MR. LEVI: There are no people working currently in respect to the Vancouver Resource Board. I have a consultant over there and one person who was employed under the employment programme. Those are the only two people that I am aware of at the moment.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary. How about the boards themselves, Mr. Speaker, and any staff that they might have?

HON. MR. LEVI: I just mentioned the staff that the boards have — those two people.

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary. That includes Mr. Jim Karpoff, the new manager of the board; you've included him in there?

HON. MR. LEVI: No, I did not include that.

MR. McCLELLAND: But he is in fact working for the board, is he not?

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, he is — for the Vancouver South Resource Board, not the Vancouver Resource Board.

MR. McCLELLAND: The illegal one.

WHEREABOUTS OF MRS. JOHNSON

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address my question to the Premier. I wonder if he could tell the House what has happened to one of his greatest fans, Mrs. Johnson, who I see is missing. We miss her smiling face.

HON. MR. BARRETT: She's in Ottawa visiting her son and, I hope, giving the federal government — what was the former federal government — the same advice that they were giving us.

MR. MORRISON: I'm happy to hear that she's not ill; we enjoy her company.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We are too. We need every vote.

AN HON. MEMBER: And how!

APPROPRIATENESS OF HOSPITAL
SERVICES PRICING STRUCTURE

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, to the Hon.

[ Page 3242 ]

Minister of Health Services. In connection with the recent publicity that has been given to the use of patients in government hospital institutions to do work for outside organizations, has the Minister conducted an examination to determine the appropriateness of the prices being charged by the institutions for the services that are rendered?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we are in the process now of examining that aspect of the rehabilitation programme. The programme itself I am, quite in favour of — in other words, the using of people for useful occupational therapy so that they can improve their own state of mind through occupation therapy. But I wasn't aware at the time of the use of patients for outside work, and I am looking at that now very carefully.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker. Report on Bill 66.

PREJUDGMENT INTEREST ACT

Bill 66 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 33, Mr. Speaker.

The House in committee on Bill 33; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

Section 5 as amended approved.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

On section 8.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Speaking very briefly to the amendment which came from the Law Society of the Province of British Columbia and which says that this section is retroactive to the extent necessary to give it full force and effect from that date, which is July, 1948. I hope that the lawyers will never criticize this little government for a retroactive legislation.

Section 8 as amended approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 33, Legal Professions Amendment Act, 1974, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 70, Mr. Speaker.

TRANSIT SERVICES ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 70; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 11.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper for subsection 5 of section 11. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Sections 11 to 15 inclusive as amended approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 70, Transit Services Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 83, Mr. Speaker.

LOTTERIES ACT

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): I move the amendments standing in my name on the order paper.

[ Page 3243 ]

(See appendix.) By way of explanation, these amendments are recommended to me by the Deputy Attorney-General and the federal authorities. They flow from the requirements of the Criminal Code of Canada that we must be a little bit more explicit in section 2 than we were in the bill before you.

Amendments approved.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive as amended approved.

On section 5.

HON. MR. HALL: Again, Mr. Chairman, I'm advised that we need this language in the bill for the purpose of the Criminal Code.

Amendment approved.

Sections 5 to 10 inclusive as amended approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 83, Lotteries Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 88, Mr. Speaker.

SEWERAGE FACILITIES ASSISTANCE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 88; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 1.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I move the amendments standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Sections 1 and 2 as amended approved.

On section 3.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): I move the second amendment standing in my name on the order paper, page 23 for today. (See appendix.)

HON. MR. LORIMER: I just want to state that we'll accept that amendment. It is an oversight.

Amendment approved.

Sections 3 to 6 inclusive as amended approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 88, Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 11, Mr. Speaker.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

[ Page 3244 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this amendment to increase the credit allowed for logging tax paid against income tax payable is necessary to keep the credit allowed current with the income tax rates payable in 1974. The federal Income Tax Act provides a reduction in the federal corporation tax of 1 per cent from 39 per cent in 1973 to 38 per cent in 1974. When the provincial 12 per cent rate on corporation income tax is added to the federal rate, the total corporate income tax rate in 1974 is 50 per cent instead of 51 per cent in 1973. Therefore, to be current, the offset is 12 to 50 instead of 12 to 51.

This bill, therefore, proposes to adjust the offset allowed for logging tax paid to match the change in the corporate income tax rate payable in 1974.

In addition, an amendment has been requested by the Government of Canada, which collects the tax for the province under the federal-provincial collection agreement, which will simplify the calculation of installment payments required to be made throughout the current year by individuals and corporations who do not have income tax deducted at the source in their earnings. This amendment was not received by the provincial officials until the introduction of Bill 11, Income Tax Amendment Act, 1974, submitted to the House on budget day. This bill will replace Bill 11.

Motion approved.

Bill 11, Income Tax Amendment Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole

House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 12, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Hon. Members will recall that special beneficiaries under the Succession Duty Act have a basic exemption of $150,000 and bear a much lower duty rate on any amount in excess of the exemption. These special beneficiaries are husband, wife, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, child, grandchild, son-in-law or daughter-in-law. This bill proposes to add great-grandchildren to this class of special beneficiaries.

The bill also proposes to benefit small estates by allowing custody of the property of the estate to be obtained without the necessity of probate or administration where the gross value of the estate is under $5,000 instead of $2,000 as is now the limit. This means these small estates do not have to be processed through the courts.

I want to point out, as I've stated on many occasions publicly, contrary to statements made by certain Members of the opposition, there are wide margins of concessions and exemptions for beneficiaries under the succession duty. We intend as a government to keep succession duties on.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Double taxation.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The question of double taxation raised by the Member, I want to point out, was a tax brought in by the former government. Then, during the heat of an election campaign to pacify the rich of this province, the former Premier promised to take the legislation off.

A basic exemption of $150,000 is a fair basic exemption. Anybody with an estate over that amount of money should be prepared to pay succession duties. The rich must pay their fair share in this society. I want to make it perfectly clear that the exemptions that already exist in the bill do not offer any hardship on any citizen.

The wealthy are asked to pay their share. The modest citizen or the person who has worked hard to leave an estate for his family is not unduly punished by this bill; it is only the wealthy who are concerned. If the opposition wishes to speak for the wealthy, that is their prerogative, but it is our prerogative also to defend the rights of the poor and the average income family in this province.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, I don't have any hesitation in

[ Page 3245 ]

standing and speaking for the people who have estates in excess of $150,000. If the premier thinks that they are the wealthy of this province, I happen to think they are hard-working people who have shown initiative and the ability to save and are in a position to pass that on to their heirs.

However, that's not what this bill is all about. This bill extends the definition of "special beneficiary" to include great-grandchild, and therefore to extend to an additional class of persons the $150,000 exemption of which the Premier is so proud.

In doing this, Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid that the government has failed to recognize other classes of persons in the Province of British Columbia who should be taken into account when making this kind of an exemption. Great-grandchildren are a long way removed from the person who made the money or saved it and left the estate. Yet we have in our society people whose relationship is very much closer than a man or woman and their great-grandchild who should be given consideration by this government.

I'm thinking of those men and women who, by reason of circumstances, have no family or have lost all their family and who have formed associations of very lasting significance for them — associations of equal importance to that which exists between a husband and a wife, and certainly between an individual and his or her great-grandchild. I'm thinking of people such as young widows who continue to work in our society, save their money, form an association with some other person — perhaps another young widow or spinster — live together, share a common home and contribute each to the welfare of their particular community. Then as the years go by and one of them dies, the other is left alone, and even though the deceased member of the partnership may have left his or her estate to the other, that estate is subjected to the full impact of succession duties in this province.

I agree to extend the class of special beneficiaries to great-grandchildren. I would hope we would never go so far as to extend it beyond that. But at this particular time it seems to me that the government should take careful cognizance of the fact that by creating a class of special beneficiaries we are, at the same time, clearly establishing a marked difference between those people related by blood and those people whose relationship is purely social — a relationship which indeed may be closer and more effective and more valuable to the community than the blood relationship.

I would hope that the Hon. Premier and Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) would see fit to review the matter of exemptions, particularly with people who have lived together and who really have a joint estate, and where on the death of one that particular community is very seriously affected by the crippling effect of succession duties and the absence of a limit

of exemption.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I just can't hold with the silly, childish statement that the Premier of this province always stands up and makes when one talks about succession duties — to say that this is protecting the rich. This is another blind thought that the Premier of this province has.

For his information, the majority of the rich people in British Columbia are moving their money out of British Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Shame!

MRS. JORDAN: I'm sure this lady is defending the right of a widow to receive without heavy taxation — double taxation — the just benefits that have been accrued between husband and wife through years of working and saving without having double taxation imposed by this government.

In the previous instance when there was an estate tax in British Columbia, this was with the full knowledge that there was no capital gains tax in Canada. This meant that people could acquire windfall profits over a lifetime or just a short period of time which were not taxed, and that these untaxed profits could then pass within a family without taxation. And that was the purpose of the succession duty tax.

But, Mr. Speaker, in Canada today we have a capital gains tax of a fairly substantial portion. When you relate this to a family, particularly between husband and wife, you see us existing in a society today where wives and husbands are contributing in many instances mutually in terms of earned income to that estate, and where wives are contributing equally in terms of emotional input and responsibility in the marriage when they are not gainfully employed, so that the benefits accruing to that marriage are through an equal partnership and should be shared justly.

What the Premier is saying is that in fact a wife does not have the right to share in the mutually built up capital assets and benefits of a marriage to which she has contributed in her lifetime, and that she, through taxation, must reduce her standard of living to the extent that the state says is acceptable, and that if that is not sufficient, within two or three years, at the rate of inflation today, then she has the happy alternative of becoming dependent on the state. Mr. Speaker, I say this is wrong. I say that people in British Columbia — the average family — can well amass an estate of over $150,000. I would remind the Premier that that involves various classifications, which is a way of forcing people to put their assets into certain investments, because you are only allowed $25,000, for example, in investment securities. So the state is not only double taxing; it is trying to dictate through estate taxation how people should invest their funds.

Also, Mr. Speaker, it is common knowledge that larger corporations or businesses or families with considerable amounts of money can well afford to have what is good, but also expensive, tax legal advice. They have accountants working for them through their business and in nearly all these instances the family estate planning is done through an income tax-deductible cost. This benefit is not available to the average family in British Columbia. Anyone who's signing their cheques today who knows about income tax knows the average person must pay his accounting bill for his income tax, and doesn't have a write-off.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the wealthy people in British Columbia — and I assume the Premier means the multi-millionaires, and millionaires are in fact removing their money from British Columbia to such places as Alberta, right within Canada, to avoid estate taxes. Those with larger means and involved in business can plan their estates with expert legal and tax advice at the expense of a business and not at the expense of the spending money that a family has. In fact all moneys today, with the exception of the lotteries that will come into British Columbia and which I wonder if this government is going to tax, are in fact taxed profits between husband and wife, in their instance. By levying an estate tax on husband and wife, the transfer of this asset does, in fact, amount to double taxation.

The last point that I would like to make, which I think should be very dear to the Premier's heart in view of his history as a social worker and his concern for people, is that when two people unite in marriage there are enough problems without them having to sit down monthly and having to figure out who paid for what. Mr. Speaker, this type of an estate tax does, in fact, levy a "yours" and "mine" attitude in marriages, because in order to divide the estate the wife must keep receipts and cancelled cheques for what she has bought, the husband must keep receipts and cancelled cheques for what he has bought, and in most marriages, Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that generally people don't want to be involved in this type of "yours" and "mine" possessive attitude. It is a union of many things, including a union of financing, and the state is imposing a divisive attitude on family units in British Columbia by this attitude.

I don't feel any embarrassment in defending the right of a wife or a husband to receive the benefits that accrue during a marriage without double taxation. I'm pleased, Mr. Speaker, to say it here in the House and I certainly will say it anywhere outside. And I'll meet the Premier on a platform, because I feel that we have instances in this House…and I can see he can hardly wait to get up

[ Page 3246 ]

to rant and rave about defending the rich.

We have instances in this House, Mr. Premier, and you know one is coming up, where you accuse me of….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Hon. Member to adjourn the debate? I don't want to miss the debate, but I have another very important appointment.

MRS. JORDAN: Would you give me a commitment to remove the estate tax between husband and wife in British Columbia? (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: No bargaining, please.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I'll move adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. HALL: Second reading of Bill 8, Mr. Speaker.

ELDERLY CITIZEN RENTERS GRANT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to amend the Elderly Citizen Renters Grant Act by raising the amount of the grants for tenants aged 65 years and over to $80, and for the first time provided tenants aged under 65 years with a grant, which this year will be $30.

Changing the title of the Act to the Renters Resource Grant Act indicates to the people of British Columbia that this proposal is one way of redistributing the wealth of the province. As the House knows, with our new resource policies the provincial government is starting to get a better return for the people from the province's timber and mineral wealth.

The government recognized that tenants, through their rents and municipal taxes…and this measure is one step the government is taking in the direction of equalizing the municipal tax load between homeowners and tenants. The government is proposing to raise the amount of the grant for tenants aged 65 and over from $50 to $80 per year, an increase of 60 per cent, because we realize that senior citizens need special protection from increases in housing costs.

By the way, persons aged 65 and over living in senior citizens' housing operated by non-profit organizations such as churches and service clubs or in provincial senior citizens' housing are also eligible to receive these grants, provided they occupy a separate household unit.

In the calendar year 1973, the Department of Housing approved 48,096 applications aged 65 and over for a total sum of $2,431,575. It's estimated that there will be approximately 50,000 applications for the $80 grant in 1974 for $4 million, and approximately 250,000 applications for the $30 grant for $7.5 million.

With the exception of Ontario, I'm not aware of any other province that has a scheme of assisting tenants with their housing costs in such a direct manner.

It's with pleasure that I rise in support of this bill, Mr. Speaker. I move second reading.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I just want to rise to thank the Minister on behalf of those rich British Columbians that the Premier was speaking about who live in $800 penthouses in West Vancouver and will be getting their $2.50 a month, thanks to this bill. I think they'll be very happy.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: We know you speak on their behalf.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, this government never fails to amaze me. I'm glad that the Hon. Member for Langley mentioned that figure of $2.50 per month. It is not much of an assistance to the renters of this province when we consider that this Minister has, almost single-handed, stopped the construction of rental units throughout this province. When he's put a freeze on, when he's going out to build 2,000 new rental units, as he boasts in a press release, and at the same time has stopped the ordinary construction of something in excess of 15,000 rental units which are built in British Columbia every year, it's just not good enough to be giving renters an extra $2.50 per month.

The Minister was speculating that there'll be something like 200,000 applications for the $30-a-year grant. I'd like to ask the Minister, when he makes his remarks in closing second reading, if he could give us an approximate cost of the paper work on those 200,000 $30 grants.

I'd like him also — and this really goes to the basic philosophical part of this bill — to describe to this House the relationship that he foresees coming up in the long run between the homeowner's grant and the renter's grant. Is it the long-term intention of the government to bring about parity in dollar terms between these two kinds of grants, thereby equalizing the status of the homeowner and the tenant?

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): While the grant is very inadequate, I would ask the Minister when he's closing how it's going to be administered. There have been a lot of questions asked. Where are these forms available? Are they going to be available throughout

[ Page 3247 ]

the province in provincial government offices, or just from Victoria from the Department of Housing? Where can the people affected get the application forms, and approximately when?

MRS. JORDAN: I would just like to mention to the Minister that I find his words today very reassuring in light of his present action, but I wonder where he was a year ago and where his government was a year ago when we pointed out to the then government that the renters grant Act which was started by the previous administration with an original $50 grant was a commitment to be increased every year for elderly renters. If he stands here today saying how deeply concerned he is and how he recognizes the crisis situation, why in adding this $30 this year doesn't he bring in the $50 that they should have had added for last year, so that they would have had added for last year, so that have had added for last year, so that he wants to put in this year? They would have been in a much better position to hear his words, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the Minister will state why he let a whole year go by before bringing in this amendment.

I also would like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, a problem which related to another bill which was passed in this Legislature very shortly, but does apply here to this bill where we're discussing the assistance to elderly granters and the $2.50-a-month bill. As I pointed out in the debate on that bill, which was the ceiling for rents, the fallacy is that a municipality, if it wished to accommodate even one landlord and tenant group in adjusting their rent beyond the 8 per cent, had to apply for a complete municipal exemption for that type of building.

That's exactly what's happening, Mr. Speaker, in the Okanagan, for example, and in other communities where there are genuine cases where a landlord has been undercharging a tenant and cannot possibly meet his commitments. They are applying to the municipalities and in the reaction, in order to help them, the municipality is making a blanket exemption.

I have a specific case in the area that I represent which the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) is aware of, where people in mobile-home parks were under pressure — both the landlords and the tenants. We wanted an exemption for selected mobile-home parks but in fact they had to go for an exemption right across the board in the whole municipality. So landlords, who are in fact garnering more of a fair return than they should at this time of inflation, are getting away with murder. This piddly little bit isn't going to help those tenants.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if in fact the Minister wouldn't be prepared to speak to the Attorney-General and have the former bill amended with an amendment this session so that the municipality can adjudicate the situation on its merit, rather than having to go to a blanket exemption which is going to work a hardship on the very people that this bill is supposed to be assisting. Perhaps the Minister, Mr. Speaker, will give this House this assurance that this will be done now so that the addition by this amendment to the elderly will be helpful.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, it is the intention that this should continuously be increased. It will become a more and more significant amount as time goes by.

The administration will be similar to what is already being successfully administered — the Elderly Citizens' Renters Grant - and that's done without too much bureaucracy, quite surprisingly.

Forms are being prepared right now so that they will be ready for the June 1 date. They will be available in government offices. There will be some advertising as well on the availability. Applications will be made, though, to the office here in Victoria. We'll be ready to go on that ceiling for rents, the fallacy was that a municipality, if it wished to accommodate even one that really is under the jurisdiction of the Attorney-General. We've had continuing discussions on various aspects of it. We certainly do have liaison on that, but it's not really related to this Act.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

MR. SPEAKER: Just a minute. I think we first have to pass second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 8, Elderly Citizen Renters Grant Amendment Act, 1974, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. HALL: Second reading on Bill 74, Mr. Speaker, and I'd like the House to do Bill 73 afterwards if that's agreeable.

COUNTY COURTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this bill increases the jurisdiction civilly of the county courts to the sum of $10,000 monetary, instead of $3,000. It provides that a person shall sue in the small claims court, within the jurisdiction of that court, and not in the county court. In other words, if your case falls within the lower court, don't incur costs and take it into a higher court than necessary. It also provides that the judge shall not be required to take handwritten notes of evidence. Those are the main

[ Page 3248 ]

provisions of that bill, and I move second reading.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the principle of the bill, we concur with the remarks of the Attorney-General that it is time the jurisdiction of the county court was increased to listen to cases of monetary value of $10,000. Taking into consideration the day that we live in and the monetary value of money as a means of exchange, limiting them to $3,000 was an imposition on a lot of people when they had to go to a higher court. We agree with that and we support the principle of this amendment.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to go into the matter at length now, but I hope before we deal with this bill in committee that the Attorney-General might be prepared to indicate to the House the extent to which official reporters will be available to serve all the county court judges in the province. The amendment which removes the responsibility of the county court judge to take notes of the proceedings is certainly an improvement if there is a reporter available, but if there isn't that obligation, I don't know what we will do in the case of appeals. I don't want to delay the matter now; perhaps the Attorney-General could give us a statement in committee.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Hon. Member I might say at this time, briefly, that we're undertaking training of shorthand court stenographers — a field that we're very short in at the present time. We're also training the monitors — the people who can sit with the recording equipment in court. But there is a great shortage in this field, there's no question about it. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 74, County Courts Amendment Act, 1974, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. HALL: Second reading of Bill 73, followed by Bill 93.

CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this bill does not change in any way the scheme of criminal injuries compensation, but it does provide a proper appeal procedure, an appeal procedure that has already been adopted by this House in the case of Workmen's Compensation claims. The new appeal board is functioning and active and hearing many cases in the field of workmen's compensation, and I think they are the proper tribunal to give claimants under this Act a proper hearing if they feel their claims have not been properly adjudicated upon. I move second reading.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: We certainly agree with the appeal provisions the Minister has included. I wonder if the Minister would like to indicate whether or not the perpetrator of the crime might be given some consideration on the matter of appeal. Once the award having been made, and perhaps some obligation placed upon the perpetrator of the crime, the circumstances might be such that some change should be made at a later date.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I will consider that matter before committee stage. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 73, Criminal Injuries Compensation Amendment Act, 1974, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. HALL: Second reading of Bill 93, followed by 101.

EMERGENCY HEALTH SERVICES ACT

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, Bill 93, Emergency Health Services Act, is an Act to put the provincial government in a position where they can provide ambulance service to all people in the province, and further provide a coordination of ambulance service with emergency service for the people in B.C.

We feel that the bill will enable us to provide a centralized programme on a sort of decentralized basis. There will be a central dispatch area with zone areas beyond the central dispatch area, but the whole service will be coordinated in such a way as to provide that we can offer back-up service when necessary such as an air ambulance which has been called for by many Members of the Legislature. This won't immediately occur throughout the province, although I think most people here recognize that we have been running a pilot project in the Stewart area, using both fixed-wing and helicopter services in that particular area, assisting people to get to the referral hospital. We feel that….

AN HON. MEMBER: How is that working?

HON. MR. COCKE: It's working fine as far as we can see. The only thing I can suggest about that is that once in a while people go outside of the

[ Page 3249 ]

contracted companies. Okanagan Helicopter was the company that was contracted for that particular area, yet another company has been called in on one or two occasions, which offends me a little bit because once you have a contract, well, then you should your primary contractor unless they are not available, and I understand that they have been available.

In any event, a commission will be set up and the commission's responsibility will be to see to it that the people are hired — that is ambulance men throughout the province, those people supervising their activities and other people working in this area. They will, of course, have under them an executive director whose responsibilities will be to report to them the whole background of what he's doing and what he intends to do, and they will be directing his activities. They are a Crown organization, the Crown being responsible for all the actions of the commission.

Mr. Speaker, I think I might say that their first responsibility will be to provide emergency health services. They will also establish, equip and operate emergency health centres and stations throughout the province, as is indicated in the bill.

They will also assist hospitals, other health institutions, agencies and organizations to provide emergency health services. Their responsibility will also be to train, to recruit and examine. They will also be responsible to provide ambulance service for the whole province pursuant to the regulations.

Mr. Speaker, I think the average person in the Province of British Columbia is looking forward to what will occur in this ambulance service. We're very excited about it.

On a pro tem basis I have appointed Dr. Peter Ransford who did a tremendous study, a commendable study, on the whole question of emergency health services for the province. At the present time he's appointed as a consultant, but hopefully, if this Act passes, he will be executive director of the commission. Mr. Speaker, with that I'll move second reading of Bill 93.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the official opposition certainly agrees with the efforts of the government to coordinate ambulance services in the province and bring them under the auspices of the provincial government, and certainly for any upgrading that can be done in the ambulance services which need it.

However, we see again this bill, another example of the government's insistence on setting up the kind of bureaucracies that it must set up with every move it makes. Here again we have another commission — a five-member appointed commission which will serve at the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I thought by now we might have been running out of people to appoint to commissions, but we must have found some more somewhere hiding in the woodwork.

The Minister's comments about centralization at the same time as decentralization are interesting because I notice that in the press reports when he introduced this bill to the House he talked about decentralization.

But always, whatever the government does, we vest the control in some body which is divorced completely from where the action is and oblivious to the needs of the community, so really what we're getting is centralization of the worst kind in nearly everything that the government does. In this instance we are going to do it again.

Here we have some more $39,000 per year jobs, perhaps, for the five-member commission. We know that this government has made a lot of political promises, but the taxpayers' wallet is getting thin and isn't able to stand much more of it. Somewhere the expansion of this kind of bureaucracy has got to stop because the money is going to run out if we don't stop it pretty soon.

Again, Mr. Speaker, we find this as a multi-principled bill. It isn't, as was indicated in the first instance, simply a bill to provide ambulance service for the Province of British Columbia.

There are other serious principles contained in this bill as well. As a matter of fact, the Minister read off section 5 in his opening remarks in second reading, and we find that the ambulance service is way down there as a kind of a footnote in subsection (g) of section 5. So the bill is more than just a bill to provide ambulance services.

We have no objection to the principle to provide ambulance services or any other kind of emergency services throughout the province. We think they are necessary and necessary now.

But it's this expansion again, another kind of a tangle in this bureaucratic maze that's being built up in this province, which is making government and the access to government so complex that the poor guy on the street is really running around in circles. He'll never find his way out of the maze, never find his way into the system so he can get some help, Instead, he's going to be wandering around outside the system while the bureaucrats hold their meetings, get their input and call their task forces and whatever else it is that bureaucrats do.

Mr. Speaker, I don't understand why we couldn't have had a simple bill which would have allowed us to proceed with the kind of services that are mentioned in this bill under an existing department of government and saved the taxpayers of British Columbia a great deal of money.

I think in the Minister's opening remarks earlier when he introduced this bill in the House that he may have been a way low in his estimates of costs — I think he mentioned $9 million. I wonder whether the

[ Page 3250 ]

Minister, when he closes the debate, would indicate whether or not that's a figure that was reached by any kind of research or whether it was one which was just plucked out of the air somewhere.

Would the Minister tell us, too, what steps the government will be taking to ensure that the $5 fee, which he has mentioned, is still the fee that will be charged, and whether or not steps will be taken to ensure that that $5 fee will not be abused, that the ambulance service won't, in fact, be used as a kind of a shuttle service or a taxi service by the people of the province, and whether there will be deterrents included in the regulations perhaps, and whether or not the timetable is still in effect as of July 1st for the assumption of the ambulance services, or at least the start of the assumption of the ambulance services?

I don't want to go into the sections of the bill, but I just want to ask the Minister if he would explain in section 6 whether or not his mind has been set at rest that all of the legal problems can be overcome with regard to people performing emergency services, whether or not they are licensed paramedical people or not. Or whether, perhaps, this section might instil a false sense of security in the minds of the paramedical people which might cause them to step out on ground that may not be as safe as they believe it to be. Has the Minister consulted with legal people in regard to this and does he believe that all the questions have been answered? I think this holds very serious results for paramedical people if all of the questions haven't been answered.

As I say again, the official opposition agrees with the principles of this bill, but we feel that the government has stepped out again in the wrong kind of a direction in going again for the kind of political appointees that will make up an expensive commission which will tangle the bureaucratic red tape even more and will ensure that the people of British Columbia don't have as easy access to this kind of necessary service as they should have and could have if we didn't mire it down in bureaucracy.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister, when he is closing the debate, could give us the details of just an example of what happens in an area which is served now by voluntary crews on ambulances. Those crews are concerned as to what will happen to them. They have given many years of faithful service; most of them have never received anything in the way of remuneration. They give up long hours of their weeks to study and prepare themselves; they have been on call at any hour of the day or night. Obviously they are quite concerned as to what their position will be under this new regulation. I think he could, perhaps, give us the details on that.

As far as the air ambulance is concerned, I'm sure by now one of the first problems he has discovered is that this province does not have adequate airports. Many communities do not have even adequate small strips which can be used by small aircraft. Perhaps helicopters are available in most areas, but he knows, I'm sure, that they are slow and they have small load-carrying capacities. Perhaps in the future he could suggest to the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) some form of programme to encourage communities to set aside an area which can be used for emergency uses such as this.

Another question I'd like to ask is: in the outlying areas what happens when a call originates? Where do they call? Is it handled through a central office here in Victoria? I'm referring not only to the air ambulance portion, but to any ambulance that might be needed in an outlying area. Could he give us the details of just exactly how a call would be handled and what the people would do? Let's assume it's very early in the morning and there's nobody around the telephones, who do they call? How is it handled? — those complete details.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I would agree with what the Member from Langley has said if I could be satisfied that all that the Minister has in mind is the operation of a much improved ambulance service in this entire province, not only in the metropolitan areas but in the smaller communities as well.

I would like the Minister to be a little clearer, if he can be, as to what he envisages in the provision of emergency health service because that is at the very top of the list of the responsibilities of this new commission.

Since the Minister is proposing in this bill to create a five-man commission, I can only assume that its responsibilities are really to be much broader than the provision of ambulance service so that whether it is a highway accident or whatever the case may be, people can be given some immediate relief on a first aid basis and then taken speedily to a hospital.

I would like to be assured by the Minister that in moving into this field of emergency health service we are not going to be detracted from a provision of medical and hospital facilities in the outposts of this province.

The concern I have is that if we are moving into an emergency health service that this will be staffed by a paramedical person, and this may, in fact, deter the establishment of fully qualified medical practitioners with registered nurse assistants working as a team to give to a community a basic health service which will be of a greater value over the long run than just what one might envisage in emergency or first-aid treatment.

I, too, would like to raise the question mentioned

[ Page 3251 ]

by the Member from Langley with regard to the consequences of section 6. I think that one of the difficulties we face in the Province of British Columbia, both with fully qualified physicians and surgeons, as well as the paramedics that are envisaged under this Act, is the legal complications that flow from rendering emergency assistance when there are no facilities or limited facilities available.

The First Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) a year ago introduced a private Member's bill dealing with just this point. It is quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that even a fully qualified medical practitioner is under some considerable personal risk if he stops at an accident and renders medical aid without the facilities that may be required.

This is an unfortunate situation. I would trust that no qualified person would be deterred in this way from fulfilling his responsibility as a citizen and as a human being. But the question still remains, and one always wonders whether or not we are expecting medical practitioners — and under this Act the paramedics who will be licensed — to expose themselves overmuch to legal responsibility when they involve themselves in emergency services.

MR. FRASER: I would just like to make a few points here to the Minister, particularly on air ambulance. As an example — I think the Minister's aware of the area — from Williams Lake to Bella Coola, a distance of 300 miles, the only medical facility is halfway in between. There are several accidents on the road and so on. The point I'd like to make is that at the halfway point there is no air strip that will accommodate an air ambulance system. I'm wondering what….

HON. MR. COCKE: Puntzi.

MR. FRASER: Yes, that's right. You're correct, there's one at Puntzi. That's still a way from the facility, but there's nobody running the airstrip as such. It's not maintained. I would like to hear the Minister say more on that. In other words, we can't get advantage of the air service if we haven't got the strip. As I understand it, the type of plane that's required won't land on gravel strips. There are a few gravel strips, but they're not capable of landing there. I'd like to hear the Minister comment on that.

I would also like to know something else from the Minister. There are a lot of municipalities large and small in the province in the municipal field really up to their ears in costs and problems. Is it correct to say that you are relieving them of these costs effective July 1, 1974?

HON. MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting debate indeed. Let me first deal with one or two aspects of the whole question of emergency care.

We brought in a little bill, Mr. Speaker. Let me show it to you — this big. That huge bureaucracy! Let me talk about that huge bureaucracy. If we had wanted to set up a huge bureaucracy, we could very well have around this very emotional issue. But it's not going to be a huge bureaucracy and it's not going to go outside the department to enlist commissioners. That might surprise the Member for Langley, (Mr. McClelland), Mr. Speaker.

I proposed that people on the commission will be such people as Bill Lyle, the Deputy Minister of Hospital Insurance, Dr. George Elliot, the Deputy Minister of Public Health, and so on. Those are the kind of people. We want to coordinate the services within the department. We felt it necessary to set up a commission. It also freed us to work throughout the province in a way we couldn't have done without a commission.

So, Mr. Speaker, I make no apologies whatsoever for having created this bureaucracy, which we consider to be the only bureaucracy that could in fact produce and could afford us an ambulance and an emergency service.

Mr. Speaker, this is not going to save the taxpayer money. This is going to cost the taxpayer some money. But the taxpayer has demanded emergency care for a number of years. The taxpayer, for example, that has been struck ill in Vancouver: despite the fact that Vancouver subsidizes their ambulance service to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, still that taxpayer that's struck ill has to pay $30 to go from his house five blocks away from the Vancouver General Hospital to the emergency unit of the Vancouver General Hospital.

It's no fault of the city and no fault of the ambulance service that's available there. Therefore, this is the kind of cost that's going to be to the taxpayer, and we're going to do it as economically as we can.

Mr. Speaker, the figure $9 million was arrived at by having done some very careful survey work over a period of nine months prior to submitting this bill to the House. I can't guarantee the Member for Langley that we can count on $9 million as being the total cost in the years to come. I can tell you right now that I could have built a house or bought a house two or three years ago for a great deal less than it would cost me today. There is an inflationary factor that we just can't deal with.

In any event, $9 million is our present estimate. Hopefully it's going to be a good guesstimate.

The $5 fee is what we propose. I hope that people won't abuse it. There's going to have to be a public education job on this whole question. We have to do something in faith here. We have to say to people: now for heaven's sake don't use ambulances for

[ Page 3252 ]

something …

That's right. As the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) said: "It's not for joy riding; it's for an emergency." We just hope that people will acknowledge the fact that it is for emergency and emergency only.

As far as section 6 is…. Oh, by the way, July 1 is the day we hope that we're off the ground. It seems that everything's go now. We have a headquarters, so we feel we'll be able to begin our service on July 1. At that time — I'll answer one of the last questions now — that's the time we'll begin picking up the cost, on July 1.

The false sense of security around section 6 — yes, I recognize both your legal problem with this and the lay problem with it. We're trying to circumvent that as best we can by a companion piece that will appear in the Statute Law Amendment Act that will, hopefully, strengthen up this situation.

We did, as you remember last year, amend the Medical Act to some degree to provide for the good Samaritan, not quite to the extent that the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) would have liked; but we're looking at that again, and hopefully we can provide the kind of protection for those people providing service that's absolutely necessary to protect them from any kind of legal entanglement. I think it outlines very clearly that if it's an absolute emergency, that's the kind of protection we're endeavouring to afford.

As far as the volunteer is concerned, the volunteer will be treated in a way that he hasn't been treated heretofore in those areas where it's required to have volunteers. In many areas you won't have volunteers; you'll have full-time staff. But in other areas it will be part full-time staff and part volunteers. In other areas there'll be a greater number of volunteers. In those areas the volunteer will be paid for his trips, so he'll be supplemented for having performed that service. He will be asked, however, to upgrade his education in this whole area. He'll be asked to take advantage of courses that will be offered to him, and he will be a greater asset to the community that he's serving at the present time. And these people will all be taken into consideration. So that's what we expect.

Where the people will call will be to a central area, and that's what I was talking about, sort of. I'm not trying to kid the troops on this one. This is not a matter that we can decentralize completely. There are many areas of health care that we're really trying to decentralize even further than we have today — many areas. But as far as ambulance care is concerned, and because of the need for back-up service — that's immediately available — we feel that we must have a centralized service.

Therefore, you call your local number that will be advertised in your local area, and if the situation requires that kind of sophisticated back-up, then they will refer it to the central headquarters. So that's what I mean by centralized service. This one particular area must be centralized, we feel. So they will be calling in their own areas to areas that are advertised.

As far as emergency health services…and it was brought to my attention about section 5; yes, section 5 is all-important. What is the point in having an ambulance service if you don't have the back-up service that's necessary to afford you the full emergency situation?

For instance, if a person is struck ill in front of his home or on the street or something, the time that he should be getting care is at that point — not wait till he gets to the hospital after he's dead, but right then, right there on the spot. That's why all of the rest of this back-up service and the whole thing is absolutely predicated on the question of how we can soonest afford a man emergency care. That's why there are all of the subsections in section 5. We think it's extremely important.

As far as medical outposts are concerned, the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) asked how do we feel about medical…. sure, even in this Act, we are afforded an opportunity to even diversify still further in our medical outposts, and give them, I think, enriched staffing because of this bill and because of the support of this bill. We presently are trying our very best to get health professionals into the more isolated areas, and I think this is just another step in the direction. Hopefully it's going to improve the whole service for the whole province.

As far as paramedics are concerned, we, naturally, are going to encourage the paramedical situation. We don't contemplate immediately having a medical centre — or what is it on television where the paramedics have everything at their fingertips? — we don't envisage that in the immediate future, although that is going on to some extent and to a great extent right within almost a stone's throw of this building. The Saanich fire department have an excellent paramedic situation out there and they're providing good performance, so do some sections of the metropolitan ambulance…. those sections that are tied up with the New Westminster Royal Columbian. The reason for that is because they are being given first class leadership by the emergency doctors at the emergency ward. They are virtually specialists in emergency care.

They have them both at the Jubilee and at the Royal Columbian Hospital. I believe they are called casualty officers, and a casualty officer is the person who is going to give leadership in this whole area.

Mr. Speaker, I've dealt with this as much as…. oh, yes, the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) talked about air strips. Well, Mr. Member, where we

[ Page 3253 ]

can't get in…. and don't forget that in areas we'll be contracting and contacting outfits that are working in those areas. We're not going to use the government air service for full service, that's going to be back-up service. The same thing with air-sea rescue at Comox, they will be used for back up. We will be trying, as we did in Stewart, to contract with local outfits to do the job for us there. We can't suggest to you that the Health department is going to build airstrips all over this province, that's not….

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, I was talking to the Member for Cariboo. We're not building airstrips all over this province, but we'll make use of what we have in the province in the best way we possibly can — using helicopters where necessary, using ground vehicles and fixed-wings where each one fits in, so we'll try to do the very best job we can. I suggest to you that at the outset I'm very confident in the people whom we have so far contacted to implement Bill 93. Mr. Speaker, with that, I move second reading of Bill 93.

Motion approved.

Bill 93, Emergency Health Services Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. HALL: Second reading of Bill 101, Mr. Speaker, followed by Bill 120.

SPECIAL PROVINCIAL EMPLOYMENT
PROGRAMMES ACT

HON. W. S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, this is a bill which basically gives to the provincial government the necessary legislative authority to mount special employment programmes from time to time. We have a specific programme in mind for this current summer season — the Student Summer Employment Programme. The thought behind this programme is to not only provide useful summer employment to students, high school students and university students, and assistance thereby to further their education, but also to provide them with an opportunity to gain some work experience. We have found that certainly many high school students who drop out and seek a place in the work force are handicapped through having no prior work experience, and handicapped also through having no reference from a former employer and so on, which makes it very, very difficult for them to break into the work environment.

We feel that this programme is essential in terms of providing (1) economic assistance to the students, (2) that all-important work experience which I think is a first step to gaining a place in the work force of the province for those who leave the educational institutions.

Beyond that, I would say, Mr. Speaker, that it would be possible to mount from time to time other employment programmes that may be necessary to come to grips with special problems that arise on a regional basis perhaps due to closures of basic industries in certain municipalities. It might be desirable for a limited amount of time to mount some special employment programmes to ease the burden and disruption that would flow from a closure in that community.

I think this is a flexible kind of provision which is worthwhile for the government to have in its arsenal of economic tools to provide the kind of security and the kind of benefits that the people of this province need.

MR. FRASER: The official opposition certainly supports this programme, but we have a few questions we'd like to ask about it. We noted that in one section a figure of, I think, $30 million referred to, and then a bulletin of $25 million. I think that probably needs some clarification. That is, in other words, what the cost is.

You refer that over 12,000 students will be hired this year and they will be given a meaningful work experience. I certainly hope that this is the case, but from observation last year on some of them, it certainly wasn't the case. They were sent out to cut brush on the right-of-way without any supervision and half of them ended up in hospital. I don't think that that was meaningful and I hope that something was learned from that experience last year.

I would also like to know if the Department of Labour of the federal government was consulted or used in any way about this programme. Will they be used?

The other thing that we'd like to know…you spell out, I believe, the rates for high school. There is a difference between a high school student and a university student, and maybe you could give some observations on that. All in all, it looks like a good programme.

MR. GIBSON: In general terms and in principle, Mr. Speaker, I would welcome this programme as well. Like the Hon. Member for Cariboo, I have just a few questions.

I certainly agree with the words of the Minister that this will provide another tool for the government to respond to either rapidly changing economic — circumstances or rapidly changing regional circumstances.

I would ask the Minister if he could foresee how

[ Page 3254 ]

much of the special employment in ordinary years would be provided through the enumerated agencies such as municipalities, regional districts, school districts and so on; and how much would be a function of direct provincial government employment.

When it is a question of direct provincial government employment, I wonder if the Minister could describe to the House what employment practices would be followed. I would presume that the persons employed, being of an essentially temporary nature, would not be employed under the Public Service Act, or it might be that they would. I would be grateful if the Minister would describe to the House how young people should present themselves for employment under these particular programmes as they develop.

MR. G. S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'd like to speak in favour of this bill. I find that as my family grows up, the whole question of looking for summer jobs becomes much closer to home, one might say.

This is enabling legislation which doesn't spell out very much in detail, but I accept that by virtue of the fact that it is simply enabling legislation.

But I have been a little distressed this year by what seems to be apparently announcements by Ministers about jobs in their various departments. If I can take the Department of Highways for a moment as an example, no sooner was the announcement made…as I say, my daughter went down looking for a job and she said that, there's a long waiting list and they're not taking any names. And that's not a fair criticism of this Minister, I just happen to know that was the case in the Department of Highways just a day or two after there was a grandiose announcement by the government of how many jobs were to be available for students. I don't necessarily say that applies to other Ministers but that was an example which surprised me.

I also brought up the issue in the House in the Department of Consumer Services where announcements were made about summer jobs for students. When somebody inquired, it was to discover that a large number of the jobs were already filled. I just wouldn't want to think that this bill gives further hope and expectation to a lot of students who then come to the Minister of Labour's office and find the demand for jobs far exceeds the supply.

I wonder if the Minister, in winding up second reading, could perhaps pass some comment on the mechanics that will be employed and the degree of notice he anticipates students will have so that perhaps, several months before they actually leave their term at the university, they can have some reasonable expectation of getting a job when May or June comes around. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Labour closes the debate.

HON. MR. KING: The Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) questioned the bulletin which gave a different figure than the bill. Yes, indeed, that was a typographical error contained in the bulletin. Quite frankly, I don't know how it came about.

The calibre of the programme. The Member for Cariboo questioned some of the kinds of work which the students had been doing under previous plans. Yes, indeed, there was a problem. But I would point out that the previous year this programme was mounted in a rather hasty fashion without the kind of lead time that's really necessary to plan on a rational basis the whole structure, the rating and so on that will be paid. As a consequence, there was some problem in terms of the supervision and the selection of appropriate jobs that are not only worthwhile to the student but also useful to the community.

There is an additional problem with the rates of pay that were developed where we had anomalies. Some students worked for a lower rate while, perhaps, their friends were working for the Department of Highways on a much higher rate.

We've attempted this year, because we've had a little more lead time to plan, to develop a basic system of rates which reflected the age categories of the students and their probable needs in terms of expenses — as opposed to high school and universities — and possible dependents. Many of the university students would be married and therefore entitled to a higher rate of pay than the high school students who are simply seeking a work experience for the summer.

I should point out on this question that we wanted to be very cautious also that we did not, in effect, go into competition with the private sector. This is an ancillary programme; this is a programme designed to provide employment for those young people who could not find a slot in the private sector. Certainly we don't want to get into a position in terms of rates of pay where we're competing with the private sector and drying up the kind of assistance available for the service industry and the seasonal kinds of jobs available in the private sector.

So, yes, we did go to the federal government and we do have in the offices of the federal Department of Manpower and Immigration information brochures on the programmes available under the student summer programme. In fact, in some areas, our regional student directors are occupying those offices on a part-time basis to assist in disseminating information to the young people on what kind of jobs are available.

The division of the funds was between the provincial government departments and the municipal and regional districts. I have a cursory assessment of

[ Page 3255 ]

that at the moment. It's something like 60 per cent under the provincial government's departments and 40 per cent to the regional districts and the municipalities. That's only a fairly cursory assessment; that's what it looks like at the moment.

Some of the government departments had as a general rule, under their own aegis, mounted student employment programmes for many years. I think therein came the conflict between announcements they made and the student summer employment programme per se.

The status of the employees with the B.C. Government Employees Union. I believe the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) questioned whether they would be civil servants or government employees and so on. We have talked to the B.C. Government Employees Union and gained their cooperation in terms of the temporary job status of the people and the rates of pay which will be afforded. We are doing the same with CUPE, which is the affected union in terms of the municipal programmes.

There have been some problems encountered in these areas. Hopefully, before next year I will have a committee which will be representative of some of the municipalities and trade unions involved. We'll iron out any problems or any difficulties which could be encountered through a conflict of union rates or the content of the work being done. I'm in the process, as a matter of fact, of setting up that kind of committee now.

Mr. Bob Plecas from the Department of Labour research branch has mounted the programme for us and is doing a fantastic job in my view. The publicity disseminated has been of a first-class nature. It's available in high schools, in universities, in Canada Manpower offices, municipal city halls and so on. There's a pretty wide distribution. Again, hopefully, next year we'll be able to start it at a bit earlier date to get this information out so the students will know approximately what's available in their community.

One of the beauties of this programme is, with this flexible approach, we can assure the regional equity of it. There are not parks in every area but there are highways. There are not environmental projects in every area but there may well be something in a park. There's enough flexibility between the government departments and the municipal areas of interest to ensure a good distribution of the available jobs throughout every area of the province. I think that's very important.

Finally, I just wanted to say that the programme is well underway. We anticipate about 12,000 jobs this year will be available to high school students and university students. It looks like about a 40-60 split between the regional districts and the government. Nevertheless, I think it's something that is very worthwhile from a variety of viewpoints — not only the work experience but some first-class projects of tremendous assistance to small municipalities which could not otherwise have afforded to undertake the kind of job necessary: park cleanups, rivers and things like that. We're going to monitor it as closely as possible. I have every confidence it will be a huge success.

I move second reading of Bill 101.

Motion approved.

Bill 101, Special Provincial Employment Programmes Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Second reading of Bill 120, Mr. Speaker.

FORENSIC PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES
COMMISSION ACT

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, speaking to Bill 120, the Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission Act, I'd like to say that for any number of years in this province we've had a great deal of trouble around the area of delivering service to those people who are considered to be criminally insane, to those people who are considered to be a threat to the community. There are those around whom I would tend to agree with when they say that this situation has not been handled as well as it could be. Therefore, we are trying our very best now to come up with a different approach to the whole question.

We are trying under this Act to establish a commission to provide a comprehensive and integrated psychiatric programme. That programme is to be delivered to the courts and relayed to agencies in the province, including Corrections and Probation Branch.

Mr. Speaker, the commission under Bill 120 may operate or contract with other agencies for the operation of services to provide consultation and advice to the courts and related agencies. Also it can provide diagnostic and treatment facilities and services to persons who sort of fall in these categories — persons who are remanded for psychiatric examination; also persons that are held by order-in-council, those persons held by order-in-council pursuant to the Criminal Code, or the Mental Health Act, or held pursuant to a court order and, further, to those requiring psychiatric care and assessment while in custody.

So really the whole approach to this area is to provide as wide a service as we possibly can. It's also to assist in developing education and research programmes as they relate to the mentally disturbed offender.

[ Page 3256 ]

For the administration of this Act, Mr. Speaker, we're going to set up a board. That board will consist of a minimum of five members, and they will be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to hold office during pleasure. I say a minimum of five; we are thinking in terms of maybe going as far as seven members initially, with representation from the judiciary — we're trying to beat them to it, Mr. Speaker — with representation to the judiciary from the community and departments of the Attorney-General and the Department of Health. All sorts of bases will be covered on this commission.

What we're trying to do here is tie in the different departments and the different agencies that are involved in this whole area. The board, according to the Act may appoint a director and the necessary staff to administer and operate the programme pursuant to the Public Service Act.

I would note here that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may transfer existing mental health agencies — and I think that this is important — to the board under the Mental Health Act, section 5, and lay down the conditions in terms of transfer; and the staff would remain as public servants.

But there are a number of areas that we're thinking of in terms of doing that very thing with now — for example, Riverside, which is now being run sort of between departments. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the board is also empowered to acquire and to purchase property in which they can carry out these programmes, and also that funds may be made available under consolidated revenue to run the programme for the balance of this year.

So, in essence, the commission is to provide a high level of forensic psychiatric care in this province with specific emphasis on interrelating and interlocking various aspects of the programme so that it is comprehensive in scope and meets the special needs of those patients and provides us a varied and challenging, rewarding job for the staff.

Mr. Speaker, with that I move second reading of Bill 120.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the Minister of Health for anticipating my questions and attempting to answer them in advance. The official opposition is with you, Mr. Minister, in your attempts to find a more humane method of dealing with these kinds of people, and we'll be behind you in the efforts to make this work.

I'm still a little uneasy about the establishment of more commissions. I accept your explanation and I accept your assurances that they won't be expansions on the bureaucracy, as I put it, and yet they're here for all time. I still feel that the government is going out of its way to establish special commissions and special boards when it isn't really necessary.

But, all in all, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister, we are behind your efforts to solve this problem all the way.

MR. WALLACE: This party is certainly very eager to support this legislation. We think it's a step forward.

We've had some devastating revelations in past weeks and months of people with mental disorders who, in effect, have a life sentence or an indeterminate sentence, and they're held by order-in-council or by some court order in Riverview, or in Riverside Hospital.

This, Mr. Speaker, should really give us all some…. It's no good just to say: "Well, that's water under the bridge." I think it's been staggering to me to discover that people who commit an offence while they're mentally or emotionally disturbed could, in effect, lose their freedom for years and years and years.

We've had the recent case I just read of in the paper the other day of a longshoreman from Chemainus, Mr. Helland, who spent two years in Riverview because of confusion as to the handling of his problem.

In favouring this bill, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister…. There is one angle to all this that really bothers me. In the light of the past history and the confusion which can obviously exist…. I'm not trying to just be completely negative and criticize what has happened in the past; but what has happened, happened for a reason. The reason appears to have been that the person committing the offence was moved into Riverview, and for some reason or other the mechanics did not allow that person to be brought back into court.

That's one point. I would like to know how on earth it could ever happen that when a court order was made that the person be remanded for X number of days — 14 days — or in the case of being detained during the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor …. That seems to me to have left the door open not to willful abuse, but to neglect that the person was forgotten.

To be detained during the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor, surely it was intended that there would be a periodic review of that person's condition and his ability to stand trial. In all of this, of course, there's the very difficult decision to make as to how to blend the best services of the medical profession with the legal profession.

I also worry a little bit in this bill as to whether there might be any attempt to make a doctor into a lawyer, which would be a disastrous metamorphosis for the person's legal rights. While I'm sure we've all been shocked by learning about these 20 or 30 patients who have been in Riverview for years and years — probably unjustly — nevertheless, in trying to

[ Page 3257 ]

improve this situation, we must be careful, in my view, that we should not place legal decisions on doctors.

I would like the Minister, in winding up the debate, to perhaps touch on the basic reasons why some of these cases were detained in hospital without periodic review and without reassessment of the individual's condition when, in point of fact, his total freedom for years was involved.

We've had at least two that I'm aware of: this case I've just quoted of Mr. McCann, as I remember, who has also been released after a lengthy time. There was another case of a young man who was held for 79 days without any legal justification, and in fact, under the system, Mr. Speaker, he could have been detained indefinitely.

Now without dwelling too much on the past, the fact must be accepted that that real danger exists. I acknowledge that the Minister, in providing a wider range of forensic psychiatric services, is trying to prevent that happening again.

A Member down the way has talked about another commission. I also have a little concern that we're creating more and more commissions, although in this case I see nothing but a real challenge to this kind of commission to prevent the mistakes of the past and to bring some hope to a person who finds himself in court at a time when his mind is disturbed.

In passing, I'm delighted to know there's scope for research in this bill, because as research continues, I'm sure we'll find more and more explanation as to why people do behave in a criminal fashion, based on a better understanding of their mental state, either before or during the criminal act.

It's my feeling that in hopes of preventing crime and dealing with some of the difficulties which we discussed in the Attorney-General's estimates, much of the progress will depend on what we can learn from this kind of research under the aegis of this commission. I find it exciting and very hopeful, but I wonder how these accidents happened in the past.

I wonder what the Minister sees as the direct responsibility of this commission in relation to ensuring that the person who has committed the offence will be subject to periodic review, whether or not there is any attempt to place on this Minister responsibility which should rest with the Attorney-General, or to what degree there is to be shared responsibility.

These are some of the questions that I think we would like to know more about. I don't think we should leave this subject either, Mr. Speaker, without commenting on the tremendous effort by the particular lawyer in Vancouver, Mr. Robert Gardner, who got hold of this problem and wrestled with it because the freedom of individuals was concerned.

This is not to suggest for a moment that all of these people held in Riverview should be released. For no moment do I want to say that. It may well be that the majority, on review, should be retained in some kind of medical facility. I'm not disputing that for a moment, but if there's only one person locked up in such an institution for years and years who should be free, then I say that the system really has to be reviewed and there has to be some kind of, to use a popular expression, fail-safe mechanism so that a person in such a situation is assured of a periodic review.

I think the kind of tenacity of purpose which Mr. Gardner brought to this whole situation is to be commended because it's been an enormous effort on his part against some considerable obstacles, legal and otherwise, and he's been at least responsible for restoring the freedom to two people who on reconsideration and re-examination were not a menace to society.

I might say also that the newspaper columnist, Jack Wasserman, who went to bat for these individuals has at least made one error in his reporting. He stated in a newspaper just the other day that nobody in this House — not one of the politicians in Victoria — has raised the matter at all. I'd just like to put the record straight that I raised the matter at great length during the debate of the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Macdonald's) estimates, as the Minister well remembers. The Minister took part in that debate. I think it was prior to first reading of this bill.

It's amazing in our modern society that people can find themselves through a combination of legal and medical circumstances locked up in a hospital, perhaps for a number of years, simply because the mechanism did not exist for a review of their condition, or the mechanism which did exist was not being followed.

This bill certainly makes it possible for skilled forensic psychiatric services to be made available and for various consultants and experts to be engaged under section 6 to make this service available, but I wonder if the Minister can reassure us as to the working mechanism of the commission. You can have all the experts in the world, but the final decision will have to be made in court — at least I assume it will. If the medical commission or a specialist certifies that Mr. X is no longer a menace to the community and can be released, this can only be done and I hope it always will only be done by having the person appear in court before a judge where the skilled medical evidence can be given. This apparently has not been happening and is the root cause of the problem.

Whether or not this bill meets all its purely medical goals really won't be the most important thing to the individual if in fact he doesn't have his day in court. I'm not suggesting we blame this Minister for the shortcomings of the legal system or the shortcomings of the A-G's department. But if

[ Page 3258 ]

there's a shortage of staff or if there's some inadequate way in which the convicted person is to be returned to court, then all the forensic services in the world won't really solve the basic problems. So there's these two basic questions: where's the responsibility; to what degree might a medical person be hinging or coming close to making legal decisions, and what assurance can the Minister give us that in fact the person convicted who is mentally disabled will always be assured of a review and a day in court?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, again I'll try to provide the reason for the commission. The problem has always been that one department of government has worked on its own, unilaterally performing the services that that government department usually performs, but there are many things — and this is what we've found out in the last couple of years — there are many areas of concern that require the joint efforts of a number of government departments. I brought that out in the ambulance situation and I'm bringing it out here again. We're lost without the A-G's input into this, we're lost without the court's input, and we're lost without the Health department.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: You have to have a vehicle, Mr. Member, and you being a businessman know that better than anybody here. So let's not kid around with that. The fact of the matter is that you have to have some kind of a vehicle to afford this service.

Now, what is that service? That service is a service to the courts. Here we're not asking a doctor, Mr. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), to become a lawyer. Here we're asking a doctor to afford a lawyer immediate technical and medical advice. Here we're putting them together with an opportunity for them to make their joint decisions. I think that's the big aspect of this. We're not asking, on the other hand, a lawyer to become a doctor through this; nor a judge, for that matter, to become a doctor.

As you said, the last word has to be in the court. But the court has to be given the expertise, the backing of a proper service, which it hasn't had heretofore.

The Health department, in a way — we've been doing it in the past — has tried. But there's no way you can put it all together unless you have a vehicle and that's why we created this with the total acquiescence — not only acquiescence but total cooperation — of the Attorney-General's department. I certainly commend the Attorney-General's department because they've given real leadership in this area.

I suggest to you that we're going to try our very best to see to it that this commission serves to give people their human right, and that right is freedom where possible — or to face the courts, where necessary, with their crime. We're not trying here to see to it that people are released in a way that's going to endanger the public. What we're trying to do is see to it that everybody has a proper assessment and that the lawyers and the doctors and all of the people working together see to it that Joe whatever his name might be is afforded every opportunity that society can provide him either to receive health care, freedom or his day in court — whatever the case may be.

Mr. Speaker, I think I've answered the questions. With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 120, Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 112, and then we intend to carry on with Minister of Finance legislation.

ISLANDS TRUST ACT

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): This is another small bill. The object of the bill is stated in a general way in section 3. It is to preserve and protect, in cooperation with municipalities and the government, the environment and the peculiar nature of the islands consisting of those islands generally speaking in the gulf south of Campbell River. Those areas are defined as the trust area.

The trust will comprise three general trustees, appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The functions of the trust are broken into two general categories, one being general affairs, which relates to matters affecting an individual island designated in schedule B. Those in schedule B are those with a permanent population of somewhat over 25 people.

The powers of the trust when dealing with the islands overall and minor islands which are not designated will be exercised by the three general trustees of the trust, but for purposes of dealing with matters relating to designated islands, the trust sits as a trust committee comprising the general trustees and the two local trustees. Regional district directors concerned in the areas may sit on the trust committee but will have no vote.

At present the islands are situated in six different regional districts, and the voting strength of the islanders has been quite small. They've been on the tail end of regional district in the past few years. As an example, in the Capital Regional District there are, I believe, 47 votes in the district, and two votes

[ Page 3259 ]

represent the island of Galiano and those islands south of Galiano — Saturna, Mayne, Pender (south and north) and Saltspring. So at the present time they have two votes out of 47.

The islands have basically been a bit of a nuisance to the regional district. We had a committee of the Legislature last year that visited a number of islands that had public hearings on most of the populated islands, and we found as a committee that the feeling was that they were being badly neglected not only by the regional districts, but by the province as a whole, I think.

Now some of the regional districts have done a reasonably good job, in my opinion, with the islands. And I think the Capital Regional District is one in which some effort has been made to deal with the problems of the islands. We have found in our visits, I think it's fair to say, that the islands can be ruined very, very quickly and very, very easily by unfortunate subdivisions and unfortunate developments. It was agreed, I think unanimously, that there had to be some mechanism created to control this sort of development on the islands.

Now the activities of the regional districts will carry on under this provision. There are no powers of the trust to implement any action regarding any developments or any zoning or community plans of the islands. That is still in the hands and will be in the hands of the regional districts. We are hopeful that the regional district will carry on what they have done in some of the regional districts — having local community groups meeting together to draw out their own community plan. We hope that this will continue.

The trust will assist, where possible, the process of the community plans and will be able to bring in expert advice from any department of the province if they need any assistance in anything they're wishing to undertake. It will also coordinate the activities of the different departments of government and the Crown corporations as they deal with the islands.

Due to the undesirable development in a number of the subdivisions of the islands, the previous administration had to take prompt action and brought in the 10-acre freeze on subdivisions. This was done to protect the islands and was done just in time, I suggest, to prevent the ruination of a variety of these. The ruination had started.

The 10-acre freeze has now probably been on for four years. We hope, with the assistance of the trust, to assist the local people and the regional districts so they can create their own local community plans, have those registered and the bylaws passed in order that the 10-acre freeze can be lifted and the situation go on as normal.

As I mentioned before, the trust has no initiating powers. I expect that not only the islanders but also the regional districts will be very happy with this instrument.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that the official opposition considers this a bad bill, and we don't intend to support this bill.

I would like to say here that I was a member of the municipal affairs committee and we toured some of these islands in the summer of 1973. I would like to say that things are different on each island. Particularly referring to local government, I concur with the Minister's remarks that some regional districts appear to have done a good job and others hadn't done anything at all. We found, as I say, that things differed.

It is correct that the committee recommended that a trust be set up. But I think the whole crux of the thing is the make-up of the committee as recommended here in this bill. It really says that three members of a committee — of the trust, rather — will be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in-Council, or the government, and there would be two from each island. It's really eroding local control as near as I can see. I've always opposed that where senior jurisdictions try and override local control. And it's obvious to me that this is what is going to happen here.

The individual islands, when they come to making decisions and so on, will find that the trust is loaded with government appointees. I don't see why that has to be at all. I think it can work in reverse. I can't see why the residents of the islands can't be the majority and the government appointees in the minority. This is really what this Bill 112 is all about.

Some of these areas have community plans, some haven't. And this again is back to where some are functioning properly and some are not. But we can't go along with the fact that the government will have the final say in all this. I don't want to go into the background of the islands but, again, back to the Minister when you remarked about the 10-acre freeze, I wasn't aware of this beautiful area of British Columbia to any degree until the trip.

I appreciated learning more of that part of the province, but it was obvious to me that the 10-acre freeze certainly saved the islands. That was put on — I don't know whether it was 1968 or 1969. And that is the condition that exists there today.

The 10-acre freeze is still on. And a lot of harm has not been done. I would certainly like to see the government consider that this loaded committee or trust be reversed the other way so that the people…. Since the bill has come out I've had people from the islands unknown to myself approach me in this respect that this is the part where they certainly want some further strengthening of what they have. They don't want it strengthened to the

[ Page 3260 ]

degree that the government has absolute control and a majority on the committee.

Therefore, we cannot support this bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid that we cannot support Bill 112 as it presently stands notwithstanding the fact that Members of all parties represented on the municipal affairs committee last year recommended that a trust be established. I think the record of the Legislature will show that representatives of the NDP, the Social Credit and the Progressive Conservative Parties signed the committee report. The Liberal Member since resigned — the former Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson) — I believe, was in favour of something along these lines.

The Minister, I feel, should have tried a few more drafts of Bill 112 before he presented it in the House. Because it is lacking in many respects, and it shows a big-brother attitude of paternalism, to use a somewhat overworked phrase, with respect to the people who live in the Gulf Islands and to many British Columbians who make use of the Gulf Islands on a casual or regular basis. They may own property or they may rent property on the Gulf Islands from time to time. Or they may, as all of us in this House realize, visit there for an afternoon or a day or two and stay in one of the small resorts.

I felt, Mr. Speaker, as one Member of this House who represents a number of the islands within the designated trust area — several of the islands lie within the Saanich and the Islands constituency — I felt it important to go to as many islands as I could in the relatively short space of time between the introduction of the bill and whenever it was called for second reading, to attend public meetings and to as objectively as I could, by reading the bill on a line-by-line, point-by-point basis and then answering questions, get the opinion of the residents of the islands within my constituency. And that I did with meetings, in order, on Saltspring, then for north and south Pender Island, later on Mayne Island, and finally on Galiano Island.

I received an invitation to speak on an island represented by the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) and I hope to get to that meeting sometime soon.

It is correct to say, I think, Mr. Speaker, that almost unanimously the island residents are most unhappy with the way in which the committee report has been translated into legislation. They are offended and insulted by a statement made by the NDP caucus by means of a news release which distributed at the beginning of this month.

I think that it is important for the record to read precisely what this statement said. It's fairly brief — six short paragraphs. It apparently is a weekly newsletter, "MLAs at Work." And this is May 3, 1974, volume 8, number 11. The headline is: "Playboy Paradise Plucked by People".

"The Gulf Islands, B.C.'s millionaires' playground, are to be subject to careful land development controls under a new trust announced by Municipal Affairs Minister Jim Lorimer, NDP MLA for Burnaby-Willingdon.

"A cabinet-appointed three-member executive will administer land development among the islands from Saturna to Bowen to Denman, with populated islands electing two members to sit with the executive on local matters.

"Formation of the trust, which is yet to be approved by the Legislature, will mean the end of rip-off development in the islands by greedy speculators and fast-buck recreation lot developers. It will mean the end of the influence of rich foreign landowners who range from German barons to Hong Kong sweatshop bosses and California surgeons.

"Most significant of all, it will mean the end of development of the Gulf Islands in the limited interests of islanders and landowners. There will be more regard for encouraging public access for the people of British Columbia to this beautiful recreational resource.

"The trust does not mean a development freeze which will benefit only established landowners; it means a positive approach to maintaining the scenic beauty of the islands for the benefit of all British Columbians."

Well, Mr. Speaker, this was handed to me by a former NDP supporter at the public meeting on Saltspring Island — I was able to read it when we visited Mayne and Galiano. And on those two islands as well as on Saltspring there was again shock and horror and some wry amusement at the writer's interpretation of Bill 112.

I think, when he closes the debate, it is incumbent upon the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) to tell us which is the real document. Is it Bill 112, establishing the trust, or is it "MLAs at Work," the NDP caucus newsletter? Many, many people in the Gulf Islands, certainly those which I have visited and where I have attended these public meetings, are not just slightly distressed; they are widely upset at that interpretation of what is needed for the Gulf Islanders.

I know the Gulf Islands reasonably well, Mr. Speaker, although I do not have the advantage of having lived on them. And this is, I think, a distinct disadvantage for anyone who is attempting to introduce legislation which will assist the islands by means of a trust or some form of commission.

The Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) just a few moments ago indicated that he had not been

[ Page 3261 ]

acquainted with this area before. We have to understand, in dealing with this legislation and, indeed, in dealing with the Gulf Islands generally that they have been knocked about; they have been subjected to all sorts of senior government regulations; and they've been threatened in a manner which perhaps is not duplicated anywhere else in British Columbia. They are extremely frightened, and I think this must be dealt with in the context of this particular bill.

They are very frightened and alarmed by the international joint commission report which started out to examine Point Roberts, and somehow, through indefinite terms of reference or a slip of the pen when drawing the map, moved over into the Gulf Islands and, indeed, onto Vancouver Island.

I'm sure I'm not alone, and that many Members in this House will have received letters and telephone calls — pleas from a variety of Gulf Islands residents and those who enjoy the Gulf Islands, not to be included in an international park simply, I suggest, as a playground for wealthy Americans or, indeed, wealthy Canadians who can travel to the islands and stay as long as they wish.

In talking to the islanders in respect to the Islands Trust Act, very clearly they are fearful of this document as well, which I realize and recognize is beyond the jurisdiction of this House. But in terms of island concern and reaction, the two are inextricably combined. And some of them, indeed, feel that the Islands Trust Act is a backdoor route to an international park.

I'm on record in the public meetings which I attended as saying that I did not accept that. I think if the present provincial government endorsed an international park concept then it would have said so publicly and would not have introduced Bill 112.

The islanders feel that they are going to move into a state of taxation and government without representation. That's not my phrase. It has been used in several of the meetings which I have attended, Mr. Speaker. It was mentioned repeatedly in conversations which I've held with long-time non–Hong Kong sweatshop bosses, non-German land barons, non-California surgeons but pioneers of the island, those who have been there since the end of the Second World War, those who moved there in retirement — in moderate retirement I might say — since the 1950s, the early 1960s.

They do not want to be left alone. They recognize that they live in an ideal recreational area and that inevitably, with easier access to the islands, they are going to be visited by more and more residents of British Columbia, the greater Vancouver area, greater Victoria and south of the international boundary — Seattle, Portland and California as well. They are prepared to accept those visitors; they recognize the need for more parks although they certainly fear parks without proper protection, proper jurisdiction and proper controls.

I'm pleased that this government has moved, I say in an aside, to make sure that there are more police on duty on the islands during holiday weekend times, and that the parks such as Montague on Galiano are given a little more control than was the case when the all-party committee visited last year.

But the Minister has missed a golden opportunity to introduce the kind of trust in which the islanders would have a direct involvement — not an exclusive involvement, but a direct involvement.

I'm sorry that he apparently did not pay any attention to a proposal which has been referred to the committee on interior and insular affairs of the United States Congress. We have a copy of congressional Bill HR8318 which was introduced in the House of Representatives on May 31 of last year, a bill to establish the Nantucket Sound Islands Trust in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to declare certain national policies essential to the preservation and conservation of the lands and water in the trust area, and for other purposes. So there is established the Nantucket Sound Islands Trust.

I think that it would be helpful, Mr. Speaker, to just look very briefly at how they propose to establish this kind of agency in the United States. Again I emphasize that it is before a committee of the United States Congress.

There is going to be a member appointed by the Secretary of the Interior, representing the federal government; a member appointed by the governor of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, therefore the State is involved; two members appointed by the board of selectmen of the town of Nantucket within two weeks after the annual town meeting, one of whom shall be a seasonal resident property owner; two members who shall be qualified voters of the town and shall be elected at the annual meeting which is a part of the annual town meeting; and a member appointed by the Nantucket planning board within two weeks after the annual town meeting, who shall be a qualified voter of said town.

Then the Martha's Vineyard Trust Commission is going to have some responsibilities in Dukes County, over both land and water. It's going to be composed of 13 members with three-year staggered terms. Again, a member appointed by the Secretary of the Interior; a member appointed by the governor; a member elected by each town of Martha's Vineyard at the annual election, which is part of the annual town meeting; a member appointed by the Dukes County selectmen's association; a member appointed by private conservation organizations on Martha's Vineyard; two members appointed by seasonal resident taxpayers' associations on Martha's Vineyard; and significantly and very interestingly, in my view, a member elected by the senior class of the

[ Page 3262 ]

regional high school shall, notwithstanding other provisions of this subsection, serve a one-year term. Now that, Mr. Speaker, is the kind of trust that I understood the legislative committee had in mind following its tour of all the Gulf Islands, or most of the Gulf Islands, in 1973.

We said at that time that there was a need for coordination not only between regional districts and community organizations, but particularly a need for coordination among various government departments and Crown corporations — Hydro, Highways, B.C. Ferries, Recreation and Conservation, Municipal Affairs — all tied together so that one knew precisely what the other was doing. In fact on page 5 of the original of the Legislative committee report last year, the committee said in part:

"Because it is recognized that a variety of government departments and agencies — Highways, Health, Ferries, Lands and Forests, Parks, et cetera — as well as regional districts and citizen groups on the islands all have an important role to play in this respect, we emphasize that the proposed trust or commission must not be a separate and/or remote agency, but rather a fully representative coordinating body whose task it is to bring together each group, agency or department of government, and to act in the best interests of the islands and their residents with due regard for the broader and province-wide interest."

That, it seems to me, is the essence of what the committee had in mind, not this remote agency, government-controlled, government-appointed, with the tokenism — and that's all it is — of local trustees for local affairs, because those local trustees will not even have the opportunity, as I understand the bill, and as has been read by many islanders and reported to me during these public meetings, to decide what, in fact, is a local affair. The chairman of the general trust, one of the three appointed government trustees, is going to be able to say: "That is a local affair. This is a general affair."

What indeed, one has to ask, is a local affair? Is it the addition to a cottage? Well, it may be. However, Mr. Speaker, it may be decided by the chairman that additions to any cottages, anywhere within the trust become a general affair.

As far as the regional district, the Minister's remarks when he moved second reading, I think, are somewhat incomplete. That's being very, very kind to the Minister, because the poor regional district director can do nothing more than stand by. He has no vote. He can attend — isn't that wonderful? He can attend meetings of the trust when they're dealing with affairs which affect the islands he represents on the regional district. That applies to the local trustees only, as the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) has said. In other words,
he or she cannot participate in the activities of the general trustees, cannot make a recommendation, has no vote and certainly therefore will have no means of communication or coordination between the regional district he represents and the trust, which certainly has the superior position in matters affecting the Gulf Islands.

I think that it's important to note that on Saltspring Island, some time ago, when those islanders were working on their community plan which was subsequently approved by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, they had a turnout in the hundreds. The high school auditorium in Ganges was jammed with men and women who live on the islands, as well as those who have some casual interest in the islands, all of them working as a community to put together this particular plan.

When I attended the public meeting just over two weeks ago on Saltspring Island, the turnout was very, very small. Now, this could be taken as a lack of interest in what I had to say, or a lack of interest in the proposal in Bill 112, but that isn't the reason stated by representatives who sought to speak at the meeting. They said that Saltspring islanders have finally tossed in the towel. I paraphrase slightly, but they've given up. They've tried to work on a community plan. They've tried to get involved. They have tried to protect their island in particular, through the regional district and now they're presented with this very, very domineering document, Bill 112.

I think that when he stands to close the debate, Mr. Speaker, the Minister should tell us what representations were made by all the electoral area directors, the regional district people who attended upon him a few days ago. I believe that the representative from Bowen Island, Mr. Thomas, indicated that he was in favour of the bill, but I also understand that a number of regional district people presented to the Minister suggested amendments which would make this more palatable to some islanders — and I emphasize some islanders — because many of them are of the opinion that they are over-governed, and that the regional district mechanism would be satisfactory if the Minister of Municipal Affairs and his department and the government in general threw their support behind regional districts with respect to the Gulf Islands, rather than go all the way with this very, very heavy-handed piece of legislation.

The chairman of the Capital Regional District, in fact, at the meeting on Saltspring Island participated fully. He advanced the theory that there is really no role for the Gulf Islands trust where islands or an island within regional districts have developed a community plan and are functioning in an effective and responsible manner. He spoke of a scale, so that in those regional districts where there has been

[ Page 3263 ]

relatively little response to land-use requirements perhaps the trust could have more authority and could move in and do the job which should have been done by the regional district and/or the islands themselves. But in the other instances — and the Minister in his opening remarks today admitted that the Capital Regional District has done a "reasonably good job" in land use, in limiting subdivision, in providing for open space, in making sure that population densities in the future are not going to be simply so great that no one will be able to enjoy the islands — is there the need for the trust as it is presently proposed?

Again I have to get back, Mr. Speaker, to the tokenism of this local trustee because the poor individual is really not going to have very much to say in terms of the trust. This is very clearly a mechanism for the provincial government to direct precisely how the islands are going to develop in the next few years and what areas are going to be made available for open space. The regional districts, the communities themselves, the islanders themselves — who, after all, have some stake in the islands as that is their home — are all going to have very, very little to say.

I spoke earlier about coordination. I'm pleased the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is here. I was going to mention this point during debate on his estimates. The islanders are faced with a situation every summer to an increasing extent, Mr. Speaker, where the ferries bring more and more visitors to the islands. All the parks, all the resorts, all the trailer parks are jammed to capacity on any weekend where there is reasonably decent weather, between now roughly and some time after Labour Day.

They're unhappy about that, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister, because no one at any terminal — Horseshoe Bay, Tsawwassen, Swartz Bay — bothers to tell would-be visitors to the islands that the island facilities are full. Now, this is a very simple matter, surely, to set up the kind of coordination which should have been set up quite some time ago but which, I think, ideally the trust would want to establish, where at 5 o'clock on a Friday, or 7 o'clock or whatever it may be, would-be visitors to Saltspring or Galiano or Gabriola are told that the place is full. What are they going to do? They can't get into resorts.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Why don't you wait until my estimates, when I can tell you what we are really doing?

MR. CURTIS: They can't get into trailer parks. The parks are full and they inevitably end up, Mr. Speaker, bothering island residents, misusing campfires, indulging in vandalism, disturbing the peace and tranquility not only of the islanders themselves, but of those people who respect the islands and like to visit them on a casual or fairly regular basis.

I'm so sorry that the Minister has missed the point, and the people who have advised him have also missed the point. The legislative committee report of September 21, 1973, was not carefully read when Bill 112 was drafted. It has missed by a mile in so many respects.

I have a letter which I think is helpful to the debate. We've all received so many letters. This is a copy of one addressed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs re Bill 112. I'll just quote a brief portion of it:

"May I first observe that though there are several millionaires and a few of them own land in British Columbia, including some on the Gulf Islands, and there are many barons, a few of whom own land in British Columbia, including some in the Gulf Islands, these facts do not allow a sweeping generalization that the Gulf Islands are the playground of the idle and the absentee rich.

"To my knowledge, most islanders are working people of varying means who happen also to own land. The Gulf Islands, I would venture to say, are no different in this regard than the rest of the province.

"But no matter what the true state of affairs, the kind of bitter and hardly truthful characterization of the islands emanating from the caucus of the government of this province is despicable — more especially since very many islanders in the past supported your party."

The best thing the Minister of Municipal Affairs could do, Mr. Speaker, is pull this bill, take it back and work on it once again, reread the legislative committee report and visit the islands himself.

The islanders do not want to be members of an exclusive club. They are not Hong Kong sweatshop bosses. They are not German barons. They are not Californian surgeons. They are British Columbians. Many of them have pioneered and struggled on the islands up to this point; and they deserve more from this supposed government of the people than Bill 112 begins to suggest.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, because I have several of the Gulf Islands in my riding and because I was also a member of the municipal affairs committee which travelled the Gulf Islands, I wanted to stand this afternoon and say that this bill did not miss by a mile; it is right on.

I've always enjoyed visiting the islands within my riding and staying on them, and I've done so for many, many years. And I have watched what has happened to these islands over the years. As a matter of fact, just on Saturday this last weekend I visited

[ Page 3264 ]

Denman Island, where the world's oyster-shucking contest took place. I have never seen such a well-organized festival conducted on an island in the Gulf Islands.

I think that a lot of the municipalities, the larger centres, would be envious of the kind of cooperation that exists on these smaller islands like Denman and Hornby and some of the others in the southern gulf. And it would be a shame, Mr. Speaker, if that were destroyed, along with the beauty of the Gulf Islands.

I would like the Minister to know that the advisory planning commission on Hornby Island has adopted a wait-and-see attitude on the legislation, Bill 112. As a matter of fact, one of the members of that advisory planning commission was quoted as saying in this week's local paper: "This trust is 10 years too late."

On Denman Island the concern seems to be directed more at what is going to happen to the planning that they have already done. They do not understand that the trust will not interfere with bylaws and community plans that have already been adopted by these communities. They have no power to do so, and they have no intention of doing so, as I read the legislation.

I might also point out that the trust will not even have the power to initiate any projects on the islands. The initiation will have to come from the local people or from the regional districts.

This trust has been established to work in conjunction with the local people — to assist them, to bring in expert advice where they need it or want it. Most of the regional districts now are too large and have too many problems to give the islands the kind of attention they deserve. I'm thinking particularly of Bowen Island, located in the Greater Vancouver Regional District. There are so many problems there that there is no way that that regional district can give the attention that Bowen needs.

Having listened to the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) and taken down just a few of his comments, I'm not surprised that the people of the islands are afraid or have some fear about the island trust legislation. He called it "heavy-handed"; he said that it would be some remote council or trust. He also said that it would be devoid of local input. He said it was a domineering document.

MR. CURTIS: That's right.

MS. SANFORD: When this kind of approach is used by the MLA for the islanders, I'm not surprised that the islanders are upset and worried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not with him, though.

MS. SANFORD: He also asked: if the islanders have done their planning and the plans seem to be functioning quite well, is there a need for a trust such as the one proposed in this legislation? I think there definitely is. These islands are so beautiful and such a desirable place that the pressures to have the islanders change their bylaws will become increasing in the years to come. Even now we have had applications from some of the Gulf Islanders to amend the bylaws that they had passed some years ago.

There are other erroneous assumptions made about the trust. I'm not sure where these assumptions have come from — whether from people who have misread the bill or from people who have been speaking out against the bill for whatever reasons.

Some of the regional board members and some of the islanders themselves feel that the trust will somehow be housed in a white tower in Victoria and that it will be impossible for them to be able to communicate with the trust or to work with the trust. That's not the idea at all. The idea of this trust is that it will be available to the islanders, it will travel with the islanders, and it will work with them.

These islanders will have greater input now than they have ever had before. On a regional district where you have two votes out of 47 and will now have two votes out of five surely they will have more input than they have ever had before.

The other point that I would like to make is that another erroneous assumption has been made that the regional district representatives will somehow not have anything to do on the regional board once the trust has been established. The representative for the islands on the regional boards will still be dealing with matters of administration of all kinds, whether it is fire districts, fire protection, garbage collection, administration of wharves (as is the case with the Comox-Strathcona Regional District), building codes, regional planning — all of these will still be part and parcel of the job of the regional director for the islands.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: You're putting the Minister to sleep.

MS. SANFORD: If you talk about local input, then obviously the regional district representative may be elected to that trust. It may be one of the local representatives. I'm sure that in some cases that will happen.

A three-man trust will bring to the islands an overview of the development of all of the Gulf Islands. It will also bring to each island, as it travels to visit the islands, answers to problems which other islanders have worked out so that the islands can benefit from the experience of other islanders having solved problems in the past.

We said very often on our trip that the islands were unique. As a matter of fact, we often smiled when we used that term because we used it so often.

[ Page 3265 ]

But it's true; they are unique. They are different and they are special. And they need the special protection that an island trust will provide them with.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I have in my constituency one of the islands that will be affected by this legislation — Bowen Island.

I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis), particularly with the insult to those constituents contained in the publication "MLAs at Work." I wish to assure the House, Mr. Speaker, that my constituents living on Bowen Island aren't playboys; they aren't millionaires. They live on the island because they've chosen Bowen as their place of residence, either for retirement purposes or the place whence they go each day to work, returning each night — going and returning, I might say, with some difficulty because of the services that are provided by the government to pass between the island and the mainland. But they're hard-working, industrious, and they are concerned for the future of their island as much as any other citizen in British Columbia is concerned for his or her community.

To suggest that the islands are unique is to deny that the Cariboo is unique, that the Kootenays is unique, that the Queen Charlottes are unique. And to suggest that this paternal legislation — or maybe I should say maternal legislation — is going to be the solution for these islands and their uniqueness, is absolutely beyond belief.

I attended the meeting that was held by the select committee on Bowen Island to discuss the problems, and the people who attended that meeting — and it was an overflow capacity — were anxious to have a change take place so that they could play a positive and a responsive role in the development of their island.

When the concept of the island trust was being discussed, there was a tremendous amount of excitement. When the report of the committee was prepared and presented to this House, the residents on Bowen Island were pleased that the government was prepared to indicate that it could move in such a direction, a direction which they believe for the first time would give then self-determination for the future of their island community.

Well, Mr. Speaker, unerringly, the Minister of Municipal Affairs has missed the point. Again he's taken a good idea and allowed it to go wrong. It should be a matter of interest to the Members of the House, Mr. Speaker, to read the explanatory notes. I can only assume that the explanatory notes prepared by legislative counsel were prepared by him after reading the committee's report. He couldn't have made those notes after reading the bill.

The explanatory notes indicate that the purpose of this bill is to enact the Islands Trust Act to coordinate the planning and development of the islands between Vancouver Island and the mainland. That's what the select standing committee report in a nutshell provided for. But that's not the thrust of the legislation. The legislation, however, changes itself to preserving and protecting in cooperation with the municipalities and the government for the benefit of the residents of the island. That's when we become paternalistic, when we get to the bill itself.

As a matter of fact, if you look at the island trust, you'll find that the island trust is composed only of those appointees by the cabinet. They are the island trust, and only as an afterthought is there any local input at all into the conduct of the trust's responsibilities. In effect, this people's government is saying to the people on the islands: "We are your government; trust us. We don't trust you to administer your own affairs."

Yes, there are people on the islands who believe that this legislation is an indication of the right way to go. But they're being cheated, Mr. Speaker. All of the input of the local residents through their local trustees is governed by the general trustees appointed by the cabinet.

If you look at the provisions for the quorum of a trust committee involving itself with local affairs, it's a majority of the general trustees, the appointees of government. Two to one: that's how the quorum is formed. This legislation is further evidence of the centralizing of authority in the hands of the government in Victoria, and the island trust is nothing more nor less than an extension of the Minister's office.

The Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) suggested that in the performance of this responsibility, the people who live on these islands were entitled to some input. Mr. Speaker, it is my view that the people who reside on these islands are entitled to the major input into the decisions which affect them, their community and their future.

If there is any concern about the owners of land, I'm sure the Members will recognize that it is the residents on the island who are to control. Mr. Speaker, I happen to think that that is a mistake as well. There are people who do not qualify as residents on these islands, who are the owners of property, but who have as much interest and concern for the development, the planning and the future for the islands as those who are full-time residents.

To suggest that somehow or other they are somewhat less than first-class citizens is, I think, a further insult contained in this legislation.

I join with the Member for Saanich and the Islands in suggesting to the Minister that he withdraw this bill, if necessary, send it back to the select standing committee on municipal affairs that tabled the report, have them go over the legislation in direct consultation with the islanders and with the regional

[ Page 3266 ]

district representatives who presently serve those islands, and let's have this bill properly reviewed with the appropriate amendments to make this the vehicle that the islanders want with which they can carve out their future.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, having first proposed an island trust, or at least a coastal trust, some five years ago when I was in public life at that time, and to see a bill finally come forward such as this one — after working hard or trying my best over those years trying to get some sort of protection for coastal areas introduced — to see such a bill as Bill 112 is a disappointment, a grave disappointment.

The fact is that we have here a bill which brings out the worst in the centralizing tendencies of this government, a bill which not only weakens the local government, or virtually destroys local government in the area concerned, but is a threat, of course, to every other area which might have any claim to some special features.

The committee report has been, I think, treated very casually if not ignored by the people who drafted this legislation. That again is a disappointment. When a committee of this House spends quite a number of days and many thousands of dollars looking into a problem, I would have thought that the government would have seen fit to put more of their ideas and more of their good work — good work of Members of all parties — into the legislation.

Now worst of all, I guess, of this bill, as far as I'm concerned — its most disappointing aspects — is that it ignores the experiences of other countries and in particular the United States — and most of all Great Britain — in dealing with, in the British case the national trust, which has been enormously successful over the past 75 years, and in the case of the States, the proposals outlined by the Member for Saanich, which was in a book put out by the Interior department some three years ago entitled "Islands for America." The bill we have here, I think, has just missed the, experiences of other nations and the lessons we could have learned from them.

First, let's have a look at the issue of local government. My friend from West Vancouver (Mr. L.A. Williams), has suggested that the Kootenays are unique, the Cariboo is unique, the Queen Charlottes are unique, Vancouver Island is unique. As for the capital region, well, we in the capital, the local politicians in the capital region, people who work in the Greater Victoria area, can see that their days are numbered if the approach that we find in Bill 112 is extended to any sort of capital region trust.

The fact is that the whole of British Columbia, or most of it — has areas which are very attractive — the Okanagan is another one — different from every other part of it, and if the excuse can be used that because of uniqueness in B.C. local government can be overridden, then local government can be overridden just about anywhere in the province. The reasons given by the government are unconvincing; they're bald and unconvincing remarks from the Minister.

Sure, I can see some desire on the government's part to do something. I was not a member of that committee, but their report was of great interest and Members of all parties participated. They realized the institutions could be improved, but what a disappointment to come up with this bill.

The appointed commissioners can determine what is local. For local affairs, two general trustees and only one local trustee constitute a quorum. In cases of islands which are not scheduled, apparently there will be no local trustees; only general trustees will make any decisions as far as the non-designated islands.

The power is in the hands of the appointed members; the power has been taken out of the hands or will not be in the hands of the elected ones. I ask the question of the Minister, and I trust he will make some effort to answer it when he is dealing with the bill when he sums up: why is there this suspicion of the local official? It is something we see in other legislation. The disclosures Act is another one. In many other pieces of legislation we see constant suspicion of local government and local officials. Yet, in my personal view, without them it would be extremely difficult to really govern this province.

Bill 112 shows clearly that the Minister simply doesn't trust the people on the islands concerned to make decisions which are in the best interest of themselves as well as the local area. I trust he will address himself to this. Why this suspicion? What reasons do you have? What examples can you give us of disastrous decisions by the local authorities, duly elected by their fellow citizens?

Why the refusal to pay anything more than lip service to the committee report? Why is the legislative committee virtually ignored? What made the Minister decide that this bill, rather than a bill based much more closely on the committee report, should be introduced?

Why this failure to consider the Maine trust, the ones referred to by the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis), such as the one they have in the Californian islands, the Channel islands and the third area they've chosen for a trust, the American San Juan islands? Why is there this legislation which is quite contradictory, I think, to the American experience and the American thrust which, in my view, is substantially better?

Why is there not some effort to consider the British concept where you have a totally voluntary body, the National Trust, which takes care not only of the areas of natural beauty but also historic sites as

[ Page 3267 ]

well? It is a group which has been so effective that it now is a very well financed institution. It originally started out 75 years ago with American money from an Anglophile who wanted to protect some of the British heritage. He gave many hundreds of thousands of dollars and, indeed, pounds to start the thing off. It has become just a tremendous institution. Why is it that the voluntary route, which has been so much more successful generally and certainly much more successful in Britain, which has difficulties greatly in excess of ours when we talk about population pressures and things of that nature, has it been successful there and why no effort to use it here?

Why not experiment with easements, which are not used very much in this part of the world but are used most effectively by the National Trust? Certain easements are either sold or granted which allow the landowner or property owner continued use, but he or his heirs will be limited in certain respects as to how he uses his land.

I cannot accept the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) that the best attitude is wait and see. "Wait and see" is not the best attitude; legislation should be clear enough. We should get an idea from the Minister and from government spokesmen as to what is intended. If the bill itself indicates there are failures and faults in it, the time is now to correct them by amendment or, better, by withdrawing this bill and rewriting it rather than simply saying: "We'll wait and see whether the mistakes in the bill can be got around by some institutional arrangement or by regulations."

This is called the Islands Trust Act: I think it should be the "Islanders: Trust Us! Act" because that's essentially the type of legislation it is. Back to the old "Trust us!" concept. "We don't trust you; we don't trust your elected officials; we don't trust your local people." But they are, in turn, to trust the government. It's a strange thing, indeed, from a government which believed, apparently — at least according to some of its election material — in neighbourhood government and believed in open government and believed in — apparently no longer — local input.

They believe in resource boards being put forward. It's true enough. They believed in resource boards until they couldn't elect anyone to them. Then, apparently, there was far less enthusiasm in believing them.

I wonder whether the Minister would not, in light of the criticism which has been brought forward, in light of the fact that the bill is repugnant to our concept of having people closest to the problem dealing with the problem, have this bill withdrawn, rewritten and brought in in another sense.

I think a trust of some sort might well be very useful. But the type of legislation we have is not a trust; it's a commission. Government by commission is not necessarily good government.

I've heard arguments in favour of standardization across the country. Provincial legislatures and provincial politicians such as ourselves are quick to criticize such attitudes, saying that local people and local legislatures should determine local questions. Here, I think, the principle is identical.

Here we are dealing with municipal government; we are dealing with the people who live on these islands or who visit them for long periods of time. They certainly can be trusted, just as indeed provincial legislatures can be trusted. The concept of centralization is one I reject; I don't think it leads to better government. Therefore it is with regret that I am going to be voting against the bill.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): I would just like to add a few words of support for this very excellent piece of legislation.

A number of criticisms have been levelled against it. It seems the one the opposition is most concerned about has to do with the representation on the trust. The argument is that the residents have only two members and everyone else has three.

Quite different from their interpretation of it in terms of distrust on the part of the Minister, I think that what it is designed to do is to show the general philosophy and feeling about these Gulf Islands. Aside from the people who live on the islands as permanent residents, as the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) pointed out, there are people who live on the islands as weekenders or holiday residents who are also concerned about the islands. There are also people who do not own property on the islands but who are also concerned about the islands. There are people who do not even live in B.C. but who are concerned about the islands.

Those islands are not the private preserve of the people who live on them; those islands are loved and cherished by a lot of us — people who live here, people who live in the rest of Canada and people who even live outside of Canada. All we are saying through the formation of the trust is that the residents should have the major number of representatives — that's two. The other three representatives on the trust represent the rest of us — they represent the weekenders; they represent the rest of the people of B.C. who have no residence on the islands who love them and use them; and they represent people throughout Canada who are concerned about this.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: That's right. I'm saying that the three members on the trust represent the rest of us, not just the people who live on the islands.

One of the things the Member said was that to say

[ Page 3268 ]

the islands were unique was to say the Cariboo wasn't unique or the Okanagan wasn't unique. This is a strange kind of analogy because "unique" is just an adjective. In the same way, to say that the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) is a man is not to say that all the other representatives from his party are male. All five of them; not one woman sitting over there. All male. So to say that you are a male doesn't mean that all the rest of you are male because you all are. Okay.

MR. McCLELLAND: Would you repeat that, please? (Laughter.)

MS. BROWN: That's how silly his analogy was. I brought another stupid analogy to show how silly his was.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: The islands are unique. You are unique, too, as a matter of fact, Mr. Member. (Laughter.) That doesn't mean the rest of you aren't.

However, like the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) I too attended a public meeting on one of these islands — not in my own riding because Burrard has no gulf island.

Two things surfaced. The first was that the major opposition to this trust came from the regional boards. It was the regional district which was really upset about this trust. The example of this was the island which I visited, which was very much in favour of this trust and supported it until they were visited by two members from the regional district. After the two members were through distorting the legislation, they all decided the trust was a bad and wicked thing.

MR. CURTIS: Name names.

MS. BROWN: It was two members from the Powell River Regional District who visited them. One of the distortions they mentioned was that the Minister himself was going to be the chairman of the trust. There's absolutely no indication of this in the legislation and yet this is what the people on that island were told: the Minister himself was going to be the chairman of the trust.

Now, what about this great representation that the members on the island have had for the past umpteen years? Two representatives out of 42; this is what we're told they're being deprived of when now they have two out of five. What is this great representation? What are some of the really wonderful things that happened when the regional district took care of these islands? I draw to your attention an article in the Sun titled: "The Rape of Mudge Island." This didn't happen under the trust; this happened when the great regional board was taking such very excellent care of the islands.

Here we have an island which is two miles long, three-quarters of a mile wide, which has been divided into 185 half-acre lots. This is the wonderful thing the regional board has been doing for the islands. Nobody, no member of the committee who visited Mayne Island could ever forget the devastation of that island that came when it was under the very benevolent care of the regional district. We were shown lots on Mayne Island that were too narrow even to maintain a building but they were being sold and resold and resold and resold for a profit. That's what happened when Mayne Island was under the wonderful regional district that was taking care of them.

Who is chairman of that regional district that was taking such good care?

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Oh, that's not possible. Oh no, no, no! I don't believe that.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: No, and I don't intend to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member please address the Chair?

MS. BROWN: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.

The second thing I would like to point out is the statement was made that the 10-acre freeze gave such great protection to the islands. Well, the 10-acre freeze in point of fact did save the islands and there's no question about that. But now people have found ways to get around that 10-acre freeze. What we find is a lot of group-buying. Groups of people are going in and purchasing parcels of lots, parcels of land. For example, on Lasqueti, 70 people bought a 50-acre parcel of land. This is one way of getting around the 10-acre freeze.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I'll tell you that in a minute because I'm not ashamed of it. I'm not waiting for a disclosure Act to come in to tell it, either.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: The other criticism that has been levelled is that the Members of the committee don't know the islands. Therefore, I would like to establish my credentials.

I don't know how many of you are aware of it, but Saltspring Island is one of the very earliest places where freed slaves settled when they came to this

[ Page 3269 ]

province. Because of my own interest in Black history, I had the very unique experience of hearing about the Gulf Islands even before I heard about Vancouver. One of the very first things I did when I came to this province nearly 20 years ago was to visit Saltspring Island and to visit the old church and the old graveyards and some of the descendants of those slaves who still live here.

I fell in love with that island, indeed as I did with all of the Gulf Islands, because in so many ways they reminded me of the island on which I myself was born. Probably it's because of my own experience — the kind of destruction that happened to the island on which I was born — that I developed such a concern for the Gulf Islands. So I think I have established my credentials.

Not only that, but I own property in the Gulf Islands, Mr. Speaker, because I think….

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: That's right; that's fine. This was before I became a Member of this House. I'm not keeping it a hidden fact because it is indeed a beautiful place to live; it is a wonderful place to live.

MR. McCLELLAND: Are you one of those millionaires or one of those German barons? I can't figure out which one.

MS. BROWN: I believe very strongly that if there is any hope for these islands, if we are to have no more Mudge Islands, if we are to have no more destruction such as we had on Mayne Island, this piece of legislation, this trust, must be established. The people in the Gulf Islands who really understand it and who feel very strongly about it support this.

Now, as far as the three members are concerned who are going to be appointed to the trust, we're not irresponsible people. If there are going to be three appointments to the trust, they are going to be people who have a philosophy and a care and a concern about those islands as stated in the report that was tabled in this House. Those three people are going to be the people who are going to be speaking for the rest of us, along with the two representatives from each island.

When we think about this plea for the regional boards and this terrible thing that's happening to them, let me remind you that one of the things the committee found is that many of the directors and many of the representatives had never even been to those islands until they travelled there with us. That's the kind of tender, loving care that the regional district was giving to those islands. I support this legislation.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): In speaking against the Islands Trust Act, I don't think we should use it as a vehicle to attack the regional districts. We all know they were a form of government brought in to help the districts to help themselves where there were problems. To attack developments that were done before the regional district came into being and had the control of the islands certainly isn't a good defence of this bill or this Act.

Interjection.

MR. BENNETT: That's true. Now, the whole question we're discussing is one of local control and self-determination. That's entirely it. If the government feels that local people don't have the qualifications or don't have their own best interests at heart and are incapable of making their own decisions in determining their environment and their surroundings, I think they should state so. But I quite oppose that view because I believe nowhere else do you get the true expression of opinion of what should be done with the surrounding area than with the people who live there, who chose to live there and have a continuing interest in that area.

If the Minister is concerned about local, elected representatives coming up with bad planning, he can always use the Local Services Act as a protection of the government, the same Act that was used to bring in the 10-acre freeze. The people, through the government, are protected; the Minister has the power.

Really, what we're saying is: "Let's not give the local people the chance in this Act, let's not let them determine, let's not let them have their own say in what planning and what direction their islands will go." It's not enough to say all British Columbians are concerned about their own areas and the people of the islands are concerned too.

We have a transportation system — the ferries — designed specifically for passengers. The fact that the service didn't include a lot of facilities for freight to allow this to develop beyond a recreational and local retirement area is indicative that the province and the people of the province have always felt that this area would not be an industrial or a densely-populated area.

I'm concerned and the people of the Okanagan wonder if perhaps they're next and if their self-determination will be taken away. We have the Okanagan basin water study, a study which takes in the unique characteristics and the problems of the Okanagan. Will the authority that's set up administer that? Will they not trust local people there? Indeed will it be appointed people from the government because they say that this problem of water and surplus water and water conservation and sewage is beyond you because you've never solved the problem

[ Page 3270 ]

before?

When we think enough to set up a trust and when the trust was recommended by the committee and all members signed it, we should take for granted that the local people have the capability of administering the trust. I would say that if we formed this trust with just locally elected people to administer it and if it failed, then the government quite rightly would and should have the obligation to move in and show some direction to them.

The fact is that this recommendation hasn't been given a chance yet to have the local people participate. The idea of the trust, as recommended by that committee, should operate under local, elected representatives. If the representatives aren't doing their job, just like provincial representatives, they can be defeated. If the provincial government is concerned that they're abusing their privilege, they can use as I said, the Local Services Act to get some measure of control and to step in. That's not a valid argument.

Really, what we're talking about is the erosion of control and the centralizing of control in Victoria beyond the control of local people. If you don't believe in local representatives and if you believe you know best and that your representatives are more responsive than your appointed representatives and those who are popularly elected from the people who are concerned in the area, then say so flatly. Don't come out with all sorts of arguments that because there were continuing problems in recognizing this area, to set a new way of eroding local control and something that would be copied in every other area in this province, should you go ahead with this Islands Trust Act, because it's just a short step to preserving the Kootenays or the Okanagan with appointed representatives. It's this lack of appreciation of popularly and locally elected people, it's for this reason that we oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, while I'm here and while I've been having input from the local people involved, I've had the expression of opinion given to me by petition and I would ask leave of the House to present this petition at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: I would suggest to the Hon. Member that he ask for leave of the House at the conclusion of this debate rather than at this moment.

MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have very few comments to add and I don't want to cover ground that's already been covered.

Surely, the idea is sound that we should develop such valuable pieces of real estate in an intelligent way for the benefit of all people of British Columbia — I think that's the message that the committee was agreed upon and what most of the Members have spoken towards. But the fact is, this very basic point doesn't seem to be getting across to the government — that we happen to believe that local authority and input should not be dictated to by Victoria. And you can slice the pie any way you like: we have three trustees in Victoria very clearly announced in section 2, appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor.

Now, when the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) went to talk to the local people, there was a question put to the meetings: Are you in favour of Bill 112 as presently drawn? I'd just like to give you the figures, Mr. Speaker. On Mayne Island, 54 said no, and nobody said yes. On Galiano, 114 said no, and 2 said yes and there were 11 abstentions. On the north and south Pender Islands, 127 said no, and nobody said yes.

Regardless of some of the valid arguments that have been made on both sides of the House, what is at the heart and soul of the principle of this bill is the fact that local people in a certain very valuable, beautiful part of British Columbia are to come under some new kind of government in the form of three trustees appointed in Victoria. Now, that's what the bill says and there's no getting away from that.

Mr. Speaker, when the implication from points of view expressed on that side of the House are that, well, these three appointees will be responsible people with concern for the island, they'll be well motivated and so on and so forth, I agreed that that is very likely. But, Mr. Speaker, look at section 6 which spells out the fact that individuals or municipalities have to get permission of the trust — but look at subsection 4. When it's the Crown that owns the land, oh! that's a different situation — all it has to do is give notice of its intention to dispose of land or change the situation.

There again it's very much like the Municipal Affairs debate where we talked about Crown corporations not paying municipal taxes. Time and time again in this House, we find that this government has a somewhat different attitude to municipalities when its own interests are concerned. This particular subsection of part of section 6 again spells out a different approach and authority which this government wants to reserve unto itself, but everybody else concerned on the islands has to apply and get the approval of a trust which has three appointees from the cabinet.

This is something that I think we failed on this side of the House to get across to the government today.

The other point was raised, and I think it should be repeated, that a quorum consists of two general trustees and one local trustee — that's a quorum. Again and again in the bill it is quite clear that while the basic principle is to try and guide the development of the islands in the best interests of all of British Columbia, clear-cut authority sits in

[ Page 3271 ]

Victoria.

There's no question in our mind in this party that with very slight alteration to the bill there could be a better balance in the way in which the trust committees are set up and the participation of the local elected trustees can be increased to give them the kind of protection to which they're entitled in deciding the future of their own part of British Columbia.

I think a point that was just raised by the Leader of the Opposition has also not been adequately stressed: this is a precedent. This Island Trust Act, in fact, inserts in one place, in one part of British Columbia, another level of government in relation to land use, and another form of government. It's both a new level of government and another form of government.

We may well all say to ourselves that we're all filled with good intentions to preserve the Gulf Islands, but what is next? What other corner of the province, or what other part of British Columbia, might suddenly become, in the views of the government, subject or should be subject to the same kind of legislation?

I'm sorry, I would like to support strongly the concept of preserving and developing the Gulf Islands for the best interests of all of the people, but surely there could be a better balance by which the authoritative committees or trusts can be set up.

We simply have to oppose the bill as it now stands.

MR. MORRISON: I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Presenting petitions.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to table certain material relating to Bill 112.

MR. SPEAKER: I think what you propose to do is present a petition by suspension of the rules. Is that correct? The question is whether leave be granted to suspend the rules to allow the presenting of a petition from the Hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.