[ Page 1817 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Survivorship and Presumption of Death Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 1) Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Gibson –– 1817

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 1817

Report and third reading –– 1817

Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 8) . Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Gibson –– 1817

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1818

Mr. Cocke –– 1818

On section 2.

Mr.Cocke –– 1818

Hon, Mr. Wolfe –– 1819

Amendment after section 2.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1819

Report –– 1819

Travel Agents Registration Act (Bill 21 ) Second reading.

Adjournment of debate –– 1819

Home Purchase Assistance Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 14) . Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1819

Mr. Barber –– 1819

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1820

Supreme Court Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 19) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 1820

Mr. Macdonald –– 1820

Mr. Gibson –– 1821

Mr, Wallace –– 1821

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 1821

Motion to refer to Committee of the Whole forthwith –– 1822

Supreme Court Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 19) Committee stage.

Report and third reading –– 1822

Agricultural Produce Grading Act (Bill 23) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 1822

Mrs. Wallace –– 1822

Mr. Gibson –– 1823

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 1823

Motion to refer to Committee of the Whole forthwith –– 1823

Agricultural Produce Grading Act (Bill 23) Committee stage.

On section 13.

Mrs. Wallace –– 1823

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 1824

Report and third reading –– 1824

Medical Services Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 20) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 1824

Mr. Cocke –– 1825

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 1825

Islands Trust Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 25) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1826

Mr. Barber –– 1826

Mr. Gibson –– 1832

Amendment to hoist the bill for six months –– 1833

On the amendment.

Mr. Wallace –– 1834

Mr. Barber –– 1836

Mr. Cocke –– 1838

Mr. Lea –– 1840

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Before we get to bills, I wonder if it would be possible for the assembly to welcome an interesting young Canadian leader, Mrs. Jane Henson, who's done very fine work as a representative of the Frontier College of Canada, taking the educational messages to the remote regions of our country.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the House to. Welcome as well a group of people who are here today led by Dr. Vance Mitchell of UBC. They have been doing some work for the ministries of Health and Human Resources and have met with the two ministries this morning.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I move the House proceed, by leave, to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 1.

SURVIVORSHIP AND PRESUMPTION OF DEATH AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

The House in committee on Bill I; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to ask the Attorney-General why we're repealing section 1, which looks rather innocuous to me, and if the amended bill will then start with section 2.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm sorry, I didn't hear your question, Gordon.

MR. GIBSON: Why are we repealing section 1, and will the amended bill, as then printed, start with section 2?

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's a provision just amending the short title, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GIBSON: So just to clarify a bit further then, Mr. Chairman, once this amendment is passed, when people order a copy of this bill they'll have the title and then it will start out with section 2. Is that correct?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's a technical question, hon. member.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It'll show (1) repealed and then it will have the title as presented here.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed -I Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 1, Survivorship and Presumption of Death Amendment Act, 1977, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM; Committee on Bill 8, Mr. Speaker.

CORPORATION CAPITAL TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

The House in committee on Bill 8; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, section I here would restrict the operative effect of this bill to corporations which are solely engaged in exploration for a mineral resource. It seems to me that in equity the principle of the bill should be applied to any corporation which is engaged in the exploration for mineral resources. I know the minister is familiar with this concept because I think that I, like other members, received copies of a representation in this regard from the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines, which representation I support.

I, like the chamber of mines, see no reason for discrimination against corporations which may be engaged in other activities. With this restriction, corporations would receive no deduction even if other activities were minor or, even if of a significant size, were not generating income. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that the word "solely" in section 1, line 5, be deleted.

[ Page 1818 ]

On the amendment.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Chairman, just referring to the amendment. I know that this alteration was recommended by the mining association. I'm advised that the restriction indicated by the word "solely" is really able to be handled very easily through regulation from time to time. It's not really a matter that is of very serious consequence in the wording of the bill. I would suggest that we not ~amend the bill in this respect, so I respectfully suggest that we not accept the amendment.

MR. GIBSON: I appreciate the minister's intent, Mr. Chairman, but is he suggesting that by regulation he can go against the explicit wording of the bill and find that a corporation is solely engaged in mining exploration when, in fact, it makes widgets at the same time?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, the intent of the bill is to provide access to deducibility for corporation capital tax of a multitude of different types of exploration. It is not, at the same time, intended to provide for a company which has other operations from which it can deduct, for income tax purposes, the expense of exploration. When we say "exploration, " we're talking about prospecting costs, geological, geophysical and a multitude of different activities. The amendment you suggest with regard to "solely" can be handled very easily through regulation on any individual case.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I can see how the minister's thoughts on regulation could apply to the other concern of the chamber of mines, which is: what exactly is an exploration expense and to what extent do some things which might otherwise be regarded as development expenses fall into that category? I can see how regulation could handle that. But I cannot see how, in any way, it could get around .this concept of "solely." Perhaps the minister might want to adjourn the debate and give a little more thought to it.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, we have given this adequate consideration, and I don't see how we could focus attention strictly on the desirability of providing the proper incentive for exploration if we removed the word "solely."

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, just to show how that reasoning is a little backwards, if what you really want to do is provide incentive for exploration then you want to make it possible for as many firms as possible to take advantage of this particular incentive. I think the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) would probably agree with that. He's following this debate with great interest, and he wants the mining industry in this province to do well too.

By putting that word "solely" in there, you seriously restrict the class of corporations or individuals who might choose to incorporate themselves and who can take advantage of this particular tax incentive. I think that's a shame; I think we should broaden it. It's not a great question of public revenue but it's a good question of principle.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, I can understand the concerns of the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) . However, I would certainly support.... I'm not particularly impressed with the bill and I'm not in love with it in any way, shape or form. But I can certainly understand that what the government wants to do is see to it that the widget producer who has a sideline in the mining industry, such as a widget producer maybe by the name of Northwood, Noranda and all their.... They produce some widgets as well as mines. Now I know their mining company is separate so I'm sure that they'd be looked after here, but there probably are some breakdowns that would be somewhat undesirable. I don't think that we're particularly impressed with the amendment either.

Amendment negatived.

Section I approved.

On section 2.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'm a little bit concerned about section 2 because it vests in the cabinet the right to set the interest rates. One of the things that the old Socreds used to accuse the government of was vesting too much power in the cabinet. Remember, they were talking about order-in-council. Well, now all they're doing here is insisting on more and more orders-in-council. Mr. Chairman, we don't call the cabinet room the Star Chamber quite yet. But giving them the right to set the rates, I think, is something that is giving them a little bit too much power - awesome power. The rate of 8 per cent is there in law now.

I wonder sometimes, on the other hand, about this awesome power - it might work in reverse. There seems to be a love affair between that cabinet and the mining association and the mining companies. It could be that they'll set the rate ridiculously low. We in the Legislature haven't got a handle on it. No way! Once we give them this power, once we've said "okay, you set the rate, boys, " then we're away to the races. They can got the phone calls and come rushing into cabinet to say what the suggestions were

[ Page 1819 ]

this morning for the new rate.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, this has to do with the rate charged for overdue liability of taxes, which of course now reads "8 per cent" in the Act. In many other tax Acts it reads "8 per cent." I think it's appropriate that this be made more flexible for adjustment to be in tune with what an appropriate rate would be to encourage people to not allow taxes to become overdue unnecessarily. It isn't intended that this would be an exaggerated amount, an exorbitant amount of interest, but there are many tax

Acts where an 8 per cent rate exists where, in effect, it becomes an economy for a person not to pay his s overdue taxes. This is simply not the way it should be. I think we should provide means for more flexibility to adjust these rates from time to time.

Section 2 approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears in Orders of the Day. I will read it for you: "By adding the following after section 2: 'section 1 shall be deemed to have come into force on January 1,1977, and is retroactive to the extent necessary to give it effect on and after that day.' "

MR. GIBSON: I just want to check, Mr. Chairman. Did you find the amendment in order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

MR. GIBSON: You have to be sure of these things.

Amendment approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed I- Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. WOLFE: With leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave not granted.

Bill 8, Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1977, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 2 1, Mr. Speaker.

TRAVEL AGENTS REGISTRATION ACT

(continued)

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, perhaps I should must refresh your memories. The hon. minister introduced the bill. He was followed by the hon. second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) , who adjourned the debate at that time. It would mean that if he were in his place this morning he would naturally lead off the debate. But it does not mean that the debate cannot continue. It just means hat it was adjourned by the hon. second member for Vancouver-Burrard. If there are no further speakers on the debate then, of course, the minister would close the debate in second reading.

MR. COCKE: You say the minister has spoken on

This?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

On behalf of Mr. Levi, Mr. Cocke moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 14, Mr. Speaker.

HOME PURCHASE ASSISTANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I apologize to the House for the condition of my voice. I will attempt to get through the notes that I have to the best of my ability.

Mr. Speaker, the Legislature approved the Home Purchase Assistance Act last year, and it became effective on June 29,1976. As hon members will know, of course, the benefits under the Provincial Home Acquisition Act were available where the application was filed with the ministry before December 1,1976. The proposed amendments now are more of a housekeeping nature. That is an overworked word, but I think it is applicable and appropriate in this case. The primary purpose is to provide the ministry with a little more flexibility. For example, the Act without this amendment now specifies that persons who received assistance under the joint federal-provincial Assisted Home-ownership Programme - AHOP - or the Rural and Remote Programme, are barred from assistance under this

[ Page 1820 ]

Act. In the first place, the federal programmes may change; we have no control over that. In any event, we feel that under certain circumstances it might be advisable to allow persons who had received assistance under these programmes to still qualify under the provincial statute.

Also, under the present Act persons who have received assistance under the Provincial Home Acquisition Act, the Leasehold and Conversion Mortgage Loan Act, or a subsidy under the Department of Housing Act, are disqualified under our Act. Here again we feel that the government of the day should have the flexibility to enable it to deal promptly with changing circumstances.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing will be actively promoting the development of Crown land for residential purposes. That is well known. We feel that purchasers in that instance are entitled to a chance to obtain fee simple. We are also assisting municipalities to develop their land and, in some cases, such as in the city of Vancouver, the city prefers to dispose of the land by way of long-term leases. We feel here that in such cases the lessee should not be disqualified from loans under our Act, but at the moment we are powerless in that instance. In the past we have had much difficulty with respect to persons who were divorced or separated who wanted to buy a home and apply for our second mortgage or a grant. Under the existing legislation such a person is debarred or disqualified even though the spouse was not an owner of the property at the time the grant or the second mortgage loan was made. If this amendment is acceptable to the House, then only those who were owners or co-owners at the time the grant or mortgage loan was made would be disqualified or prevented from receiving further benefits.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I just summarize by saying that the intent of the amendments before you is simply to provide a little more flexibility in the day-to-day operation of this legislation. I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): I'll be brief. We support this bill. We think it's a very reasonable amendment and we expect to see it go through pretty quick.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I was prepared for just a little more discussion.

AN HON. MEMBER: We read it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move Bill 14 be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 14, Home Purchase Assistance Amendment Act, 1977, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 19, Mr. Speaker.

SUPREME COURT AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. MR. GARDOM: This is a very short bill increasing the number of our supreme court judges to 26 from 25. 1 would mention, Mr. Speaker that in, say, 1949, the supreme court bench consisted of the chief justice and some six judges. Quadrupling the size of the bench over a period of about 28 years appears to be somewhat of a large increase, but it has really only just kept pace with the growth of the number of practising lawyers in the province.

The secretary of the Law Society has informed me that the numbers of lawyers practising in B.C. on the rolls of the society back in 1949 were about 750, whereas today it's more than 3,200. So you can see, Mr. Speaker, that the ratio has been maintained.

I have had discussion very recently with the chief justice. The caseload is increasing. The assizes in Vancouver have been increased by one - from two to three assizes - and the judges will be spending more time in the up-country circuit. I'm also informed by the chief justice that the last combined civil-criminal assize is now held only in Prince Rupert, which is good news. Shortly we'll be able to have it distributed on the same basis as civil and criminal throughout the province because, as the lawyers in the room know, when there is a sitting, criminal cases do have the precedent. So apart from Prince Rupert, we now have divided assizes throughout the province, The caseload is on the increase, but I'm very pleased to say that maintenance of the cases is being well processed and shepherded. There's about a six-month delay in the county court and in the supreme court for trial, which I really think is an accomplishment, not only in British Columbia but I'd say throughout the country. I would move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, we're not opposing the bill. The Attorney-General points out that the number of judges is going up in proportion to the number of lawyers. I don't know what this whole thing is doing for the common people.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's the number of cases.

MR. MACDONALD: Number of cases. I remember the words of Voltaire, who said: "I was only ruined but twice: once when I lost a law suit, and once when I won one."

[ Page 1821 ]

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: But how can you oppose another judge today, Mr. Speaker, when the government has more probes going than my dentist?

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes. Are you considering, perhaps to save time and money, that possibly you might have an in-house judge, Mr. Attorney-General, to look after in-house probes?

HON. MR. GARDOM: You may be next!

MR. MACDONALD: I might be willing to volunteer in that capacity. But with all the probes that are going forward by this government it's impossible, Mr. Speaker, even with your independence, for you not to come out fighting for this bill. And all of the government members have to fight for this bill, because otherwise you just won't have the judicial bodies to look into your.... Oh, I don't know what to say. You need the judges. You need them all. You need one more at least. I second the second reading of the bill. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, like the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) , I'm not going to oppose this bill. I suppose we need another supreme court judge if the Attorney-General says so. But what I'm worried about is that this is another Band-aid on the justice system in this province in which problems are emerging in all directions. I'm just wondering when the Attorney-General is going to give us some kind of an overall appreciation of the problems of the justice system in this province - not just the inquiry appointed into the provincial court situation on Main Street and the Crown prosecutors, not just one more judge for the supreme court, but something that deals with the whole question of court administration, the sheriffs, the space that they're taking, the cost of it all and the speed of justice in this province.

I don't think one more judge is going to do very much to solve that, Mr. Speaker. I really do think we need some kind of an appreciation from the Attorney-General as to the overall system now.

As to the supreme court, the Attorney-General gave the increasing number of lawyers as a justification. His suggestion is that lawyers cause judges, and maybe that's correct. I don't know. But I think this is just another Band-aid on the system.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would have to agree that this seems to be a very small, simple step, presumably in the direction it's needed. But I notice that it is the supreme court we're dealing with and I understand that the major problems we're facing today are in the provincial court. I would hope that maybe this bill here is some preceding evidence of the fact that we can expect some legislation to provide the basis for change in the provincial court system.

I wonder if the Attorney-General, in winding up the debate, could tell us what discussions he had with the supreme court judges in deciding to increase the number and the reasons therefore. One of the discoveries I made last weekend in numerous discussions about the courts was that the judges feel very deprived that the Attorney-General seems reluctant to sit down with them and discuss the day-to-day problems in the courts and the problems of administration. It's the feeling that there's a great deal of communication, perhaps by letter, between the court system and the Attorney-General's department, but it was made very plain to me that the Attorney-General in person is not available to the judges to discuss a lot of the problems which they feel could very readily be solved if the Attorney-General was made more personally aware of their difficulties.

So we have a bill here where the Attorney-General says he is heeding a need to ensure that there are not longer delays in cases coming before the supreme court. I wonder what depth of discussion he's had with the supreme court authorities prior to bringing in this bill. I wonder if he could tell us, since there is a much more serious problem elsewhere in the administration of justice, if he is planning to bring further bills before the House in relation to the provincial court. Will he give the House some assurance that he will be more accessible personally to the various parties in the judicial. and the administrative system of justice so that some of these other more serious problems can be dealt with and corrected?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response to the member for Oak Bay - he may not have been in the room when I made my opening remarks - the reason for the increase in the supreme court bench is at the request of the chief justice and by virtue of the caseloads throughout the province. The judges on circuit are now spending longer times in the areas to which they're going, simply by virtue of the fact that we have a burgeoning population.

I also drew to the attention of the members that the assizes in Vancouver have increased from two to three, which is an additional drain.

Furthermore, there have been judges who have been on leaves of absence, if that is the correct term. Mr. Justice Berger, as you know, has been extremely

[ Page 1822 ]

occupied with his duties in the north. Mr. Justice Bouck has been on the Law Reform Commission. Just recently there has been appointed to the royal commission Mr. Justice Kirke Smith and Mr. Justice Lloyd McKenzie.

The fact that we need a bench of 26 as opposed to 25 is by virtue of public demand. When I illustrated the number of lawyers and the numbers of judges -they are somewhat consistent - it is indicative of the fact, really, of tile traffic that is going through the courts. So we're maintaining a balance; we've not tipped the scales one way or the other since 1949.

With every respect, I do have to deny the criticism of accessibility. I am not "dialing a judge." That's not considered to be too pro forma in this day and age. However, I've had no end of discussions with judges at every level, sir - the court of appeal, the supreme court, the county court and the provincial court. I would say that within any week that's been the situation.

So accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I would move second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would ask the House, unless they're not in accord, for leave that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 19, Supreme Court Amendment Act, 1977, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

SUPREME COURT AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

The House in committee on Bill 19; Mr. Shelford in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm just a little concerned. We go along with expediting the bill through the House, but does this mean that maybe the government is expecting another probe next week and we're rushing it through?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Will you fess up? We might not have to have one.

Section I approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 19, Supreme Court Amendment Act, 1977, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 23.

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE GRADING ACT

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, Bill 23, the Agricultural Produce Grading Act, has been designed to consolidate the six previously existing Acts all dealing with inspection and grading of agricultural produce. The consolidation means a streamlining and upgrading of our provincial legislation in keeping with what has already been accomplished at the federal level with the adoption of the Canadian Agricultural Products Act. There is consolidation, of course, underway in other provinces.

The producers of the province have long requested an upgrading of the various Acts that have been in existence. I would say that this Act would come into effect, as the bill states, under proclamation. The regulations under the existing Acts will become regulations under the new Act. One section, of course, that deals with the appeal procedure is included in this Act and it gives the opportunity for appeal to the B.C. Marketing Board wherever there's a question in regard to decision made with suspension of licences, et cetera.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): We have general support of the bill, but I would like to ask a couple of questions regarding it. First of all, I'd like to commend the minister on the appeal procedure. I'm very pleased to see he is including an appeal procedure to the B.C. Marketing Board. I think that's an excellent move. It does allow an opportunity for farmers and agricultural people to be judged by their peers, as it were, rather than having to go through court proceedings. *

One of the questions I have, Mr. Speaker, relates to the increase to, I think, the $2,000 maximum fine. In looking through the bills which this Act is repealing, I notice that in the previous legislation it didn't talk about maximums; rather it talked about minimums. I know a spread would be expected there, but the minimum fines were set at $10 and $25 in those former bills. I'm wondering Mr. Speaker, about the maximum that is not at $2,000. It seems a substantial increase and I'm wondering what the

[ Page 1823 ]

minister's thinking is in that connection.

Also I'm a bit concerned and I would like a little explanation relative to transportation. I know there is some mention of transportation of produce in this bill, but it seems to me there may be some loopholes in that connection. I would like the minister to outline his interpretation of the complete coverage for inspection of produce in transportation.

I think those are basically the three points that I wanted to raise, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask the minister a question which is a source of great puzzlement to me, and I think to many citizens, and that is the overlapping of jurisdiction in the grading of agricultural products between the province on one hand and the federal jurisdiction on the other. I wonder if the minister, in closing the debate, could give us some kind of concise outline of the demarcation and the confusion, if any exists, between the two jurisdictions, and as well how this bill, had it been in effect, would have affected, if at all, the recent case of the alleged finding of improper levels of contaminants in the shipment of eggs that was imported from the United States. I'm sure the minister will recall that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Chicken.

MR. GIBSON: Chicken - that's right, Mr. Minister.

If the minister could answer those two questions in closing second reading, I'd be grateful.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) , I appreciate her comments in regard to the appeal procedure. It is important, I think, where there is a question as to a decision that is being made, that there should be that opportunity for appeal - an opportunity for the aggrieved person to state his case.

With regard to the increases to $2,000, it is a maximum. Depending upon the seriousness of the charge or of the offence that is committed, it sets a fairly heavy fine. In that way, I think it does give protection to the consumer and to the producer with regard to whoever is going to commit that offence or is not up to standard. In regards to transportation, possibly they will make sure that they are up to standard in their transportation vehicle or their establishment. It gives a further protection to the consumer and that's the basic reason for the $2,000.

Transportation of the produfe, Mr. Speaker. I'm not just too sure what the member was looking at. She was concerned about it. If I followed the question rightly, I think it would be on the basis of poorly refrigerated vehicles or unsanitary trucks moving produce - whether it be poultry or apples or whatever - to give protection to the producer, so that his product will arrive at the marketplace in good condition, and of course to the consumer, in ensuring that product is in good condition when it gets to the marketplace.

To the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson): basically, the inspection is carried out at this particular time by federal inspectors who have authority by way of an identification card presented to them by the provincial Ministry of Agriculture. Basically we do not do our inspections. They are carried out primarily by the federal inspectors, but they have authorization by the provincial government of British Columbia.

MR. GIBSON: Under this Act?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, and under existing Acts. The inspection with regard to the poultry coming across the line is basically a health matter in regards to proper inspection. Whether that would be caught by this Act is questionable in regards to when the product is graded in the United States. For example, when it comes across it is inspected at that point and gets its stamp of approval. There is inspection at the border and it comes in basically to our standards.

The big question mark with regard to poultry was, of course, a misunderstanding as to what was the level of arsenic allowed in poultry. That was a different circumstance to what you've suggested. It is inspected prior to coming across the border, it is inspected on our side of the border now, and it would be under this Act.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 23 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 23, Agricultural Produce Grading Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE GRADING ACT

The House in committee on Bill 23; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Sections I to 12 inclusive approved.

On Section 13.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, this is the section which sets the maximums. I wonder if the

[ Page 1824 ]

minister can indicate to me any thought of minimums t in this.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Zero.

MRS. WALLACE: Zero?

HON. MR. GARDOM: A minimum of zero.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, if the minister is really intending to protect the consumer and the individual who is involved in a court case like this and found guilty, then certainly there should be a minimum. I wonder whether or not the minister would consider including in this section a minimum fine as well as a maximum.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, to the member for Cowichan-Malahat, section 13, 1 think, does give us the flexibility to go, as the Attorney-General mentioned, from zero to $2,000, depending on the seriousness of the offence. If you were to say a minimum of $5 00 or $ 100, maybe the minimum would be too high. So what we have is the flexibility, depending on the decision of the court, that that is the maximum fine. I think that resolves the matter that you're concerned about. We do have from zero to $2,000 as a maximum.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, we do also have the solution of finding a person guilty or not guilty.

If a person is found guilty, then I would suggest to the minister that there should be a provision that he pay a penalty, if you're really trying to produce a law-abiding farmer and protect the consumer.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure: did the member say if the person was found not guilty?

MRS. WALLACE: No, guilty.

HON. MR. HEWITT: If the person was found' guilty then they would pay the fine which would be up to a maximum of $2,000, depending on the n decision.

MRS. WALLACE: Or zero!

HON. MR. GARDOM: Or a suspended sentence. t

HON. MR. HEWITT: Or a suspended sentence. But on top of that, if the fine was too serious, there is N the possibility of appeal. The protection is there as well.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the minister is not getting my point. If the fine is zero, who is going t to appeal that it should be more than that?

HON. MR. GARDOM: The Crown can.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The answer cannot be given until the member is seated.

MRS. WALLACE: I still have some very grave misgivings about this. I would like to see a minimum established in there. Obviously the minister is not interested in changing this. I'm not prepared to move n amendment but I want to record my thoughts on Ms.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I think I should respond, Mr. Chairman, because again, if we did have a minimum, and it depends on what level you want to place that minimum, maybe that minimum would be too high. I suggest to you that we have the flexibility, depending n the seriousness of the offence and the decision of he court. I think that gives us probably more flexibility in setting the minimum and the maximum.

Sections 13 to 17 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 23, Agricultural Produce Grading Act, reported complete without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. HEWITT: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 23, Agricultural Produce Grading Act, read a third time and passed.

HON~ MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 20, r. Speaker.

MEDICAL SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, this bill, too, is housekeeping. The members of the House will

[ Page 1825 ]

be aware that the Ministry of Health has undergone some organizational changes over the past couple of years. As part of that restructuring, the operations of the Medical Services Commission were brought more closely into a traditional ministry structure, with the position of the chairman of that commission being established at the associate deputy minister level. These amendments simply give recognition, Mr. Speaker, to that organizational change.

Secondly, the amendments bring the financial reporting requirements of the commission into consistency with the rest of the ministry so that at each spring session of the Legislature we can bring a consolidated ministry report into the House.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly endorse what the Minister of Health is saying - that this is a streamlining approach within the Ministry of Health. I think probably he got a little bit hung up on tradition, hanging on to the commission-commissioner aspect. It probably would have been better to go directly into the associate deputy, but that's his business.

I hope that the commission remains as responsive to the needs and wants of the people in British Columbia with respect to their needs under medicare. We now have a virtually universal single medicare programme. We had three or four carriers previously, and now we have one carrier, that being the government.

In the course of their negotiations with Ottawa, however, over the next few years there are going to be some pretty tough negotiations with respect to the percentage that Ottawa picks up as their responsibility. They've been trying for a number of years now to reduce their participation and I suggest very strongly that British Columbia has to hang right in there in order to facilitate the needs. If, as has been announced recently, the Ottawa participation is going to be constrained, then I say to the provincial government that it's our responsibility to provide, within the area and within the level that people can afford in this province, a medical programme that remains universal.

I noted the other day, Mr. Speaker, by contrast, when I was in the interior, a hospital bill.... Now I recognize that this is not part of this particular thing....

AN HON. MEMBER: It sure isn't!

MR. COCKE: Well, just a minute. I can use any kind of analogy I like, Mr. Speaker, can't I?

I noticed a hospital bill of $244 for a pensioner. Now I don't want to see medicare getting into the situation of co-insurance. I think it would be very bad. I think that what we have to do - see to it that the commission continues to deliver the service, and that is paying the full bills of the people of British Columbia. They are paying the premiums today. I personally would like to see those premiums eliminated in the long run, but in any event they are paying the premiums. I would hope that the minister, in admonishing his commission, sees to it that we stay in the position we arc in now.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The member seems to be very anxious to get into my estimates, and he's taken this opportunity to do that to some degree.

MR. COCKE: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: But I appreciate his comments. They're as relevant as they usually are.

I move the bill now be read a second time.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask leave of the House to move into committee on this bill if possible.

Leave not granted.

Bill 20, Medical Services Amendment Act, 1977, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 26, Mr. Speaker.

MR. COCKE: Where did Bill 26 come from?

AN HON. MEMBER: After 25!

HON. MR. GARDOM: Then we'll do Mr. Curtis, since we've got Mr. McClelland here.

MR. COCKE: Look, you....

HON. MR. GARDOM: If you're unhappy about it....

MR. COCKE: Yes, I'm very unhappy. I haven't got the Health critic here.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I thought that was you.

MR. COCKE: Look, I've got a list, Garde, and you've been all over the place. Now 25 is next.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 1826 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: The member for New Westminster has a short fuse today.

MR. COCKE: Right on!

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's too bad.

All right. In order to accommodate Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, and specifically the member for New Westminster, we'd be delighted to call Bill 25 for second reading.

ISLANDS TRUST

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, Bill 25, the Islands Trust Amendment Act, 1977, has much more than routine significance. Its provisions will go, we believe, a long way toward fulfilling the promise inherent in the trust concept. Of equal importance, the reforms presented in this bill will simplify planning and regulatory procedures and bring those procedures closer to people and communities served by the Islands Trust.

As the House will know, Mr. Speaker, the existing process of developing and administering land-use and planning controls within the Islands Trust area has proven to be slow, unwieldy and often remote from the people affected by those controls or regulations. It is therefore a main purpose of this bill to improve the planning and land-use regulation processes. This is to be accomplished by transferring certain powers and responsibilities from the seven currently involved regional districts to the trust itself.

Mr. Speaker, the existing three-level system empowers regional districts to adopt land-use regulation and planning bylaws, subject to approval by the trust and by the province. The new proposed two-level system will permit the trust or its committees to adopt bylaws subject to provincial approval, and so this obviously speedier method will impose no sacrifices of local or provincial interests. The new approval system embodied in the bill will not only eliminate the delays and frustrations associated with an additional level of approval but it will also confer a positive planning role on the trust and on the communities that the trust serves.

The trust's existing capacity to approve regional district initiates confines it essentially to a negative approach based on veto power. By giving the trust the authority to initiate its own bylaws, this bill spells an end to what we believe is enforced institutional negativism.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, no. If you're looking for the author, he is before you, Mr. Member.

I should also mention, Mr. Speaker, that the regional districts will continue to have a role in the trust area. Besides providing a variety of customary services, they will also retain responsibility for adopting and administering building regulations.

I spoke earlier of the bill as representing a greater fulfilment of the genuine trust concept, and may I amplify on this point just slightly? The principle that the province as a whole has an interest in preserving and protecting the Islands Trust area is maintained in the continuation of provincial approval of bylaws, provision of financial support and the introduction of a new clause to assist in protecting the prime natural areas designated in regional plans. This latter clause will enable the trust to adopt special protective regulations applicable to designated areas of high recreational, scenic or ecological importance.

Mr. Speaker, the Islands Trust is becoming a more mature and responsible body. To help pay the cost of exercising its newly assumed responsibilities, the trust is to benefit from a provision in the bill allowing a levy of not more than 1.5 mills on property within the trust area. The school assessment base will be used. It is unlikely, however, that this provision will increase the net tax burden on residents within the trust because it's anticipated that the elimination of regional district planning expenditures will more than offset any levy imposed.

Mr. Speaker, the government looks forward to beneficial results as a consequence of this amendment to the Islands Trust introduced by the former administration. Not the least of these benefits should be greater responsiveness to local circumstances and, as I outlined for the members, certainly a less cumbersome approval process. All of this will be accomplished without changing the basic representational structure of the trust.

On this basis, having had response from a good number of island residents and those who are interested in the future of the Gulf Islands, I commend the bill to the House. I move that it now be read a second time,

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, there are seven principal objections held by the opposition to this bill.

It's particularly interesting to hear the minister walking on the famous road to Damascus, to be now endorsing the principles of the Islands Trust when, in opposition earlier as a Conservative and later as a Socred, he argued most vociferously against the trust. Later on in this debate we'll be reading back to the member some of his more interesting comments made at that time. They are certainly not consistent with the comments he makes at this time. It may be a sign of some progress. I hope so.

Now that he's in charge of it, and because many of these islands happen to be in his own riding and because of B.C. Ferry rates and other problems, he's

[ Page 1827 ]

in trouble with some of those islands. We see that some of those attitudes have changed.

Briefly, I would like to run down the list of seven objections that this opposition has to the bill and then later on go into detail regarding each one of them. First of all, as the minister is well aware, these amendments have led himself and his ministry into very considerable conflict with many of the leaders of the seven regional districts presently dealing with the Islands Trust, most particularly with the chairman of the Capital Regional District, Mr. Jim Campbell. The kind of conflict into which this amendment has led that minister, in our view, substantially impairs the effectiveness of the relationship between the regional districts and the Islands Trust in the revised form that the minister proposes it take.

Secondly, there is indeed an overlap of function and service between those new powers to be granted to the Islands Trusts and those residual powers to remain in the hands of the regional districts. I am particularly concerned about the responsibility which the regional districts will have for building permits and inspections. It is my information that regional districts are none too happy with the fact that they're left with that kind of power and with so little authority.

That leads to the next principal criticism that we have. As well as leading to conflict with regional districts and as well as leading to, in our view, a very clumsy overlap in responsibility and jurisdiction, it has tampered with the balance which from our point of view, again, was reasonably and sensibly established between the legitimate interests of regional districts and the legitimate concerns of the members of the Islands Trust and concern of the legislation which they previously had on their hands. It has tampered with the balance. It has led to conflict and it has led, in our view, to the argument that the necessary co-operation that should be exercised between the Trust and the regional districts has in fact degenerated into hostility and anger. In fact we anticipate that there will be no such co-operation as the result of these amendments.

Fourthly, this bill is, to say the least, a little inconsistent with that particular minister's previous arguments against the Islands Trust itself. As I said, later on I'll be reading some of those old arguments into the record.

Fifthly, the bill explains in no way at all, nor did the minister in his opening remarks, the choice that they made and the reasons for it, regarding the expansion of the boundaries of the Islands Trust. That includes islands in Howe Sound. It includes a total, I understand, of more than 220 islands. The particular expansion of power and of geography implicit in this has simply not been justified or explained by the minister. That expansion has been questioned by some of those regional districts and we have some questions about it, too.

Objection No. 6 is that bill fails to pass what we call the Gaglardi test. The Gaglardi test was originally announced by my predecessor, Mr. Anderson, in this seat. He said: "Well, you know, sometimes bills aren't really as bad as we may fear them to be. Indeed, some bills may, in the hands of competent ministers, be not so bad at all. But the problem is: would you trust a Phil Gaglardi to make these appointments?"

Would you trust a Phil Gaglardi to be responsible for this? Do you want to give yourselves such power, right now, which you yourselves perhaps may administer in a mature way? Certainly this particular minister has an outstanding record of participation in municipal government in this province and perhaps could be trusted, but would you want to trust Phil Gaglardi administering and handling those powers?

MR. COCKE: It's now called the Vander Zalm test.

MR. BARBER: Oh, the Vander Zalm test. Perhaps it should be updated.

So it fails the Gaglardi test, Mr. Chairman. We'll be getting back to that one.

Seventh, however, and perhaps more serious than any other objection, in our view this legislation may well be unconstitutional. The reason we raise and later will be debating again, its possible unconstitutionality is that this bill gives greater power into the hands of elected members of the Islands Trust than that for which they were elected in the first place. We see that during the term of their office they are given more power than that for which they were originally elected. This is most certainly unconstitutional, as we read it. Unless the minister is proposing that there be a new general election of trustees, in which case that objection would certainly be overcome, or unless he is proposing an amendment to the Constitution Act itself, we do not see how this particular amendment to substantially increase the powers of trustees during the term of their election is, in fact, constitutional. We'll be getting back to that in a moment.

Now going back to the first objection of the seven, it is a fact that this amendment has led that minister into very serious conflict with regional districts in the province of British Columbia. It's a matter of public record that the representatives of those seven districts who have objected to it have asked for a meeting with the Premier. They have asked the Premier to intervene and to suspend debate on this bill until they have an opportunity to meet with the minister and discuss it.

This bill requires a most careful analysis and, in our view, that has been given by the seven regional districts which are, by virtue of their request for a meeting with the Premier, concerned about the

[ Page 1828 ]

failure of that minister to consult with them. It is my information, and I stand to be corrected, that the minister did not consult with any of those regional districts regarding the specific terms of reference and the increased powers to be granted to the Islands

Trust contained in this amendment. That's my information. If the minister contradicts me I'll stand contradicted. But that's what I've been told by those persons in regional government with whom I have conferred.

It's no wonder, indeed, that they feel it necessary to go over the head of the minister and ask for an audience with the Premier. They haven't alleged bribes; they haven't proposed scandals; they haven't talked about further conflicts-of-interest - they've just asked for an audience with the Premier in a rather ordinary sort of way.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the reason they feel they have to go over the head of the minister is because they don't feel they can talk to him. They know they were not consulted in the first place. They feel ignored in the second. It seems necessary to them, in the third, to go to the Premier himself. I wonder if the minister or the Premier by some admission might indicate whether or not they will be receiving an audience with the Premier. They were not consulted. They are more than a little angry about that lack of consultation in regard to the specific amendments proposed in this bill.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: I'm suggesting that you could have taken the opportunity, through you, Mr. Speaker, to consult with them on the principles implicit in this.

You and I are both aware

HON. MR. CURTIS: Are you suggesting that the Legislature be put in second place?

MR. BARBER: Oh, come on. Really, now! When you were in opposition, you would have been the first one to demand consultation. You would have been the first to demand participation. Had you done so then and had I been here, I would have supported you.

Now that you're there, you don't seem to think that so much anymore. In a moment I'll read you some of your old speeches back again; you might be interested in their contents.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The Legislature in second spot.

MR. BARBER: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. The argument is that when you're changing the jurisdictions and the powers of seven regional districts and altering in principle some of the authority of the

Islands Trust, it is surely only reasonable to discuss in advance, as a matter of principle, those proposed changes and others that the minister may have considered, with the districts themselves. Of course, you do not take the legislation to them, and on one proposed that. I'm urging, as you used to urge when n opposition, that they be consulted in advance regarding the principles under discussion and, as it after turned out, implicit in this particular amendment. The failure to consult with them has led o needless hostility and criticism. It will lead, I think, to relationships made poor and unworkable between the regional districts and the Islands Trust in he future, because you're asking them to continue o participate.

I'd like to read into the record some of the present criticism of these amendments. Then I'd like to read not the record some of the past criticism made by hat minister when he voted against it - then as a Conservative, later as a Socred. The regional district chairman of the Powell River regional district, Mr. Harold Lennox, is reported as saying: "We're furious about it. It is the most arrogant thing I can imagine, this move. It seems to be the first phase of the provincial government taking over planning completely. It's disgusting and insulting and quite wrong." This is the support that the minister has for this amendment from the Powell River regional district.

Mr. Jim Campbell, the chairman of the Capital Regional District, says:

" 'What it says to the people of the Gulf Islands is that you people are not as competent as the rest of the people in the province to govern yourselves. People who live on the islands have been made second-class citizens because they don't vote for the local government that controls them. I hope they'll understand how badly they've been abused, ' Campbell said. He said he will ask his regional board to express its aversion to this type of legislation."

The minister himself, in explaining the bill, put it this way. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to listen most carefully to the contrast between this present explanation and his previous criticism when in opposition. Here we go.

"Curtis said that the legislation does not mean that regional districts will have no power on the Gulf Islands. 'They still will deal with other regional responsibilities, such as sewers and hospitals, and will retain the power to issue building permits that is in accordance with the zoning and plans passed by the Islands Trust. But the section in the legislation allows the Trust to amend or repeal any planning or zoning bylaws passed by regional districts in the past. As I mentioned before, this amendment leaves jurisdiction for building permits and

[ Page 1829 ]

inspections in the hands of the seven regional. districts.'"

Now what did the minister say on June 5,1974, when - then as a Conservative, soon to be a Socred -he was attacking the Islands Trust itself? Well, that's most interesting. He said, during the course of an attempt on his part to move an amendment for a six-month hoist, I presume it was, to delay the passage of the bill altogether.... I'm quoting from The Vancouver Sun, I should say, Mr. Speaker, of June 5,1974:

"The government defeated a delay amendment moved by Hugh Curtis (Conservative-Saanich and the Islands) by a vote of 35 to 10, with the Conservatives, Liberals and Social Crediters voting against the NDP. Opposition members and directors of the regional districts involved objected that cabinet-appointed members of the Trust will outnumber locally elected trustees."

Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. It's a little amusing, isn't it?

"Opposition members and directors of the regional districts involved objected that cabinet-appointed members of the trust will outnumber locally elected trustees.

"Mr. Curtis said Municipal Affairs Minister James Lorimer has not accepted suggestions of regional district directors elected by the areas."

He was very much in favour of consultation with them at that point - not so much now, it seems.

"Alex Fraser (Social Credit-Cariboo) " -then and now a Socred - "said the Trust represents further centralization of powers in Victoria."

He, too, was objecting to the fact that government appointed trustees dominated, in numbers and authority, trustees to be elected from the Islands.

What does Mr. Allan Williams say: He was then a Liberal - he still is, some think - representing West Vancouver-Howe Sound. Allan Williams said the thrust of the bill as currently written is "to destroy the influence of local initiative" on the islands. It's most certainly what he did say then.

Let's continue with these.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: It is more than a little hypocritical, Mr. Speaker, for members of that coalition, when in opposition, to argue that the government should not dominate in numbers or authority regarding its membership on the Islands Trust.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the word "hypocritical" is unparliamentary. I would ask the member to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, if you're using that word with relation to the remarks of an hon. member of this House, it is indeed unparliamentary, and I would ask you to withdraw it.

MR. BARBER: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I was using it as a generality to describe all of their remarks. However, I certainly will withdraw it.

It is a little inconsistent ...

MR. SPEAKER: Do you withdraw the remark?

MR. BARBER: I certainly do, Mr. Speaker.

It is a little inconsistent, to say the least, to have heard the present Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) , the present Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) , when they were in opposition, attacking the previous government for having the nerve to allow government representatives to dominate in numbers on the Islands Trust and now furthering and increasing the power of government-appointed representatives when they're in government. If the world "hypocritical" offends - and I have withdrawn it - the word "inconsistent, " to say the least, applies. Let me continue with the readings from the past.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER:

"Mr. Alex Fraser (Social Credit-Cariboo) said the proposed trust would be loaded with government appointees and that the legislation is a bad bill.

"Curtis said that the general trustees, those appointed by the cabinet to direct decisions on all islands, would retain the power to decide what is a local issue and what issues affect all the islands in general. But with that power. he suggested, the provincial appointees may decide that even a cottage addition is a general affair. He also said regional district board members responsible for some of the islands would be separated from the operations of the trust."

He said it as if he were offended. And now what has he done? He has separated them even further from the operations of the trust. To say the least, Mr. Speaker, it's a little inconsistent.

Here are more readings from the past. In the Province, April 25,1974:

"The bill" - this is the Islands Trust bill, Mr. Speaker - "drew criticism from Hugh Curtis, Conservative MLA for Saanich and the Islands, whose riding includes many of the islands to be

[ Page 1830 ]

covered by the trust.

"Curtis said: 'The local trustees will be only token representation of those living on the islands because the general trustees can always overrule them. It would be better to have three local trustees and two government appointed ones, ' he suggested."

That's a most interesting suggestion. It's hardly the one we see in this amendment, Mr. Speaker. So let me read it again, because maybe....

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): What party was he in then?

MR. BARBER: Oh, he was in another party then, but that's okay.

"Curtis said: "The local trustees will be only token representation of those living on the islands because the general trustees can always overrule them. It would be better to have three local trustees and two government-appointed ones, " he suggested."

Well, here is the final reading from the past, Mr. Speaker, from The Vancouver Sun of May 22,1974:

"Curtis, whose riding includes many of the islands affected, said he had revisited five islands since the bill was introduced. 'The islanders feel that they are going to move into a state of government and taxation without representation, ' he said. 'This, ' he said, 'shows a big-brother attitude.'

" 'The three provincial trustees appointed by cabinet would control the trust, ' he said. Provision for two local trustees for each island was mere 'tokenism.'

" 'The local trustees from an island will only sit when the trust is dealing with local matters relating to that island, ' Curtis continued, 'but it will be the chairman of the trust or the provincial appointees who determine whether a matter is local or whether it affects all the islands.'

" 'Not only will the residents not have control, they could be shut out of having any say by the provincially appointed trustees, ' he said. "

Let me read the key paragraph again, Mr. Speaker: "Mr. Curtis said: 'The three provincial trustees appointed by cabinet would control the trust.' Provision for two local trustees from each island was mere 'tokenism.' " Well, I suppose at the time that must have sounded like a fairly sincere objection. I suppose at the time he may even have meant it, although one wonders.

We see at this time that these amendments contradict completely the arguments made earlier by that member and by his colleagues, the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Labour. These amendments contradict completely their earlier objection to the bill and raise in the minds of reasonable people the possibilities: (I) that they were totally insincere when they objected in the first place, or (2) they have found out something now about government that they didn't know before. In either case, it raises the suspicion that they are more than content to repudiate their own earlier arguments in the advance of their own present power. I think that's most objectionable, Mr. Speaker.

What a difference a year makes! How they are changed in power! How, when in opposition, they found it so objectionable that three government -appointed trustees should -have veto power over the two island trustees, island by island, and now how in government we see they've given even more power to the three cabinet -appointed trustees! What a difference a year makes!

In their campaign, they promised to give more and more power to the regional districts because, in their campaign, they said that they felt regional districts were among the most sensitive instruments of local government. They said in their campaign, Mr. Speaker, that regional districts were among the more appropriate vehicles for the expression and the determination of local feelings on local issues. Now that they're in power, all of the arguments change. We don't hear those ones at all anymore. We see a further grab for power by this coalition, a further insult to the islanders themselves, and the further repudiation of their own arguments when they were in opposition. What a difference a year makes, indeed.

They are in conflict with the regional districts. They are in conflict with their own record when in opposition. They are creating a situation that requires participation by the regional districts, especially in regard to the granting of building permits and to the arrangements for building inspection, and yet they have themselves created an atmosphere wherein regional districts will not wish to participate at all. It is my information that two of the regional districts most especially concerned, the Capital Regional District and the Powell River Regional District, have expressed to me privately - perhaps shortly publicly, perhaps in the proposed meeting with the Premier -their position that they see no further role or purpose and express no further interest whatever in participating with the trust because they haven't been insulted and offended by this bill.

They are insulted by the inconsistency of the minister's own position in regard to the powers. They have been insulted by the total lack of consultation in regard to these amendments. They are now expressing the position privately that they do not expect to be able to co-operate effectively at all with the Islands Trust in the future.

Once again the minister, in a very clumsy, in a very

[ Page 1831 ]

oafish way, has tampered with what was previously a workable and legitimate balance. Through the hostility he's created and the lack of consultation he engineered, he is making it impossible for the regional districts, even with these reduced roles, to participate with the Islands Trust - conflict, overlap, tampering with the balance, inconsistency. I'm sure the statements from the past more than demonstrate to the Speaker's satisfaction the inconsistency of the minister's present position. If they don't, I'll do it again. No, I guess they do.

I'd like to understand, Mr. Speaker, why it was felt necessary to expand the boundaries of the Islands Trust. Why were the islands in Howe Sound included? What rationale is present in whatever arguments went on?

AN HON. MEMBER: They'll take in Vancouver Island next.

MR. BARBER: Perhaps they'll take in Vancouver Island and be done with regional government altogether.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if it was the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) who requested that the islands in Howe Sound be included in the Islands Trust with its vastly increased and centralized provincial government powers. I wonder if it was the Minister of Labour who made that specific request. If he didn't make the request, perhaps he objected for some reasons. He's staring pensively and Hamlet-like. I wonder if he might indicate if he participated at all in these discussions. Presumably the bill at least came to cabinet.

The boundaries have been changed in a rather eccentric fashion, Mr. Speaker, with no apparent logic or reason behind those changes. Indeed, regional districts in whose boundaries previously those islands were found have also been raising the question, in private and in public: why should that have been done? Why were they not consulted? What further intrusions on their authority can they expect from this most inconsistent Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing? That's the fifth objection.

The sixth objection. Let me repeat, it fails the Gaglardi test - or the Vander Zalm test, if we should update it. It puts in the hands of that minister and that coalition, Mr. Speaker, an authority which they did not have even under the much-feared NDP administration. On all the occasions that our government was attacked for awesome, sweeping powers by, among others, that minister, we never once proposed the further increase of powers in the hands of the provincial government represented by this bill.

The government -appointed trustees dominate, even more than before, the decisions of the Islands Trust. They have even more power than before to carry those decisions out without recourse to regional districts. They have even more authority than they should have, Mr. Speaker, as representatives of the political party of the day controlling the government of the day, to carry out those decisions.

I'd like to read into the record some arguments presented - in my view, very powerfully - by the Victoria Times in an editorial of February 28,1977:

"Taking away Gulf Islands planning and zoning functions from elected regional districts and turning them over to the partially appointed Islands Trust will be cynically interpreted as a Social Credit move to pay off the province's real estate lobby for its vociferous free-enterprise support in the last election. But one of the Socred's campaign promises was to decentralize control and give local councils responsibility for their home turf, a pledge that hasn't been totally honoured, especially in hospital matters.

"Perhaps this transfer of responsibility is a fulfilment of a tattered campaign promise, but there is more here than meets the eye. Preservation of the Gulf Islands agricultural and recreational lands will now ultimately depend on appointed trustees. On individual island matters, two of the government-appointed members plus one local member form a quorum. That means that appointed members always have a two-to-one vote advantage over the local member.

"This feature of the Islands Trust was built into the 1974 legislation by the NDP. One can only speculate as to whether the Socreds will use it to their own advantage. At present the appointed members of the trust are all islanders who have shown judicious respect for the unique charm of their area. But we have seen how quickly the government knife can gut its inherited agencies when they don't toe the line of Socred philosophy. The recent wholesale firings on the Land Commission are the most flagrant example."

Let me retreat from my quote for a moment, Mr. Speaker, to add my own comment. We felt, when in government, that we had established a reasonable balance - an honest and a legitimate balance -between the legitimate interests of the whole province in preserving these quite remarkable Gulf Islands and the equally legitimate interests of the islanders themselves, and the regional districts in which they found themselves, to have a say in those matters. That balance has been tampered with by this minister in a very clumsy and hostility-producing way. He's altered the balance in a very foolish way and he's paying the price at the moment because of his present poor relations with the seven regional districts involved.

[ Page 1832 ]

Let me continue. Back to the editorial:

"Perhaps this cynical speculation is unwarranted. But the government's example over the last 14 months is not reassuring. Are we to watch the 10-acre Gulf Islands freeze go by the boards as rapacious developers are given a free hand to put up tacky recreational suburbs? A Gabriola trustee has said that if all the half-acre lots on his island were developed it would result in a population of 100,000 or more. Realtors would have no difficulty selling off the islands to those in quest of a retirement home or a recreational cottage.

"Such a rape would initiate colossal sewage and servicing problems, not to mention the tarnishing, if not the total ruination, of the island's charms. While there are many British Columbians who did not agree with the previous NDP government, its land preservation policies were among the most enlightened in North America. It is obscene to watch how the current administration slowly draws and quarters these good Acts in the name of local autonomy and growth. "Another question here is the government's apparent contempt for regional districts. Municipal Affairs minister Hugh Curtis says one of the main island complaints revolves around being over-governed. 'It is better to be over-governed by those you can periodically throw out of power than to be dictated to by Victoria.' "

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR.BARBER:

"For Curtis to say this move will result in more local autonomy is far-fetched. Local autonomy for whom - the real estate industry and the developers? If the Bennett administration is really serious about fostering local autonomy it would strengthen regional districts, whose members are democratically chosen, not take away responsibilities and hand them to a body where government appointees carry the clout.

"There should be a further amendment to its new legislation providing for the direct election of all island trustees. That would provide meaningful local input instead of the heavy cosmetics this government is currently powdering around."

It fails the Gaglardi test, Mr. Speaker. It allows some future government and some other minister to appoint people who are less concerned with the preservation and the uniqueness and the special worth of the Gulf Islands. It increases the power and wrecks the balance. It holds in contempt and it degrades in Practice the participation of regional districts. It contradicts completely the arguments made by that minister when he was in opposition.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out hat in our view this legislation may very well be unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional, in our view, because it grants increased authority not approved by he electors when the Islands Trust trustees were elected in the last election. It is, in our view, unconstitutional because it does so without reference o those electors again. It does so because it grants hem powers which they did not expect to have when hey were elected and which the islanders themselves did not expect to be granting them when they did elect them in the last election.

In our view, for those three reasons, Mr. Speaker, his may be tested and challenged and found wanting on constitutional grounds. In our view, that constitutional objection is perhaps the most serious of all to this further attempt to give more power to the provincial government in this further attempt to degrade the role and the participation of regional districts.

Our seven objections are, firstly, that this amendment has led the government into serious conflict with seven regional districts and led those districts to demand a meeting, not with the minister but with the Premier, because they don't feel they can get anywhere with the minister.

Secondly, it creates a very awkward overlap of authority with regional districts and with the Islands Trust.

Thirdly, it tampers with what we thought was a delicate, judicious and workable balance, and it has led to very considerable criticism.

Fourthly, it is, to be very generous, slightly inconsistent with that minister's own arguments when he was in opposition.

Fifthly, it alters the boundaries in a very peculiar and erratic way without any apparent justification whatever of the islands trust itself.

Sixthly, it fails utterly the Gaglardi test. We may see appointed to those three offices people who do not care about, and are not concerned about the special worth and the unique value of the Gulf Islands to the people of British Columbia.

Seventhly, and perhaps most importantly, it may well be tested and found wanting constitutionally because you've granted them powers that the electors did not grant them when they voted for them last time. We think that's a most serious objection and one which we expect the Speaker may have to rule upon at a later date.

, For those seven reasons, Mr. Speaker, this opposition does not feel it can support this amendment.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon.

[ Page 1833 ]

second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) has done a first-rate job.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: I might say in passing that the same reflexive symmetry is sometimes reflected in the job done by the first member for Victoria (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) , if you take my point.

MR. BARBER: I get it now.

MR. GIBSON: It's a little arcane; I apologize for that.

The bill before us, Mr. Speaker, is wrong in principle. It's wrong, first of all, for the reason that the wide-spread opposition that local governments have pointed out to this government should give them pause. The regional districts want to meet the Premier. Now there was some discussion about whether there should be consultation in advance on legislation - not on the detail of legislation, Mr. Speaker, but certainly they should have received representations from the regional district. Now that the legislation has been tabled, they should have received delegations from the regional districts who wanted to come and talk to the government and to other parties in this House before proceeding with debate on the bill. It is wrong that they have not done that.

Secondly, it is wrong because it infringes the sacred principle of local control of local government for local purposes. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that is a sacred principle; it is not a Socred principle. It is not in this bill. As a matter of fact, it's wonderful how opinions change over time. But now that we have a Hansard in this House, the members of the government are trapped by the words of Omar Khayyam:

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.

Mr. Speaker, the lines that they might wish would have been washed out were quoted by the second member for Victoria. Old readings from the gospel according to Saint Hugh, who has since been canonized, I might say. He seems to have recanted his original views on this idea of local control. The nub of the question is surely whether the Islands Trust in respect of local questions is to be controlled by locally elected people. As the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) said in those days, and as the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) said in those days, there should be a majority of locally elected people. That was in their statements, but it's not in this bill.

We all agree that there are special circumstances in the island areas of our province, particularly the Gulf Islands, and that these are the jewels of British Columbia, part of our provincial treasure, and that there should be some special form of administration. But that special form of administration should not be a majority provincial-government -appointed group. The members opposite recognized that when they were on this side of the House. This bill should do that instead of doing quite the contrary. What it does is take away even such powers as there are with the locally elected regional district. To me that's wrong, Mr. Speaker.

The minister said that the administration so far has been remote. He used that word. Well, how can you get more remote than Victoria? A regional district is closer to the various island groupings, which ever of the seven regional districts it may be, than is Victoria. I don't understand that. He is by this bill going to be taking away from regional districts powers with respect to zoning and other questions that they have had, taking away the powers to make laws, and yet retaining the insistence that they should enforce those laws, laws over which they have no control and with which they may well differ without having the courtesy to wait until that meeting which the districts have asked to have with the government of this province. To me, that's wrong.

So let me say again, I endorse in general the objections of the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) and I particularly want there to be time for consultation with the regional districts that they have asked for. I would therefore move that the word "now" in the sentence "that the bill be read a second time now, " should be replaced with the following words, which is the traditional hoist: "upon this day six months."

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: No, no. "Upon this day six months" - May, page 486, 18th edition. I would so move, Mr. Speaker. Hopefully, in that period of time the government will come to its senses and allow some consultation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please, while we consider the motion.

The motion appears to be in order, hon. member.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not debate this motion further except to say that I assume it will have the concurrence of the hon. minister who moved the bill, because it's the same motion that he moved when this matter was originally being debated, for the same reasons.

[ Nit. Veitch in the chair.]

[ Page 1834 ]

MR. WALLACE: Speaking to the amendment, Mr. Speaker, I hadn't intended to follow the format of the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) about the hon. minister's past speeches. They're much too painful for me to recite in this House. There's no question that the amendment is a valid one, simply because of two facts, as I see it. It's quite clear that the original Act is a kind of unwanted child. It's a failure. It hasn't worked. In this amendment debate I won't go through all the chapter and verse as to why it hasn't worked, but there's plenty of evidence available to show that it has not worked.

Therefore the minister was faced with the problem of trying to change it or throw it out - one or the other. It's clear that the minister has chosen the first of those two alternatives - to try to change it in some way and to try to make it work. In changing it and amending it, there has been an outcry by regional politicians in the seven regions affected by this bill showing such an enormous cross-section of opinion from the person who says that this just converts the people on the islands to living on reserves, which I think was rather an extreme appraisal of the situation. But I'm just trying to make the point, Mr. Speaker, that of the present seven regional districts which hold authority prior to this new bill and are having that authority taken away from them, the cross-section of response goes from one end of the spectrum to the other.

In fact, this place seems to be filled with Campbells; they get very confusing. I'm surprised there aren't a few Macdonalds in this Act as well. Jim Campbell, the chairman of the regional district whom I've just quoted, said that he bitterly opposed this bill because it's creating a situation somewhat similar to the reserves.

There's also Jack Campbell, chairman of the greater Vancouver regional district, who made the comment: "Well, if he" - meaning the minister -11 wants Bowen Island, he can have it. It takes up about 20 per cent of our time."

One of the headlines in The Vancouver Sun described reaction as varying from anger to approval. I just think that the main reason that the bill should be held up for six months, Mr. Speaker, is that the people who have been most involved in trying to make it work under the old rules, or under the previous legislation, are obviously totally and completely divided as to whether the new bill offers any better hope that the legislation will work than occurred under the previous legislation.

Let me quote from The Vancouver Sun of February 29. It says:

"The reactions of regional districts affected by proposed amendments to the Islands Trust Act ranged from fury to cautious praise to enthusiasm.

"The Powell River regional district chairman, Harold Lennox, said: 'We're furious about it. It's the most arrogant thing I can imagine, this move. It seems to be the first phase of the provincial government taking over planning completely. It's disgusting, insulting, and quite wrong.' "

I won't read all of his comments because I want to give the cross-section of comments that were made.

Regional District of Nanaimo chairman, Paul Smith, said he favours the intent of the legislation: "It seems to be a change in the division of authority. The present arrangement is not satisfactory."

I already quoted Jack Campbell, the chairman of the Regional District of Greater Vancouver, who seemed to think he had such a problem with Bowen Island that anything but anything that might handle that problem better would be welcome.

Regional District of Comox-Strathcona chairman, Norma Lysne, said: "The changes are backward. I think it's a straight reversal of what should happen. If they would abolish the Islands Trust they would be saving everybody a lot of headaches and money. It seems to be the minister has taken the wrong decision."

There are many others, and I don't think it's fair to take up the time of the House reciting every comment by everybody who responded, but I don't think there's any doubt at all, Mr. Speaker, that legislation which is held in such a divided view by all the regional politicians in the seven regions concerned leaves one to wonder to what extent there is any better hope in the future if we follow the new bill than has obviously been the case in the past. The regional government, under this bill, retains the right to control building regulations. There are some divided responsibilities now between the regions and the trust so that they will still have to get along together. They will still have to try and co-operate. The co-operation hasn't occurred in the past, for whatever reason. The sentiments, as expressed by some of these regional directors, would suggest to me that they are mighty unhappy - not the least of whom is the chairman of the Capital Regional District, who has used very strong language, which may always be the case, but the point is, Mr. Speaker, that he is chairman of the regional district, and I think he has made a strong point that under the pre-existing legislation which we are proposing to amend it was even difficult to know when trust meetings were being held or what was on the agenda.

I have a quotation here from the chairman of the regional board that there was one occasion where he sought legal counsel and informed the deputy minister of the day that he was about to seek the issuance of a writ because of some four months' delay on a particular issue before the Islands Trust. I think I should quote the source of that comment. I have the clipping here from The Daily Colonist of February

[ Page 1835 ]

26,1977. It speaks of Jim Campbell, chairman of the regional district, who said:

" 'At present I am a member of five little trust committees without a vote as a regional director. . . .'

"At present, Campbell said, the trust meets only at the call of the Chair, usually in St. Ann's Academy and usually without notice, although on rare occasions residents have been informed and have been in attendance.

"The trust has been tardy, with matters waiting four to five months to be dealt with.

" 'On one occasion I was so distressed I took legal counsel, and informed the deputy minister that I would issue a writ for the trust to hold a meeting to deal with business that had been waiting in excess of four months.'

"Campbell wondered where trust meetings would be held.

" if they continue to hold them in Victoria or Vancouver, then that would be a two-day journey if somebody from Lasqueti Island wanted to attend. . . .'

"Region directors are now to be left with control over building permits and health inspection."

So the point I am trying to make is that the system hasn't worked. Amendments are being suggested which are resisted by many of the regional directors who are already trying to make the system work. When one takes into consideration some of the other points already raised this morning - that in relation to individual islands the appointed representatives will outnumber the local elected representatives - I would hope that in the debate something is clarified.

I gather in regard to individual local issues on any one of these 13 designated islands a quorum consists of two appointed representatives and one local representative. Now that is what I have read in discussion in the media on the bill, which, of course, means that on local island issues - and by local I mean issues relating to one of the specific 13 designated islands - decisions can be made where a quorum consists of the two government-appointed representatives and the one elected local representative.

If I'm wrong on that understanding, I'll be glad to be corrected. But if I'm correct - and this is certainly the information I've gleaned from the interpretations of the bill in the media - then the new legislation, very obviously, is Victoria centralized government visa is these 13 designated islands. I suppose it's even worse in relation to the other smaller islands in the whole area involved which are not designated in the bill. But that is more for debate on the bill per se, except to say that if the regional directors are unhappy with the proposals, and since the very essence of this bill is supposed to be directed towards better local autonomy or better local participation by residents in the way in which their environment is developed, it would seem to me that the transfer of powers is having the very opposite effect to what the bill is reputedly intended to do.

We've talked so much in the last election and in this session so far about open government and access to government. Could I just ask - and perhaps the minister can answer later - if there was any thought, because of the very specific intent of trying to improve this legislation and the rather local nature of the problem disseminated among 13 islands, their residents and many smaller islands, to have some kind of resident referendum? Would it not have seemed reasonable to have some kind of referendum giving the islanders some opportunity? After all, they are the ones who are the most affected, and that's the principle we're debating. How do you do two things -give them local autonomy and participation to the greatest extent, and preserve the natural beauty and orderly development of the islands or the degree to which they should be developed? Naturally that's the essence of what we are debating, and I would have thought that these two elements seem to be missing. There was no real opportunity for the island residents to have said collectively, by vote or ballot or otherwise, how they feel.

Secondly, I wonder if the minister could tell us to what degree he met collectively with directors from the seven regional districts prior to this amendment Act. We are left with the impression that the regional directors were contacted, or perhaps meetings were held individually with each region. But since seven regions are involved in what is not that large a geographic area, I wonder if the minister met with them collectively. If so, was he aware of the substantial degree of opposition which is being voiced by some of these people? While the minister and I may feel that the language was strong, they are people who have been in the regional government field for some years. While we might think that Jim Campbell's extravagant language isn't quite justified, he does get re-elected as chairman of the regional board regularly, which would seem to indicate that he has the confidence of the members of the regional district.

Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, I think, to sum it up, the existing legislation is obviously a failure. The minister has had many suggestions that we scrap the Islands Trust Act altogether, which would have been one option. Maybe the motivation to bring in the Act in the first place was well-intended but misguided. There really wasn't any need for a separate form of legislation to deal specifically and in a unique way with the Gulf Islands. I know that's a debatable issue, but the Minister was faced with either scrapping the Islands Trust Act and repealing it, or trying to

[ Page 1836 ]

improve it. He's decided to try to improve it in a manner which suggests lack of prior consultation with the main groups most concerned - the residents themselves and the regional directors.

This latest report in the Colonist yesterday indicates that representatives of six of the regions were able to come together at a meeting. That meeting decided to ask the Premier of the province -I'm not sure why it went to the Premier rather than the minister responsible for the bill - to delay any further action on the Islands Trust amendment until island representatives from all seven affected boards have been able to explain their point of view to him.

The problem has been ongoing for some time. There is all this dissension and six months would not greatly hamper, in the long run, the best actions and decisions regarding the Gulf Islands.

Let's remember that we're looking at an Act which is intended to be one providing for many, many years, if not decades and a century, of prudent management and preservation of what is unquestionably a very valuable part of British Columbia's natural resources. We're not debating that at all, but I'm saying that to wait six months while some of these contentious aspects are debated and discussed in a fuller degree with the two main groups mainly concerned, namely the residents and the regional directors, would seem to me to be quite reasonable. I strongly support the amendment.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): I take my place in this debate on a motion to hoist the bill for six months, a motion which I'm going to support. I closely associate myself with remarks made by my colleague, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) , and other members of this House, Mr. Speaker. I would hope that my remarks and position on this bill will not be taken as a reflection of the presently appointed members of the Islands Trust committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have consulted with the two regional boards that have islands within the Islands Trust, and with the people living on those islands, and with representatives to the Islands Trust on those islands. These are the people who could be, and will be, and are being directly affected by these proposed amendments.

The claim that the amendments will produce greater responsiveness to local circumstances is clearly incorrect, Mr. Speaker. The change is actually towards greater centralization of provincial power and a weakening of responsible local autonomy. The trust is dominated by the general trustees who are appointed. Although there are local trustees, and only from some islands, the islanders are actually moving from a fully elected local body to an appointed provincial body, Mr. Speaker, with elected local advisers only. I would consider such a move most unfortunate and most unnecessary.

One further reason why I will be supporting this amendment is that I understand that the regional districts were not consulted about this move - a most unfortunate omission, in my opinion. I do not know of any involvement of the trust itself. I therefore ask earnestly that this motion be supported and the government agencies affected have full consultation over the next six-month period when we can then perhaps reconsider this amendment, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I've got a feeling that this amendment is going to pass. I have confidence that it will pass because I know the people who voted for an identical amendment just three years ago. The people are in this House today. They proposed an amendment identical in word and purpose to this one. They supported a six-month hoist then, and I know they're going to support it now because they were honest and sincere then and they're honest and sincere now.

HON. MR. CURTIS: What was the result?

MR. BARBER: It failed. The government defeated a delay amendment moved by Hugh Curtis, Conservative, Saanich and the Islands, by a vote of 35 to 10, with the Conservatives, Liberals, and Social Crediters voting against the NDP. "Opposition members and directors of the regional districts involved objected. The cabinet-appointed members of the trust will outnumber locally elected trustees." It was also objected to by the present Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and the present Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) .

Let's look at the history of this. Our government believed, and I believed, that we had established a reasonable balance between the legitimate interests of the provincial government, speaking for all the people about the future of the Gulf Islands, and the equally legitimate interests of the islanders themselves. That minister then, Mr. Speaker, objected and said: "No, it's no balance at all. There's too much power in the hands of the province. I move a six-month hoist." He did so, I'm informed, on June 4,1974. 1 believe that's when it came up.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): He was a Conservative then.

MR. BARBER: He was a Conservative then, but he's the same man as he is now.

Then, Mr. Speaker, when our Islands Trust bill gave, compared to this, reduced authority to the provincial appointees, he thought that gave still too much authority, and he moved a six-month hoist. Sure enough, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Highways and Public Works - the Socreds, the

[ Page 1837 ]

Liberals, and the Conservatives such as they were -voted in favour of a six-month hoist. Now what happens? Look at this: three years later he wants to give even more power to the provincial government under the Islands Trust Act. So, because I believe that the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Highways and Public Works - to name only two, but not the only two - were honest and sincere in their earlier objections against granting what now, in contrast, is clearly reduced power to provincial government authorities, I know that they're going to vote for this hoist. I have confidence in these guys.

MR. BARRETT: You're the only one.

MR. BARBER: I believe in them. I think they meant it then, and they're going to vote for it now. Hooray for them! Good for them! I look forward to it. The Premier himself voted for the hoist, according to the information I have. The Premier himself, being an honourable man, objecting earlier to the powers that the Islands Trust had then, will surely object to the fact that they're being granted even greater powers now under this proposed amendment. I know that this hoist is going to succeed. If it doesn't, I'm going to be terribly disillusioned about these guys.

We had achieved a balance, Mr. Speaker - a workable and reasonable balance. They propose to wreck that balance by giving even more power to the appointees sent from that coalition to those Islands. They voted for a hoist then. I'm sure they're going to vote for it now.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to point out as well that it seems to me the minister himself might want to vote for the hoist, because he's in some trouble and he knows it. This is the first serious political mistake he has made since coming to office. This is the first serious political mistake that minister has made in his relations with regional districts and municipal government in the province of British Columbia. The minister does, in fact, have an outstanding career and record of work with municipal and regional government in this province. They had expected to be able to talk to him. They had expected he would listen. They did not expect that they would have to go over his head and ask for an audience with the Premier, because as it's turned out, they can't talk to him and he won't listen. They were not consulted in advance. They are angry today. It seems to me the minister himself will want to vote for a six-month hoist in order to recoup lost ground.

The minister is presently on a collision course with numerous of the regional districts in this province who object to the provisions of this amendment. The minister nods his head in agreement. Sure, it's a collision course. It is also your first serious political mistake. It's a shame you had to make it, because what you're going to get as a result is hardly worth it.

What you're going to get at the end is hardly worth the trouble.

So I think the minister himself may well want to vote for it. He may well want to take those six months to go back and to say:

"Okay, we failed to consult and I regret that. It's not necessary for you to talk to the Premier. You can talk to me. We'll take six months; we'll reconsider; we'll test it; we'll analyze it; we'll look at it again. We'll compare it with legislation in other jurisdictions; and we'll do a better job the second time than we did the first."

It's a face-saving device, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the minister takes it. If he doesn't take it and if he intends, in an arrogant and foolish way, to push this legislation through against the objections of virtually every single one of the major regional districts involved, then what was, in fact, a really pretty good record of administration up to this date will be, from this date, step by step, going down the drain. He has not consulted them, and they're very angry. He has not involved them, and they're very bitter. He hasn't even informed them, and they're very annoyed. He has contradicted his own positions when in opposition and he's pretty embarrassed. These readings of speeches from the past, I'm sure, were not among the readings he found himself happiest to hear in this Legislature.

So he's probably going to vote for it himself. He's be well-advised to do so. When he does so, as he already voted for an identical amendment when reduced powers for the regional districts were at stake, I know he'll vote for this one. I wonder if he'll take the opportunity to tell this House why it's necessary to delay six months. Will he tell this House with which officers and agents of which regional districts did he consult in advance? With whom did he discuss these principles? When, and under what circumstances? What advice did he hear and what advice did he take? If the answer to any or all of these questions is none - nothing, zero, never, not at all - then maybe the minister might want to reconsider and examine the advisability and the merit - if only for his own political career - of the six-month hoist proposed by the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) .

For the first time in his administration of that department, Mr. Speaker, he is in trouble with his own constituency, the one that expected so much of him and thought that they would get so much from him. For the first time, he is in trouble and one wonders if he recognizes the seriousness of the trouble which he finds himself in. He probably does not. When in opposition, he was quoted as saying:

" 'The bill drew criticism from Hugh Curtis, Conservative MLA for Saanich and the Islands, whose riding includes many of the islands to be

[ Page 1838 ]

covered by the Trust. Curtis said the local trustees 'will be only token representation of those living on the Islands, because the general trustees can always overrule them. It would be better to have three local trustees and two government -appointed ones, ' he suggested."

Let him take six months, Mr. Speaker, and consider and reconsider the merit of his own arguments when he was in opposition. There are people presently in power in the regional districts throughout this province who believed him when he said those things. There are people in regional districts who believe that when he got to government and was inevitably appointed Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, he would act out of honour and respect for his own statements on the content of those statements. He simply hasn't done so and he might want another six months in order to consider doing so.

His relations with regional and municipal governments have been impaired for the first time by this bill. His credibility regarding those earlier statements has also been impaired for the first time by this bill. I think he might want to take six months to think about that. He might also want to take the six months....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you're treading dangerously close to those things cautioned against in standing order 43 where it refers to repetition in debate.

MR. GIBSON: It's the first time I've heard of it.

MR. BARBER: It's news to the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) , Mr. Speaker. I'll be brief. I'll conclude very shortly, in any case.

For the last time then, during this particular morning, I am reading speeches from the past, reminding the minister of his earlier objections and reminding the whole House why he voted for a six-month hoist then and why he's going to vote for it now. He's quoted in The Vancouver Sun of May 22,1974:

, , Curtis, whose riding includes many of the islands affected, said he had revisited five islands since the bill was introduced. 'The islanders feel that they are going to move into a state of government and taxation without representation, ' he said. 'This, ' he said, 'shows a big-brother attitude. The three provincial trustees appointed by cabinet would control the trust, ' he said. Provision for two local trustees for each island was 'mere tokenism.' " But sure enough, there he is in June, 1974, voting for a hoist, complaining that the then Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Lorimer) had not accepted direction or suggestions from the then regional districts concerned about the Islands Trust. There was the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) the then back bench opposition member for Cariboo, saying that the trust represented further centralization of powers in Victoria. There was the then member of the Liberal Party, and future Premier of the province, Allan Williams, member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound, saying that: "The thrust of the bill as currently written is to destroy the influence of local initiative on the islands." They voted for a hoist then, Mr. Speaker, because they felt that the trust had too much power delegated to the hands of the provincial appointees. Now that they want to give provincial appointees even more power, how on earth can they vote against a hoist at this time?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I agree. I've heard some repetition in this House from time to time. If there was ever a need for repetition, it's particularly this afternoon, and let me tell you why. One of the reasons that there should be some repetition is so that some of the words filter through to that sewing circle over there. You know, it's been buzz, buzz, buzz for the last hour or two, so I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that a little bit of tolerance on the part of the Chair would be much appreciated - very much so.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure there's a great deal of nervousness over there. There must be nervousness. An hour and a half ago, the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) moved a resolution that's not unique, but certainly does not happen that often during the course of a session. It was a resolution that said as follows: "Hoist the bill for six months. Think it over." Mr. Speaker, there has not been one word from the minister. There have been three intervening speakers and not one word from the minister. There has not been a word from him, not a word from a backbencher. What's going on over there, Mr. Speaker? Have they no defence? I suspect they have none.

MR. LEA: They'd say something if they were allowed.

MR. COCKE: There are movements around indicating that they're trying to muster support for the minister's obvious position. The minister could have spoken by now. He doesn't close debate when he speaks on a motion to hoist. But I think that even more than that, he could have gone to some of his colleagues and said: "Please, colleagues, support me on this issue." But he can't get the support, Mr. Speaker. They don't feel they can do anything except that mute....

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Put it to a vote and find out.

[ Page 1839 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. COCKE: That's right! Put it to a vote! Now that's exactly what I thought that Minister of Mines would say: "Put it to a vote!" Jackboot! Kick them without even putting up an argument.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. members. The hon. member for New Westminster has the floor.

MR. COCKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, that's the way he thinks; that's the way he feels. That articulate member-minister from Columbia River should have been up an hour ago supporting his colleague he sits next to. I suspect he won't; he won't dare.

I heard the Speaker make a very interesting remark the other day. The Speaker said: "People are skating dangerously close to the thin edge of disaster."

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. COCKE: That's what they're doing over there, Mr. Speaker - skating dangerously close to the thin edge of disaster.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take a couple of the suggestions made by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and I'd like to discount them first, as far as I'm concerned personally. The member suggested that the people in the islands should have been given the opportunity for a referendum on a bill. I don't really think that's the way to run a government.

I believe, however, that there should have been consultation, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs to date hasn't shown us any evidence of consultation. Had there been consultation, I suspect by now that some of those regional board members would have said so. They would have said: "Yes, we were consulted." Some of the leading activists in the area would have said: "Yes, we were invited to a meeting to discuss the whole question about the future of the Islands Trust."

I also want to say, Mr. Speaker, that when the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) got up and said that he was very iffy about the whole Islands Trust he disappointed me. One of the reasons that the Islands Trust was formed in the first place was to stop development in the disorderly way that has occurred. Developers must be contained on those beautiful islands. We've seen those islands sold out over the years. As a matter of fact, some of the islands have more alien ownership than they have Canadian or British Columbian ownership.

MR. BARRETT: They believe in cutting down the trees so that you can see the view.

MR. COCKE: That's right. I suggest to you that the Islands Trust was a good move, and there's no question that it will have to be looked at from time to time, but it should be looked at in proper consultation.

Now if the minister wants to reduce the confusion that is out there, the best thing that he can do is give himself six months to discuss the question of the new appointments on the Islands Trust.

There must be something radically wrong when people like Jim Campbell, the chairman of the regional district, came out so hard-line in opposition, That wasn't just a muttered opposition; that was strident opposition that I heard. Now I am not suggesting that he has all the arguments in his favour. That's not the point. The point is: are we giving people an opportunity to put those arguments forward before we take this to the Lieutenant Governor and ask him to proclaim it?

Judging from the way we've been handling bills this afternoon, I was expecting to see him walk in the door. Asking for bills to go through two stages in one day! My colleagues are a little soft around here today. They kind of leaned on me and said: "Well, let them." We've got to think in terms of making sure that the government justifies everything they do, and they haven't to date justified this in the eyes of those people most affected. They have not in any way justified this.

The member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) said they're getting some support. Yes, they are. They are getting some support, but they are also getting violent opposition. So somewhere in between is where we'd like to rest. The way you can come to rest on a situation like this is to consult; it's to take those people into your confidence. What's wrong with that? I don't want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, for one second that I don't trust the government. It would be true if I said it (laughter) , but I don't like to say it. A government like that, being given more authority over those islands, a government which has always had as their first objective development, development, development - and I am looking at one of them right now who's a great developer and entrepreneur from Kamloops....

AN HON. MEMBER: Talk to the widows. They know.

MR. COCKE: The great developers! Now, Mr. Speaker, when you vest the kind of power they are asking for in their new organization, which will be dominated by this government, I suspect that most of us are a little nervous. So therefore, Mr. Speaker, if we have nothing to worry about, why don't they tell us we have nothing to worry about by going out and

[ Page 1840 ]

talking to those people most concerned? Mr. Speaker, t

I would like to see, just this once, the House Leader, the Premier, the Whip and whoever else is in authority over there ...

AN HON. MEMBER: She's not here today.

MR. COCKE: ... walk around and tell those members: "Vote your conscience on this." That's a lot to ask, I know. I wonder how many will put on s their running shoes before the vote is taken.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I thought that was excellent. The first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) said they had been wrestling with their conscience r and they've lost every fall.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could you continue on the r amendment, hon. member?

MR. COCKE: Do you mind if I have a little drink t of water?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to see a vote for a hoist. I would like to see some real democracy develop over there ...

AN HON. MEMBER: A free vote. t

MR. COCKE: ... and a real opportunity to t express themselves. I would love to see them stand up and express themselves - not necessarily the minister.

Let's see if he's got some support over there. I can see the member for Kamloops, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair

AN HON. MEMBER: He's against subdivision.

AN HON. MEMBER: Unless he owns them.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, that's what it's all about.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go find another widow.

MR. COCKE: I want to bring one more point to I the attention of this House before I sit down, and that point is this: when the new Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) took office, one of the first things he suggested was that he was quite dissatisfied e with the regional districts.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh! Did he say that?

MR. COCKE: Yes. He virtually threatened the regional districts. He said something along the g lines.... Certainly this is to paraphrase and I'm not t trying to represent something that the minister.... My understanding of what he said was sort of as follows: "Straighten up and fly right, you guys, or you're going to find yourselves right out of business."

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, threatening!

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, maybe. Maybe what he is doing now, through the back door, is something that he should be doing through the front door.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yeah - leaving. (Laughter.)

MR. COCKE: If he's got something on the regional districts or if he's dissatisfied with the way that the regional districts are running, then it strikes me that you don't attack one particular area. You call a conference of those who are actively involved in the regional districts and you say to them: "Fellows, we're going to have to sharpen up this province." I agree, there is lots of room to sharpen it up. I agree, here is plenty of room. I certainly agree with the minister in that respect, but I worry when we start homing in on one particular area, and I particularly worry when that area is those beautiful islands.

I would hope that through consultation after this hoist - that the member for Victoria is sure will pass - that the minister is going to go out and reassure all he people involved, all the people in the islands, all he people involved in those regional districts who are involved in this - certainly there are three very much involved. He'll talk to them, he'll reassure them and he'll reassure us, ultimately, about development on hose beautiful islands. Because we can't have the kinds of things happen on those islands that happened in the first 20 years of Social Credit. We don't ever want to go back to those dark days of development - never.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair. ]

So, Mr. Chairman, despite a little repetition from time to time, I think we're getting the point across to some of those members over there. I think it's all worthwhile because I think they're going to vote with s, Mr. Speaker, on this motion to hoist.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree that this ill should be hoisted for six months because that, in effect, would kill the bill. The reason I believe this ill should be killed is somewhat different from some f the views that have been expressed so far. This bill should be hoisted until government comes up with a firm policy that people can readily understand in this province on the attitude and the resolve of this government and the party they represent, in terms of he foreign ownership of land in this province. We

[ Page 1841 ]

know that the Social Credit Party passed a resolution at their convention that they are not opposed to the foreign ownership of land in the province of British Columbia. I and the party that I represent are opposed to the selling-out of our heritage of parts of British Columbia to foreign ownership.

Mr. Speaker, an article from the Victoria Times, Wednesday, November 17,1976, has a headline: "Foreign Owners of Islands Listed." It goes on: "Foreigners own 30 per cent of the 7,500 acres that make up the 72 smaller Gulf Islands of the Capital Regional District. Following is a list of foreign owners as of December 31,1975. The sources are the regional assessment rolls and the company's office."

Thirty per cent of the 72 Gulf Islands in the Capital Regional District are foreign-owned. Mr. Speaker, I think we first of all have to examine the principle of what we're talking about. What is a country? What makes a country different from another country? The basic difference is land - that the land within the boundaries of any specific country is owned by the people who make up that country, not by foreigners.

This government and the party that they represent believe that it doesn't matter. If the American people own British Columbia, it's quite all right with them. If the German people own British Columbia, it's quite all right with them. As a matter of fact, their resolution at their convention indicates that they completely don't care. They believe that money is money and they don't care where that money comes from or who has the fee simple title to the land which is Canadian and British Columbian. Money, they believe, knows no international boundary, including the ownership of British Columbia.

Who does own that 30 per cent of land that's owned by foreigners? Who's going to benefit if this government appoints people to the Islands Trust who have the same attitude that they have - subdivision? It doesn't matter. At any cost, it doesn't matter. Who owns the land? It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether it's British Columbians or Canadians. That's their attitude. That was the resolution at their convention and it's the attitude and the resolution of this government - they don't care who owns British Columbia.

Who does? Charles Island, 8 acres - John Gale of Bellevue, Washington; Julia Island - 7 acres, Robert and Louis Hill of Ellensburg, Washington; Wallace Island - 182.09 acres, Wallace Island Holding Co. Ltd., incorporated August 20,1972, with Gilbert Johnson of Seattle as president, Paul Bouchou of Edmonds, Washington, as secretary-treasurer and Edwin Arthur Popham of Victoria as director; Tumbo Island - 260 acres, Point Developments Ltd., F. Christopher Dumbrowski of Zug, Switzerland, president. Who is the president? Ian Stewart of Victoria, representing those interests. Who is Ian Stewart? He's a well-known Socred. He supports them right down the line.

AN HON. MEMBER: The manager of the Victoria campaign.

MR. LEA: Yeah, manager of the Victoria campaign for the Social Credit Party. It's the same attitude: who cares who owns our land?

Pine Island 1 acre, owned from California; Samuel Island 470 acres, owned from Seattle; Secretary Island 270.5 acres owned from Seattle; Hall or Echo Island - 50.9 acres, owned from California; Fane or Thane Island - 1.7 acres, owned from Palm Desert, California; Mowgli Island - 8.93 acres, owned from Seattle; small island in Bedwell Harbour - 0.7 of an acre, owned from Scottsdale, Arizona, and not registered in B.C.; Chads Island, near Portland Island - 7.8 acres, California; Black or Blackman Island, near Portland Island - 12 acres, Los Altos Hills, California; Castle Island, Ganges Harbour - 2 acres, Seattle; Chalkland Island - 6 acres, Seattle; Hood Island - 4.04 acres, Seattle; island near Boot Bay on Saturna Island - 1.51 acres, Seattle; Parker Islands - 402 acres, Springs, Colorado; island near Provost Island - 7.6 acres, California; another one on the same island - 3.8 acres, Wyoming; small island -1.1 acres, Seattle; small Island - 0.5 acre, Seattle; Russell Island, near Fulford Harbour - 40 acres, Los Angeles; Jackscrew Island - 1.6 acres, Seattle; portion of Little D'Arcy Island - 22.8 acres, Seattle; portion of Jones Island - 52.6 acres, California; Shell Island 5 acres, San Francisco, California; Coal Island 328 acres, Seattle; portion of Hill Island -40 acres, Germany-, portion of Domville Island, Seattle; portion of Gooch Island 95 acres, Los Angeles, California; Ruby Island 4 acres, Reno, Nevada; Sheep Island....

AN HON. MEMBER: Bob Williams.

MR. LEA: No, not Bob Williams.

... California, 7 acres; Lower Halibut Island -9.67 acres. It goes on and it goes on and it goes on.

Mr. Speaker, this government is asking us to turn over responsibility to directors of the Islands Trust appointed by that government which represents the Social Credit Party, which says they don't even believe that Canada and the people of Canada should own their own land. It didn't all happen when any one government was government. That is the way it is. The policy of our party is that we do not believe in selling our heritage out to anybody, be it American, be it German, be it Russian, be it Chinese - be it anybody at any cost. The only thing that makes a country a country is who owns the land within those geographic boundaries. That's the only thing.

We see a government that is also ready to sell out

[ Page 1842 ]

our industrial heritage to foreigners without even keeping a vestige of control in the hands of British Columbia and the government that represents those people. We see that happening. We see Canada as a tax haven for multinational corporations, and this government goes along with that.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, they are true capitalists - not Canadian capitalists, not American capitalists, but capitalists in the international sense that they don't believe that the boundaries of countries mean a darn thing. Money speaks; money owns. That's all that that party over there and that government represent. It's big money, and money knows no international boundaries.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, you will hear them say that once in a while in private conversation that money knows no boundaries and that investment dollars, no matter from where, shouldn't have any inhibiting effect by government. And they're asking this Legislature to approve legislation which will give government appointees more power over what happens to the Gulf Islands, which are owned collectively by the people in this province and collectively by all Canadians. They're asking us to give that party and that government these kinds of powers with that kind of attitude behind them all.

What would happen? What could happen? We know their attitude toward development. We even have ministers from that side, Mr. Speaker, who, when it was pointed out that it might not be absolutely moral to take a ranch that's been taken over a period of time and pulled back together into a home ranch of some historic value, to buy that ranch, make a fortune on it and then plan to subdivide it again, say: "Nothing wrong with that -wish we could find more. I wish I could find more widows like that. That's the answer."

We see that kind of attitude from that kind of government and they're asking us in this Legislature to pass this bill. It's absolutely incredible.

Mr. Speaker, they're also asking us to pass this piece of legislation when the minister who's sponsoring the bill has differing ideas, depending on which side of the House he's on and which particular party he belongs to at any given time. He's belonged to lots in the past. He was a supporter of the Liberal Party, a supporter or member of the Conservative Party, and now a member of the Social Credit Party. Don't you think, Mr. Speaker, it would be better to turn this kind of legislation and these kinds of powers over to people that had some sort of consistency of thought and some sort of consistency of ethics? Wouldn't it be better to have some sort of consistency in the makeup of a person? Wouldn't it be better, Mr. Speaker, to do that?

We're asking through this amendment that was presented to this Legislature by the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) , that the government pull this bill for a period of six months and reconsider their position. We're asking that at least the people on the islands and British Columbians have some say over what happens to those Gulf Islands. That's what we're asking - reconsideration.

We know that they can come in to the next session of the Legislature and present legislation either exactly the same or having more power. We know that. What we're asking is that the government reconsider. Maybe it would be a good point, Mr. Speaker, if this government would reconsider until after their party has their next convention, when we could see the cabinet members go to the Social Credit convention and put a plea to their convention that their membership once and for all come down against foreign ownership of Canadian and British Columbian land. Wouldn't it be better to take this back to their party convention to ask for a different mandate so that this government can act responsibly in the way they handle the only little bit of land we have in British Columbia? It's not that much.

I think too often we tend to look at the geographic mileage of British Columbia and say: "There's lots here. There's lots of land." But you know there isn't. When you fly over British Columbia and you look out of the airplane window, you don't see that much land that would be habitable or arable. There's very little land in this province that can be used by people in a recreational or an agricultural way or, for that matter, even in an industrial way. We are short of land in this province.

And the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) says: "Short of land?" Mr. Speaker, he taught children and young people in this province and he has to ask that question. That....

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Yes, yes. The Minister of Education asking that question should be enough to hoist the bill for a year, never mind six months. Up until this point, Mr. Speaker, I never believed that "those who can do, and those who can't teach, " but we've just had a heck of a good- lesson from the Minister of Education. Let's hope he never gets his hands on the junior grades.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: I don't believe it, but I believe it fits that particular minister very well. He should not be allowed near the children. He should not be allowed anywhere near the students of this province to ask a question like that.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: No. That is why, Mr. Speaker, they

[ Page 1843 ]

have no respect for the Land Commission Act. That's why they voted against the Land Commission Act. That's why their convention voted for foreign ownership of land in this province. That's why they want to hand over the power of the Islands Trust to appointees of the Social Credit government - so they can rape and plunder and subdivide and develop in any way that they think it should be done. That's what they think.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEA: That's what they think, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now back to the amendment that is before the House.

MR. LEA: That's what we're talking about. We're talking about the reasons that government should pull this bill for six months, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm listening, hon. member.

MR. LEA: I don't think, Mr. Speaker, you can separate the attitude of people from the reality of what they are about to do or are doing. What about the attitude? It isn't good enough for them to come in and say: "Here's some legislation. Would you mind passing that legislation?" Then we find out through doing a little research that the minister who's presenting it doesn't agree with it himself. How many times are we seeing that? As the hon. Leader of the Opposition pointed out in reading back the Minister of Finance's (Hon. Mr. Wolfe's) speech, he agreed a few years ago that there should be succession duties and now he says there shouldn't be. He says there shouldn't be now.

Two different attitudes depending on which side of the House they're sitting at any particular time. Mr. Speaker, in their case, It's a little more confusing because we have to remember which party they belonged to when they were on this side of the House and what attitudes they said they had at that time.

MR. SPEAKER: Back to the amendment, please, hon. member.

MR. LEA: It reminds me, Mr. Speaker, of any coalition politician. When winding up their speeches, they always say: "These are the beliefs that I hold to be true. These are the beliefs that I'm willing to go to the electorate with. These are the beliefs that I'm willing to take down the trail of life with me. But if you have any new ideas that may get me elected, just bring them on because we'll say anything at any time." We're seeing another example of that today, Mr. Speaker.

We're seeing a minister bring a bill into this House that he doesn't believe in himself. We put a motion on the floor through the hon. Liberal leader to hoist it for six months, and not one cabinet minister has spoken. I tell you that not one cabinet minister will speak, because they are embarrassed. They're embarrassed by the fact that the minister who spoke against this very legislation is the minister who has to come in and take away more rights, according to him.

MR. BARRETT: Big brother government.

MR. LEA: Foreign ownership of land, Mr. Speaker.... I would venture a guess that if there were a referendum in the province of British Columbia asking whether we should have control of our own land and stop the foreign intrusion of ownership of land, there would be an overwhelming majority of people in this province who would say: "Yes, let's be friends with our neighbours, but let's own our own heritage. Let's own our own land." That's what they would say.

We have a government whose own political party passed a resolution at their own convention that they are for the foreign ownership of land. Can we not stop the selling of our heritage? The answer is yes.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, I draw your attention to the clock.

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:01 p.m.

[ Page 1844 ]

APPENDIX

S The Hon. Minister of Finance to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 8) intituled Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1977, to amend as follows:

By adding the following after section 2:

"Commencement.

3. Section 1 shall be deemed to have come into force on January 1,1977, and is retroactive to the extent necessary to give it effect on and after that date."