[ Page 2635 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters Act (Bill 24) Second reading.

Mr. Cocke –– 2635

Mr. Nicolson –– 2636

Mrs. Wallace –– 2637

Mr. King –– 2638

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2640

Islands Trust Amendment Act (Bill 25) Second reading.

On the amendment.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 2642

Mrs. Wallace –– 2644

Ms. Sanford –– 2645

Mrs. Dailly –– 2646

Division on the amendment –– 2647

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2647

Royal assent to bills –– 2649

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

CLERK-ASSISTANT: In the matter of the petition presented to the House on April 5,1977, by the hon. member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) , the said petition is irregular in the following respects, namely:

(1) It does not address the Legislative Assembly in the form provided by Appendix A to the standing orders;

(2) It contains no prayer;

(3) It is not endorsed by the member, pursuant to standing order 73 (4) .

All of which is respectfully submitted,

I. M. Horne, Clerk of the House.

Orders of the day.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): I move the House proceed by leave to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 24.

SHELTER AID FOR

ELDERLY RENTERS ACT

(continued)

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Speaker, prior to the adjournment I was recapitulating the objections which the official opposition have to the bill in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour has pulled a switch on me. I yield the floor to the member for New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, if we can have an undertaking from the government that the member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) , who adjourned debate and who would otherwise lose his place, may

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he?

MR. COCKE: At a constituency meeting. He didn't expect a meeting tonight in the Legislature -on a night when we don't normally work.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member does not lose his place in the debate inasmuch as he's not here. It's a matter that he adjourned the debate. If he were here this evening, then he would ordinarily take his place at this time. The fact that he's not here does not mean that he loses his place, hon. member. If somebody else occupies the floor, they continue the debate. When he is present, then he has an opportunity to debate the matter.

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Before us we have a bill that provides aid for the elderly.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: No. Listen - this is a long-standing thing that he's away on Wednesday nights.

Mr. Speaker, there's hardly been an agreement that's been entered into by the opposition with that government that's been kept by that government; so don't you start lecturing me. Just because you're Premier of the province, you don't mean anything more in this Legislature than any other single living member of this Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. member now proceed to Bill 24?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the concern I have about this bill is the concern that one has whenever one ties this kind of assistance to a type of means test. When we were government, we tried very hard to provide assistance in a fair way - which wouldn't probably be understood by some of the members of the government - and that was an income test. But instead of that, Mr. Speaker, we have now a new kind of policy - a new thrust. Back to the old means test. The Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) says: "Back to the truck." The new government fills a truck full of money, backs it up in front of the millionaires and dumps it at their feet. Don't give me the "back of the truck."

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Garbage.

MR. COCKE: What we want to see is some assistance to people in this province who require it.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Allow the hon. member for New Westminster to continue.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the section of this bill that is operative, in this respect particularly, is where: "The minister shall establish and appoint an eligibility committee comprised of three persons." Then they lay out the type of eligibility that the bill provides.

Mr. Speaker, it's relatively vague, because naturally much of it will be tied up with regulations put forward from behind that closed cabinet door, regulations that will see to it that you reduce the number of applicants that comply with the eligibility to a point where the amount of assistance will be

[ Page 2636 ]

absolutely negligible.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Do you really believe that?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I really believe that. I can take as an example the kind of eligibility there was for old-age assistance prior to the time that we were government, where 9,000 people qualified and after the change of government some 128,000 people qualified because of the change from means test to income test.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure why it is that the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) delights in telling jokes all evening. He knows as well as I do that exactly what I'm saying is the truth. If the minister has something to say in support of the bill, in his good time he can get up and take his place in the debate. Until I yield the floor the minister can just sit where he is.

Mr. Speaker, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may enter into agreement with the government of Canada. What they're really doing here is tying in this legislation with the legislation that is provided called GAIN - very similar to GAIN, similar rules, similar regulations, a similar Act. GAIN, Mr. Speaker, was of no significant gain to the people of the province.

I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that the reason the government put this bill forward tonight was because of the fact that they fell in the dark of night just before the legislative session comes to an adjournment, and before our member, who had thoroughly researched this bill, who was to speak on the bill, had an opportunity to speak on the bill.... Before he gets back, they hope it's through.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I suspect that there will be others on this side of the House who will have a few words to say that might....

HON. MR. CHABOT: An exciting new programme!

MR. COCKE: We have seen so many exciting new programmes, Mr. Speaker, that violate the rights of people - exciting new programmes like the programme of Pharmacare that has come and gone, come and gone so many times. Mr. Speaker, I wonder what's going to happen to shelter aid for the elderly renters.

I hope it is an exciting new programme. F hope that the minister can get up and assure the House that the largest possible number are going to qualify for assistance, are going to qualify for aid. I'm not so sure, however. If everything else the government has done is an indicator, then I feel that those people are in for a sad surprise.

We have watched with great interest the fact that some of the best programmes that were introduced by the former government rendered reduced benefits. And we suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if it's not handled properly, if the regulations aren't sharp, if the regulations aren't fair, then we're going to have exactly the same thing occur here.

So, Mr. Speaker, when the minister stands up later on in the debate, I would hope that he can assure the House that what the regulations say is going to be that people who are in need of assistance are going to receive that assistance.

Mr. Speaker, I do wish that the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) were here to discuss this entire bill. But I suggest to you that I'm waiting to see exactly what the minister says in closing debate before I have any change of heart. At this point I suggest to you that I'm very suspicious of the entire bill.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, I hope to perhaps allay some of the fears of my colleague, because I have some faith in this bill, inasmuch as this concept was conceived by the present deputy minister when he was then the social planning head of the Ministry of Housing. In fact the acronym back in 1975 was not yet called SAFER; it was just called SAFE. The acronym was coined, the concept was there, and in fact it was going through the hoops of getting ministerial approval and going to ministerial cabinet committees.

So I certainly approve of this concept. I think at the time we were looking at 25 per cent rather than 30 per cent. At the time we were looking at a percentage of assistance on the average rather than up to a fixed amount. But essentially it is the same. I am glad to see that the author is with us here this evening. He will be an unsung hero, as many of the public servants are who actually do author these things for which those of us who are the politicians are quite willing to take credit.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Answering that aside, you can acknowledge all the assistance you get. It's how it's interpreted or whether anyone does bother to interpret it and it can be said in this chamber. One normally does begin estimates by acknowledging the work of their deputies and senior personnel. But it does not get to the public in too many instances so that the names of many deputy ministers do not become household words, although not in all cases.

So, Mr. Speaker, we will be supporting this bill. I am sure the minister would acknowledge that it was a concept that was quite actively being pursued and in the planning stage when the government changed

[ Page 2637 ]

hands.

I would hope that the eligibility committee will not be setting the guidelines in terms of regulations. I hope they will a t least be set by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I would have hoped to have seen the bill spell out some matters somewhat more specifically, however. In this bill it certainly is not clear as to whether it is to be means-tested or income-tested. We have heard the public announcements of the minister; we have heard the figure of 30 per cent and up to a maximum of $200 rent, I believe, for a couple and $150 for singles.

I also would say, though, Mr. Speaker, that at the time this was being proposed and coming up through the department to government, it was pointed out that this type of legislation is made possible by the existence of rent control. If rent control is removed and if sudden population growth and other pressures that tend to lead to the landlords' market rather than the renters' market exist once again, this type of legislation will be very greatly jeopardized if rent control is not continued, particularly for the people this legislation is intended to serve. In closing second reading I would like to know how the minister sees this. Does he see a continuation of rent control as being necessary to this bill? That certainly was one of the premises upon which this idea was originally conceived. So without a great deal of discussion, I think that is a very important point.

I do say that the bill could have contained some more specific information in terms of the type of income testing and basis upon which the eligibility committee was really to operate or the regulations to be founded. It should have been limited somewhat more than this. I suppose when you are trying to draft legislation and get in several things, it would have been fitting, I think, if a little more work had been put in on this - more up to the calibre of the mobile-home Act, which we will be debating later. Things are very loose in this thing and could be changed just at a whim. We have seen how other programmes have been changed from income testing to means testing. We've seen the results of that. Things should be written into legislation. Perhaps the minister could consider putting in a little bit tighter wording in some amendments that he could bring in in committee.

I would say that if it is intended to have it income-tested rather than means-tested, , it should say so in the bill, Then that legislation would continue to be interpreted in that manner no matter what the government, or else they would have to face the Legislature before making such a change.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): I have two or three points that I would like to raise in connection with this bill. First of all, the minister has referred to it in an aside as an exciting new piece of legislation.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't find it particularly exciting, and I don't think the senior citizens of this province find it particularly exciting. It's akin, Mr. Speaker, to offering them scrip. It's kind of making them a second-class type of citizen. What the senior citizens of this province really want is not free ferry rides, or greater homeowner grants, or shelter-aid grants. What they want is an adequate income that will allow them. . . .

HON. MR. CURTIS: Have you read the bill?

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, I've read the bill, and I listened to you in your introductory remarks. But I am concerned that it doesn't have that exciting kind of a concept to me. It's better-than-nothing kind of legislation as far as I'm concerned, Mr. Speaker.

I do feel that we are - and the senior citizens agree - moving very far in giving these sort of little special concessions to them rather than giving them an adequate income and allowing them to spend it as they see fit. This is something that has come to me from the senior citizens in travels around my constituency, and I don't think it's that much different from others. They say: "Give us what we feel is our rightful due - an adequate income -because we pioneered this country." Instead we have a concept. where it becomes a sort of handout. I don't like that concept, and I find that I'm not alone -many of the senior citizens share this same attitude. As I say, to me it is not an exciting new piece of legislation; it is a better-than-nothing kind of legislation.

The second point I want to raise is that again we're into the means test thing. This has been raised and I won't belabour the point, but means tests are always degrading. Incomes tests and means tests are two very different things. Incomes tests are necessary whenever we have the social assistance type of programmes, but when we involve ourselves in means tests, they become immediately degrading and they encourage people to try to bend the rules or to get around them in various ways, particularly in an instance where we are dealing with senior citizens who have nothing really to save for. They are now at the point where they are trying to enjoy life and make the most of what they have.

I feel that means tests are degrading, particularly for our senior citizens to whom these sorts of things are a right. It's a different concept, a different approach that I have, I'm afraid, from the approach that the Minister of Housing is taking in this particular instance.

The third point I wish to raise is a more specific sort of thing, and yet it poses some problems, I believe. I wonder if the minister has thought about this. Now when he introduced the bill - I don't see it

[ Page 2638 ]

in the bill, but I'm sure I'm correct in this - he indicated there would be different rates for two people as opposed to one, on the concept that two could live cheaper than one. Am I correct, Mr. Minister? You did indicate that? Okay.

My concern is: what happens with a couple, one of whom is less than 65 years of age? A person who is 65 is eligible. Now are we going to go into the home and see if they are living with someone under 65? If so, are they entitled to the single allowance? If they're living with someone who's over 65, is that then the only case where the thing is reduced?

I'm very curious about how this is actually going to operate. I wonder whether the minister has thought of this possibility - well, not possibility; it's something that's very prevalent - where one of the members of a couple is older than the other. I'm very curious as to how this particular section relative to the eligibility and the 65-only is going to apply where one is under 65.

Those are the only comments I wish to make on this bill. I am very sorry and concerned that we find ourselves in a position of having to speak on a bill when we are not expecting it to come up. I seem to have changed the files that I bring into this House with me about three times today already. I don't know how many more times I'm going to have to change those files by 11 o'clock.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Don't give me that! You adjourned the bill and left it on the order paper. Come on!

Interjections.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MRS. WALLACE: You're keeping a very disorderly House, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. members allow the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat to continue?

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I think that we have all voiced concerns but none of us has indicated that we are opposed to the bill. We're certainly not very excited about it. We are concerned about some of the implications.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the attitude being taken by this government in presenting their legislation to the House has certainly indicated to me that they are not particularly anxious to have any degree of debate on the legislation. It's an impossibility, Mr. Speaker, to come in prepared to speak. We, on this side of the House, have other commitments, as do members on the other side of the House. It's all part of an MLA's job. When a member has made a commitment to attend a public meeting, there is no way that can be cancelled. How could it be changed when we didn't even know until we sat down at 8:30 p.m. that this particular bill was going to be called?

MR. SPEAKER: May I remind the hon. member that her remarks in the last couple of minutes have nothing to do with the principle of the bill?

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, you are quite correct that it has nothing to do with the principle of the bill, but it certainly has something to do with the principle this government is displaying and bringing in its legislation.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I had really not intended to speak on this bill, but I feel impelled to make a few comments.

First of all, I want to say to the minister in charge of this bill, Mr. Speaker, that he should not worry about any diverse positions being taken by the caucus of the NDP. We are tied together by a common philosophy and we will be unanimous in our position on this bill. I can appreciate his concern, since there is a Conservative position on that side of the House, a Liberal position and an old Socred position. I can appreciate his concern with fragmentation. No one knows better, Mr. Speaker, about that fragmentation than the Minister of Municipal Affairs, because he's covered the whole ambit - Liberal, Conservative and Socred.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure you're going to refer to the principle of the bill, aren't you?

MR. KING: I'm addressing myself to the bill right at this moment, Mr. Speaker. I want to satisfy you of that.

Mr. Speaker, the concept of the bill itself is one which we would not object to. I think the concept is all right.

I want to say at the outset that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is one of the very few people on the government side of the House whom I find to be a capable administrator and a reasonable man to do business with. I certainly give him that in terms of the competence with which he fulfils his office. That's a rare accolade coming from me, Mr. Speaker - rare indeed, because it's a rare commodity on that side of the House. It's as simple as that.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) , if he wishes to heckle, return

[ Page 2639 ]

to his own seat?

MR. KING: Yes, he should get in his own seat. Exactly, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: But not from someone else's, hon. members.

MR. KING: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the member for Esquimalt is a bit concerned about sitting beside the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) . Perhaps he feels it's a bit of a hazard. (Laughter.) I think things will be safe tonight. Mr. Speaker, I know the members on that side are not exactly head over heels in love with each other, but I think it will be fine.

Mr. Speaker, I want to appeal to the Minister of Municipal Affairs as a reasonable man, which I believe he is. I want to point out a section of this bill to him which I'm not sure he's considered and I think he will view with some concern. That is the principle contained in section 2 of the bill, Mr. Speaker, which sets up the eligibility committee to preside over applications under this statute. What particularly concerns me is that in the final analysis, the deliberations of the eligibility committee are transferred to the minister to make a final decision where a dispute occurs over eligibility for the grants contained in the Act.

Mr. Speaker, this in my view is a new and a very dangerous principle in terms of the adjudicative process in British Columbia. Here is a situation where elderly citizens applying for rental aid may well find themselves in dispute as to the precise circumstances of eligibility. I think all members of the House recognize that statute law cannot cover every particular circumstance, every eventuality that obtains out in the community. Inevitably, there will be conflict; there will be disputes over eligibility. But to transfer the final authority for adjudication of those disputes to the minister of the Crown, Mr. Speaker, is a principle which, in my view, is extremely dangerous, is new, and one that lends itself to charges of political motivation in terms of who shall be eligible and who shall not.

While I've recognized the fairness and the competence of that minister in performing his duties in the office of Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) , I submit to the House, Mr. Speaker, that it's beyond the competence of any minister of the Crown to stand aloof and impartial from political preference when the dispute involves a political constituent of the minister. Now would that constituent of the minister be treated in precisely the same way as a senior tenant from the constituency of Kamloops or Revelstoke-Slocan seeking eligibility under this Act?

Interjection.

MR. KING: He may well, because the minister is a fair man, but it is a basic tenet of British justice that justice in face must not only be done but must be seen to be done. Here is a politician in charge of the final adjudicative process. I suggest that's an unfair burden to place on the minister himself, Mr. Speaker - "Yield ye not unto temptation." I suggest that temptation is indeed involved in this power that the minister has taken unto himself. The Chairman knows that adage well ~ I think he preaches it at times. I don't know whether he practices it, but I hope he does. Mr. Speaker, that is a dangerous concept. It's a dangerous principle, and I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs will view it seriously. I doubt that he would really want to cast himself in that role. It's certainly new.

In any adjudicative process in the province that I am familiar with where citizens of this province are entitled to a right - be it under workers' compensation law, be it before the Labour Relations Board, be it before the courts - political influence is absent from that process of adjudication. That should be the test and that should be the criterion with respect to eligibility under this bill. I'm surprised and I'm shocked and I'm concerned that the Minister of Municipal Affairs, under section 2 of the bill, has given himself that authority. It's very dangerous. Perhaps we can look forward to amendments in committee stage, but I'm very interested in hearing what the minister has to say about that particular provision of the statute.

Mr. Speaker, there are just two other brief things I want to say. While the concept of the bill is fine in that it's designed and directed toward helping senior citizens - those people on fixed income in the province who, Lord knows, are having a very difficult time in this period of high inflation, in this period of burgeoning government costs - and it's a good principle to attempt to assist them, again, I cannot help but contrast the provisions of the bill which provide the assistance to seniors against the provisions of the bill which provide the penalties for violation., It is significant, Mr. Speaker, and I think it's a classic example of the difference in philosophy which divides the official opposition and the government, that the penalties and the offences under this statute are far greater, both in space and in terms of the language and scope in the bill, than are the provisions for eligibility.

That I find a bit curious. It speaks to me of an assumption which is made by the government of this day that when social benefits are provided to people they must be done under the assumption that people are going to cheat and steal - you can't trust people. Therefore the offences under the statute are greater in volume and scope than the benefits which are

[ Page 2640 ]

provided, which the whole bill is about.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) is becoming vocal again. I trust that he is recovered from his mishap of last night. I trust that his back was healed; I see that his mouth has not. I think if he would listen perhaps he would be more secure in his position, and I know the members around him wish that he were more secure. I wish he were more secure, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Yes, we do have a seatbelt bill before the House. All we have to do now is extend the provision of that seatbelt usage to the chairs in the Legislature.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): I'll speak on that later. There was no brain damage.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, to continue, I wish the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing would get back in his seat. I'm not sure which I prefer most, the back or the front, but it is more pleasant to direct my comments to the front of the minister.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Hurry back, Mr. Minister!

Mr. Speaker, I just want to conclude by saying it is significant that the penalties for violation of the statute are far greater in scope, and language, and space, and in accent than the provision.

The reason for the bill is that it's designed to help people, I presume, and that is symptomatic of the difference in philosophy which obtains between this side of the House and that. There's the assumption over there that people are basically cheats, and we've got to set up some intricate system of protecting the government against the abuse of those citizens who elected you, and to whom you're responsible. You're responsible to those people. If you don't trust them, all I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that the people elect governments as a true reflection of themselves. And if you don't trust the people, how can the people trust you?

Mr. Speaker, when benefits are extended by government for social purposes, surely there should be the assumption that people in this province are basically honest, that people are basically prepared to produce, that people are not going to cheat and abuse the system in any large number. Therefore I find it strange that in section 7 there is more attention paid to offences and penalties under the provisions of this meagre benefit to senior citizens than there is to the criterion under which they will be entitled and eligible, It speaks of the difference in philosophy. It speaks of the basic contempt, I think, with which that government holds people. I'm sorry to say that but I believe it's true, because that, coupled with the provision contained in section 4 providing for employees under this Act, leave me concerned. It leaves me extremely concerned.

I've seen the charitable Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) develop a system of sleuths to go out and to snoop into the private affairs of people before they will be eligible for social assistance in this province. Perhaps the Minister of Municipal Affairs will forgive me, Mr. Speaker, for just being a bit suspicious as to whether or not the rather far-reaching provision for the employment of staff under section 5.... It is very broad, very vague. What are these employees going to be required for? Are they going to be sleuths, or is it simply going to be administration? Mr. Speaker, I suggest that there are adequate staff within that department already to undertake these meagre extra responsibilities of administration.

Interjection.

MR. KING: I suggest there are, but I certainly want some undertaking from the minister when he closes the debate, Mr. Speaker, that the intent of that provision, the provisions in section 7 that I spoke about, and certainly the concern I expressed about section 2, are going to be reconsidered by the minister. I want some explanation as to whether or not he is planning to duplicate the sleuths that the Minister of Human Resources has set up to, in many cases, in my view, invade the privacy and the personal freedom and security of people in this province who are unfortunate enough to need assistance from the state. If that is the intent of the bill, then the benefits provided under the statute are not worth the penalty of qualification.

I think these are valid concerns, and I wish the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing would respond to these concerns when he closes the debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I made notes on the several comments which were offered by the hon. members of the official opposition this evening, and I must say again for the record that I was just slightly puzzled as to the position taken by the opposition when we heard their first and second speakers this evening. I assume that the bill has been caucused by the official opposition, but perhaps that's not the case. Perhaps it was left to one individual to review and, unfortunately, that particular member, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) , is not present.

[ Page 2641 ]

It is correct, with respect to the comments made by the hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) , that the concept originated during the time of the former administration. I think that's a matter which, we can say on this side of the House, deserves no apology. We saw an idea that, unfortunately, had not reached the floor of the Legislature. But the concept had been started and work had been initiated. I hope that we improved on it over the last year or so. Aid here it is now for the people of British Columbia - for the deserving elderly tenants of this province. So if the former Minister of Housing (Mr. Nicolson) wishes to remind the House that he had a little to do with it, that's fair enough. But really, I'm not looking for credit; I'm looking for a programme which I believe will be a part of the British Columbia fabric for many years to come and which will be improved upon, fine-tuned and enlarged over the next 5, 10, 15, 20 or 25 years - as long as the need is there.

I pay tribute to the present Deputy Minister of Housing, who has played a very prominent role in bringing this legislation to this point, with endorsation by members of the government - the Social Credit caucus, the government caucus -because without their endorsation and approval, the very best of ideas would not have come this far.

One comment -as made with respect to the necessity for rent control, and its being a vital part of the success of . . . . .programme. I think that there is another factor and that is the very significant success of the assisted rental programme, with vacancy rates in the smaller communities and in the two metro areas, Victoria and Vancouver, now achieving levels which offer an additional assurance to tenants of all ages. A newspaper headline of just a few days ago in Victoria indicated that the vacancy rates were increasing dramatically - and they are, as a result of initiatives taken by this government to encourage the private sector to provide more rental accommodation.

I spoke, at the time of introducing this bill for second reading debate, of the fact that the majority of our elderly tenants seek to remain where they are - in familiar neighbourhoods, with friends, neighbours they've come to know over the years, near the pharmacists, near the doctor, near the supermarket or the corner store where they shop, near bus lines which are of convenience to them, and so on. That is a fundamental aspect of this particular programme that should not be lost sight of, because we are, in fact, subsidizing the tenant - the elderly person who rents accommodation - rather than bricks and steel and mortar.

I also think - and perhaps we can discuss this in greater detail when the bill is dealt with later in committee, Mr. Speaker - that there seems to be a slight misunderstanding on the part of the spokespersons for the opposition. There's a frown from one of the members across the way. One of those who spoke in connection with this bill said that there is a difference between means test and income test and needs test Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I think that is a matter that can be more effectively dealt with in committee, when the chief critic-apparent for Bill 24 is present and we can debate it in the section.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) belittled the effort, and I'm sorry about that, because other members of the party of which she's a member were more complimentary in their remarks. I don't see it as a type of scrip; it isn't some sort of handout. It's a carefully thought-out programme, as we heard from one member on the opposite side. Indeed, the programme has been dealt with and examined by two administrations, and introduced by this one. I think that the senior citizens with whom I’ve had contact and from whom I've heard since the bill was introduced on March 9 - by the way, Mr. Speaker, on March 9 the bill was placed on orders of the day -feel that it is considerably more than, to quote the member for Cowichan-Malahat, "better than nothing."

She did ask a question with respect to what happens when one of a couple is under 65. That will be dealt with; regulations are in draft form now pending final approval of the bill and royal assent. They will provide that where one of the two individuals in the shelter-assistance situation is over 65, then that is all that is necessary to qualify. That person will qualify, and that will assist in the rental subsidy.

I thank the member for Revelstoke-Slocan for his remarks indicating no objection to the concept. I appreciate that he perhaps has not had as close contact with eligibility committees in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the former Department of Housing, because the eligibility committee concept is not new. It is not something which is appearing for the first time in this legislation.

He dealt at length with the possibility of political influence, with the minister of the day administering this particular legislation and tending to favour constituents of his or her own as opposed to some other area. 'Mat thought had never occurred to me, Mr. Speaker. The potential may be there, but the thought had never occurred to me. The minister can only respond to those situations which are referred to the minister. I would think that the number of instances which will come to the minister. . . In the start-up period there may be a few. But once the programme is rolling well, I would think that the number of references to the minister for final adjudication will be very few.

The alternative, Mr. Speaker - and we can consider this between second reading and debate in the committee stage - is for the minister to wash his hands of the situation entirely and leave the final

[ Page 2642 ]

determination to the discretion of the senior staff of the ministry. I see that they also could be accused of having a particular attitude - perhaps not a political attitude but an attitude with respect to flexibility or inflexibility. I happen to believe in the final reference to the elected person - we may differ on this point - but final reference of matters which are so unusual and cannot be foreseen, final reference of a particularly complex case to an elected person. I'm sure the members of the opposition will speak further on that in committee stage.

The penalty section, Mr. Speaker. I think we experienced some hyperbole on the part of the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) . He referred to section 7 and appeared to suggest to those who may not have read the bill that this is by far the largest section of the entire bill. Well, it isn't. It's a section with two subsections. The bill comprises 11 sections in all.

Because someone is in advanced years, there is certainly a possibility that an error will be committed or that someone will attempt to abuse a programme which is designed for the benefit of all. So therefore there must be, in my view, some penalty section. If we differ on that philosophically, then so be it. But the penalties are there and I think that is for the protection of the vast majority of our senior citizens who will benefit under the programme.

The employee section: again, I realize that it's possible to stray from the principle of the bill. The reference to employees, as far as I am able to determine, is precisely that. The member for Revelstoke-Slocan - and I say this with respect -may not fully appreciate the magnitude of the numbers of individuals involved in receiving shelter aid for the elderly. I'm going to be dealing with many, many thousands of British Columbia seniors. Therefore it will be necessary for the purposes of administering this Act to add additional employees. Perhaps this will be dealt with in my estimates at a later date, Mr. Speaker, but I can certainly assure the member and any other members who wonder, we don't appear to have a surplus of staff in this Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing - in either section of Municipal Affairs or Housing. As far as I'm concerned, therefore, unless someone can assist me, the section dealing with employees is perfectly straightforward.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the several remarks made by the members opposite. I'm sure that we will have an interesting discussion at a later ~:~ ~ in committee stage. I move the question be now put.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Bill 24, Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters Act, 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. WILLIAMS: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 25.

ISLANDS TRUST

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

(continued)

On the amendment.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it's been some days since this bill was before the House and I know that the members recall that during the debate on second reading a motion was introduced - a frivolous motion, as a matter of fact - to delay the implementation of this very essential amendment to the Islands Trust Act for a period of six months.

During the course of the debate, much was made of positions taken in the debate on the original bill by members of this House who were then in the opposition. I have to recall to the members who believed that some point was being made that they have failed to recognize what has transpired with respect to the Islands Trust since the days when the legislation was first introduced and today.

It is, true that when the bill was first brought before this Legislature, I and others took the position that there should be a greater opportunity for local autonomy with respect to the matters which affect the islands comprising the Islands Trust. If I were debating that same legislation today, I would be making exactly the same position. But what we have seen since the passage of the original legislation should, I think, give some reason to those members to pause and reflect upon some of the remarks which they have made.

During the debate on the original bill the islands were described as being unique, and there can be no question about that. Within British Columbia, the islands within the trust do occupy a unique position and they have some very unique characteristics requiring some different treatment than is accorded to other areas within this province. That's not to say that there are not other areas in the province equally unique which now, or in the future, should not be accorded similar treatment. We have had had at least one indication of such an area which has been given special treatment.

But so far as these islands are concerned, the very uniqueness that they are seen to enjoy is all the more reason why this particular amending bill must enjoy the early and unanimous support of members on all sides of this House.

The Islands Trust as originally contemplated had one major flaw, a strange flaw in one sense - a flaw which arises from the fact that the Islands Trust has power but no authority. In effect, the Islands Trust

[ Page 2643 ]

has the right to obstruct, to veto, actions which might be taken but no authority to do anything positive, constructive or beneficial for the islands which fall within the trust group. It is this fault which is corrected by the bill that is before us now. To think that members of the House would suggest that the correction of such a flaw can be improved by delay is something which I'm sure all members of the House, on careful reflection, will reject.

Much has been said by other local government elected representatives about the consequences of this amendment on the authority that they presently have to discharge, and I speak of representatives of the regional districts. But this too is one of the reasons that this legislation is being brought forward today, because the treatment that has been afforded to islands within the trust has varied between regional district and regional district. The interest that regional district directors may address to the islands within their areas varies directly with their particular interest in the islands. The particular interest they have may also include some very personal beneficial interests in the islands. Therefore you have the unique islands being dealt with in a variety of ways in matters which are extremely important to the future of those islands and the way in which their land mass is cared for and developed.

So what does one do in these circumstances, Mr. Speaker? I think that the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) came very close to the answer when he said there were two things: either you give the Islands Trust responsibility and authority to match the power contained in the Act, or you abolish the Islands Trust altogether. It must be obvious to the members of this House that the concern which was so well expressed by the government of the day when it introduced the legislation in the first instance requires that the former action be taken rather than the latter.

To destroy the Islands Trust, because they have not been given the full opportunity to discharge for the islands that which is so properly deserved, cannot be cured by destruction of the system. Indeed it can only be improved by giving to the trust the tools with which to do the job that everyone in this assembly and in the House at the time that the original bill was passed, expected that the Islands Trust would be able to accomplish, This bill does that. Again, I say that to delay the implementation of such a move would be folly.

On the subject of whether or not those islands should be given greater local control, whether the individuals who reside within the island groups should be more determinative of their own future, is a matter that has not been disregarded by this government. But regard has, however, had to be given, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that so far there has not been the encouragement and therefore the needed experience and training for those on the islands to assume this responsibility. Some of the islands within the trust group have among their residents groups who have indicated in the strongest way that local government is not their desire.

Therefore by moving in this, which may be the first of a series of steps, we can bring to these island groups in the fullness of time the local control and autonomy which they may deserve and which the residents of those islands desire.

It may vary from island to island. It may be that in the southern part of the island group, there are residents who are highly desirous of controlling their own affairs and achieving their own destiny. In other areas, the situation may be different. But we would never be able to assess the extent to which such attitudes may exist in any island or group of islands, so long as the islands themselves continue to be a small, sometimes bothersome, appendage to a large regional district which has its main base in the larger land mass of Vancouver Island or of the lower mainland.

This legislation is an opportunity to determine what that future may require. Questions have been raised as well as to the inclusion to this bill of some additional island groups within the trust area. I have to speak specifically of islands which fall within the boundaries of the constituency which it is my honour to represent. Let me say that the inclusion of those additional islands is not for some devious purpose but entirely extends from a recognition that there are other islands from those which were named in the original group which have the uniqueness which requires the kind of protection which this legislation in its amended form will provide.

The islands in Howe Sound, aside from Bowen Island, are the subject of continuing concern, and the uniqueness which they present in the field of recreation to the people who live in that part of the mainland of British Columbia is such that they can be destroyed unless some specific attention is given to their present and potential usage. It is for that reason that I welcome the inclusion of them in this bill. I must repeat again that to leave those islands outside the trust during a period of any hoist of this bill, for six or however many months it may be, would be wrong. The early passage of this legislation is in the best interests of those islands and the people who reside upon them.

The islands, under this legislation, will be able to achieve much which has been denied to them, often because of the extremely heavy business load which presently faces regional districts within whose boundaries the islands presently fall. I think there is no instance clearer, as an example, than is the case of Bowen Island. For years it has been an important part of the Howe Sound community, and yet tied as it is to the Greater Vancouver Regional District, it has obviously been a nuisance, at best, to that large and

[ Page 2644 ]

busy regional district.

After many years of intensive effort on the part of island residents, some planning direction was given to the problems of Bowen Island and much valuable work has been done in this respect. However, if this legislation had been in place in the form which is proposed by Bill 25, the future course for Bowen Island would have been capable of definition and decision long before now. To suggest that the problems which still beset Bowen Island can be improved by delaying, in any sense, the passage of Bill 25 is spurious.

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the amendment which is before the House which would delay the earliest implementation of this legislation, but I speak wholeheartedly for the bill.

MRS. WALLACE: I've listened with great interest to the Minister of Labour. He has presented a very reasoned and thoughtful perspective into this debate, and very much of what he said I find myself in accord with. However, it seems that where we begin to disagree is a matter of timing, and it is because of this difference that I rise to support the amendment to hoist the bill.

I agree that the islands are a very unique area and as such need a specific type of legislation to ensure that that uniqueness will continue, and that is why the Islands Trust was instituted in the first instance, Mr. Speaker. But our difference begins when we think in terms of whether or not this is the time to provide greater power to that trust, and whether or not this is the time to extend the appointive members in that trust with a heavier balance away from the elected personnel, and the direction toward ultimate self-determination on the part of the residents of the Gulf Islands.

Whenever there is change there is always concern. People are concerned about the possibilities, the worries and the fears that change presents. Most of them never materialize, but still those worries and fears are there. This was very much in evidence when the Islands Trust legislation was introduced, and, as has been suggested by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , in his remarks and in his explanation of where he stood when the bill was introduced and why he has now changed his thinking. I suggest that perhaps while he has made the full circle, shall we say, the people who are involved on the islands have not quite come that full circle.

In my opinion there is more time needed. What is happening on the islands with the Islands Trust is a good thing. There are understandings being built up. The regional districts are beginning to work within the scope of the limitations set by the Islands Trust. The Islands Trust sits with the right of veto, as it were. Certainly in the case of the one island which is in my constituency which is in the Islands Trust, and that is Thetis Island, the work that has gone on there is exemplary of what the Islands Trust has brought about.

We have on Thetis Island a group of very representative people whom you find in all the Gulf Islands. You have the old-time residents who settled there years ago - the sort of English estate type of resident. Then you have the other people who moved in there as permanent residents, and you have the great influx of summer people who simply come in for their holidays.

Those three groups were very fragmented in their objectives and their desires. In the case of Thetis Island, over the past several years, and at the instigation of the regional district, the planner from the regional district has been meeting with those people. They've been defining objectives, and they have found that actually, while they thought they were very fragmented, really their long-term objectives were very similar, and they have been working in that direction.

Through the democratic processes that has been resolving itself, and to make a move now which would remove the regional district from the scene, would again uproot the whole structure that has been evolving over the past few years. It's for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I feel that it's a very worthwhile move to hoist this bill for six months. Let the thing continue as it's going.

I was very interested in my mail today to find a news release from the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) relative to Hornby Island. The same sort of thing has been going on there as has been going on on Thetis Island. It is developing. I don't agree with the minister when he quoted - I think it was the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) - that there are only two ways to go: wipe out the Islands Trust or else go the whole route.

Evolution is a slow process and we're involved in a phase of evolution, a phase of development here. It's moving slowly. We've come a long way from the great furor that was created when the Islands Trust Act was first introduced, but I don't think we have come far enough at this point in time to make the kind of changes that are suggested by this bill. I think we have to take it a little more slowly. The protection is still there. The Islands Trust still has the power of veto, and I can see nothing but good of giving it a bit more time, in taking that time to continue the kind of mutual growth and development that is going on between the people on the islands, with the Islands Trust, with the regional district personnel, letting the 'thing evolve to a point where we are going to come to s , tie sort of consensus.

We must recognize, Mr. Speaker, that the regional districts are elected bodies and they have been unanimous in their objection to this bill. To move ahead with the bill now is creating further

[ Page 2645 ]

confrontation. A six-month delay may be all that is required to just let it sit for six months and then look at the thing again. Perhaps in the light of six months' experience some new ideas may suggest themselves that will provide for greater elective responsibility rather than the appointive responsibility.

We must remember that the people that we are really concerned about, or should really be concerned about, are the residents of the islands and their ultimate desires and objectives. It's their home; that's where they live. Those are the people we must be concerned about. In no way must we establish any alternate organization or concern which could initiate measures that would be contrary to the wishes of the islanders through elective decision, through the democratic process.

That's one of my major concerns in initiating a bill that is going to give to an appointed body the right to make and take decisions in regard to the future of the islands. Appointed bodies come and go, Mr. Speaker, and there is no real control on the decisions those appointed bodies take. There is always a possibility that that appointed body could go in exactly the opposite direction to what certainly is my wish, what is the wish, I'm sure of the islanders, and what the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) has expressed as his wish. For that reason I do not like the idea of giving to an appointed body the power to initiate at this point in time.

I know it's an unfortunate situation to have no authority when you have, certain responsibilities -very unfortunate. But I think it is a situation that must continue a little while longer to allow the natural course of development to proceed there until the democratic process can be carried out and we can move into a completely democratically controlled trust which will protect the future of the islands.

For those reasons I support the amendment to hoist.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): I was listening very attentively tonight too when the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) was speaking about the motion to hoist this bill for six months and the reasons that he outlined for opposing the motion proposed by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) .

He suggested that the islands do need protecting, that they are special, unique, they need our attention, need guarding, and that he felt that the bill which is before us will do all of those things. By removing any influence of the regional districts involved and by giving all of the authority to the Islands Trust and the minister - the ivory tower in Victoria, as the people in the boondocks quite often think - this somehow will be accomplished.

I can't agree with the Minister of Labour on this. I speak in favour of the motion to hoist for six months.

There has not been sufficient consultation with the regional districts involved, and I think the minister himself would be the first one to admit that that is so. The regional districts have simply not been involved in the decision to proceed with removing their influence, except for matters such as collecting garbage and a few other things. In terms of planning the islands or dealing with the development of the islands, the influence of the regional districts will now be removed

My concern relates particularly to our attitude towards this government. I want to say the government as such; I certainly don't want to single out the Minister of Municipal Affairs, whose intentions, as far as this particular bill is concerned, may be above reproach. But we are concerned with the actions of the government on a series of issues. We on this side of the House simply do not trust the government.

MR. KEMPF: You don't trust yourselves.

MS. SANFORD: If we look at some of the actions that they have taken with respect, for instance, to the Land Commission and the firing of the directors on the Land Commission ...

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You spoke on this this afternoon.

MS. SANFORD: We spoke about this this afternoon.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You certainly did.

MS. SANFORD: You're right. And if you think, Mr. Minister of the Environment, that I have changed my opinion during the supper hour, you're quite wrong. I still do not trust this government as far as protecting the environment is concerned. I don't trust the attitude which they have displayed since they took office with respect to land use, protection of If arm land, protection of the environment, handicapped people, the disadvantaged and those who are receiving social welfare. I do not trust them, Mr. Speaker, in their attitude to deal with either people or land.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member please relate her remarks to the bill which is before us, which is an amendment to read the bill on this day six months hence? It has nothing to do with the Ministry of Human Resources, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: Well, Mr. Speaker, it does, because what I am saying is that one of the reasons that I cannot at this time agree with the bill, and therefore support the motion to hoist for a period of

[ Page 2646 ]

six months, relates to the actions of the government over the past 16 or 18 months. That relates to a whole series of events. Okay?

MR. SPEAKER: Unfortunately, hon. member, the debate on an amendment is not a wide-open debate, as you well know. It's limited to the issue that is before us and to the bill which is before us. That's all which I draw your attention to.

MS. SANFORD: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: To repeat arguments that you may find quite in order at another time is not necessarily in order now.

MS. SANFORD: What I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that I support the motion to hoist, so that greater consultation can take place with regional districts before the power is centralized with this particular government. I want to emphasize again that I'm not talking about the present minister in charge of this legislation. I think that the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) expressed it best when he talked about the Gaglardi test. In other words, would we trust a Gaglardi in charge of this bill when it comes into effect? I think it should be hoisted. That consultation must take place.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

I'm sure that the minister is aware of the position taken by the Regional District of Comox-Strathcona. They have written to the minister, and have asked that the islanders within the Regional District of Comox-Strathcona be asked what they think about this change, as far as the operation of the Islands Trust is concerned. The regional district is asking for a referendum and I'm sure that the minister has received that letter.

I do not have a copy of any response that he may have sent out and I'm not sure if the minister is familiar with the letter; he seems to be frowning. But a letter has come from the regional district and they have made this request and it's a valid request, Mr. Chairman, Why don't we hoist the bill for six months and enable the minister to carry out a referendum on this particular issue on all of the islands?

Now I'm not sure if other regional districts which have jurisdiction over the islands have also asked for a similar approach by the minister. But the regional district within my riding has certainly made that request to the minister and I'm wondering if the minister, when he speaks during this debate, would comment about the possibility of conducting a referendum on the islands - here it is just asked for Hornby and Denman - on all of the islands within the Islands Trust. What about a referendum?

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: One of the reasons that the minister outlined when he was introducing the bill for these changes was that it took too long for the islanders to have bylaws approved or to change bylaws because they had to work with the regional districts; they had to work with the planner; it took a long time to get community plans through; and that this, in fact, was a shortcut and would enable the islanders to achieve what they are looking for more quickly. Well, I would like to recommend to the minister that what he should do is streamline the process that's involved now. Let's see how you can cut down on some of the bureaucratic red tape that's involved, so that we don't have months and months and months go by before bylaws can be approved on the various islands within the districts. You don't have to change the Islands Trust; you don't have to exclude the regional districts; you don't have to do that, Mr. Minister. Through you, Mr. Speaker, he doesn't have to do that. Why not streamline the process?

HON. MR. CURTIS: We are.

MS. SANFORD: What we're talking about here is excluding the regional districts. He's not concerned about the speed of the process with which bylaws are passed, because he is doing nothing about it in all of the other areas now under the jurisdiction of the regional districts. Now it seems to me that the minister is saying here that regional districts are fine, but they are no good for the islands. He really hasn't justified that reasoning to us in the opposition.

Mr. Speaker, when the minister gets up to speak I would like him to comment on the requests from the Regional District of Comox-Strathcona, the possibility of more consultation with the regional districts involved, and also the possibility of streamlining the whole process of processing bylaws and amending bylaws. That, Mr. Speaker, relates mostly to his own ministry and to the various other ministries in government that must be involved in the approval of bylaws.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on behalf of all the islands in Burnaby North, which greatly concern me. (Laughter.) Having started my teaching career on one of the small islands which are involved in this I have a feel, I believe, from those early years for the feelings of the people on the island. I know we were all very concerned and interested when the first bill was brought in. But I know that tonight we're discussing mainly the matter of hoisting. I don't have too much

[ Page 2647 ]

to say to the minister on it except to point out to him that I do recall, when he was over here on this side of the House, that he was a member who was always greatly concerned about consultation and participation before any moves were made by government. I "can remember when he took the NDP government to task on many occasions when at times he felt - probably in his own sincerity - that there might have been some lack of consultation in certain areas. That's why I cannot understand why a member of this House, who is now a cabinet minister and who is so reasonable on this whole area of consultation, seems to be so inflexible now that he is a minister. He has had presented to him what I consider are many reasonable arguments for a second look - a hoist -and an opportunity for people who are concerned to consult with him on the matter of this bill.

MR. KEMPF: You sure listened at Mesachie Lake.

MRS. DAILLY: The matter we're discussing right now is the fact that you people are the government. We are the opposition and we are expressing to the minister, Mr. Speaker, the very valid, legitimate concerns of many people involved in the islands who are concerned about the bill.

It isn't as if there is an inflexible stance against the whole bill, but because there are areas of concern and because they feel that there has not been adequate consultation, we in the opposition are doing exactly what that minister would have done in opposition. Ht would have taken the responsibility which we are tonight in asking him to very sincerely consider this motion to hoist.

The minister is, I believe, a very reasonable minister, a conscientious minister and one who generally believes in listening to people. I do think that he surely tonight will give a second look at this motion, that he will pay attention to the wishes of the people who are involved, and give them an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to be heard, to be listened to. So I ask the minister in all sincerity to approve of this motion to hoist.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 13

NAYS - 29

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I've listened with interest to the number of remarks made both at the time of main debate at second reading and then on the amendment which was just dealt with. It is correct that the degree of consultation which was suggested by members of the opposition with representatives of the several regional districts did not take place largely because it's very difficult, Mr. Speaker, to sit down to consult with agencies, some of which and the members of which are fundamentally opposed to the concept which is to be the subject for discussion or negotiation.

I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, and members of the House, that if we approach this particular amending bill on the basis that the regional districts have some magic answer or have some significant and objective contribution to make to the future of the Islands Trust, then I think we're mistaken because the Islands Trust has been the subject of very widespread criticism by a number of regional district people -not exclusively, but a number. They would have had the former government do away with the Islands Trust and would have this government do away with the Islands Trust.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated at the outset some weeks ago, in introducing the bill for second reading, we had, in my view, two options. Reference was made to this by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) earlier this evening. That is, to leave the situation precisely as it has been for the last two years or more is not good enough. We either abandoned the Islands Trust or we modified it and did away with the duplication of the approval or rejection process which is unique to the islands within the Trust area. Again it is perhaps easy for some members in the House who do not have a close association with islands in the Trust area to overlook or forget the fact that there is this additional level of approval.

The hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) led off the debate some time ago on second reading. He set out a series of objections, some of which were well founded and one or two of which were not based on absolute fact. Again I have to remind the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, that in late 1975, or very early 1976, the seven regional districts in question passed a resolution to abolish the Islands Trust. Now that's

[ Page 2648 ]

hardly a position from which to start negotiations.

There has been, I think, a misunderstanding - it's not an attempt to cloud the debate or confuse the issue - with respect to the representation as a result of what will be accomplished by this 1977 amendment. Representation has not been changed by this Act because for land-use control matters the Trust would now be governed by the two-thirds voting requirement under the Municipal Act. So, Mr. Speaker, the position of the locally elected trustees is strengthened. Where five trustees are meeting to approve a bylaw, the vote of at least one local trustee is required - it's mandatory - to ensure passage of the measure. Theoretically, if the Trust committee was acting on a bare quorum - that is, two general trustees and one local trustee - then the two general trustees could carry the bylaw, but this presupposes the general trustees would vote the same way, and I don't think anyone can count on that occurring. Also, experience I think has shown that it's most unusual that only one local trustee is present on his or her island when a matter affecting that island is being dealt with by the Trust committee.

The opposition, Mr. Speaker, has really failed to recognize or concede in its debate on this particular bill the fact that there are some 99 regional district members on the seven regional districts within the Islands Trust area. It is a very large group, whereas here we have three general trustees and two locally elected trustees from each island within the area. We are reducing the total number of people involved in islands decisions. I think that the actions taken by this government a few months ago must be acknowledged by the opposition members of this House when considering, as the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) described a few minutes ago, the fact that perhaps our intentions are not that great, because the three general trustees are also residents of the Gulf Islands, residents from within the Islands Trust area. Therefore each of the 29 trustees, general or locally elected, are islanders.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the hour is late. We had heated debate earlier some weeks ago when this matter was first presented for second-reading discussion. I've considered very carefully the criticism which has been advanced, largely by regional district representatives in the south coastal area who sense that perhaps this is the thin edge of the wedge. I serve notice tonight that yes, indeed, it may be the thin edge of the wedge with respect to regional districts.

I suggest that regional district representatives need not worry so much about the Islands Trust and need not worry so much about what this government may do in the future. But they must look now and in the months immediately ahead to what their relationship is with the people they have been elected to serve. That, I think, is their first responsibility.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I think there has been some useful discussion. I believe that the amendment bill, which I anticipate will pass sometime this late spring or early summer, is an improvement on the bill which was introduced by the former administration. I look to a more efficient, more directly accountable means of decision-making among the several islands in the Islands Trust, and I move that the question be now put.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is second reading of Bill 25, Islands Trust Amendment Act, 1977.

Motion approved.

Bill 25, Islands Trust 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. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, as the Lieutenant-Governor is approaching, I would ask for a short recess. Before I do, it's with a note of sadness that I advise the members of this House of the sudden passing of Jack Wasserman, who is known to all of us as a very fair member of the media. His passing is all the more shocking in that it took place at the testimonial dinner to a former distinguished member of this House, the former member for North Vancouver, Gordon Gibson, father of the present Liberal leader.

I am sure I express to his family and friends, of whom I count all of us, our condolences at his passing, and the loss to all of British Columbia.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to respond, first of all, in appreciation with the very kind and thoughtful words of the Premier who, indeed, on this occasion must be understood to speak for all of us in this chamber.

British Columbia is still a very small community. Although on occasion we have strong and passionate feelings about each other in this family, this province, it is not an unusual thing that in a very personal sense the loss of someone like Jack Wasserman touches us far beyond the professional association.

Jack Wasserman's father was a friend and acquaintance of the Premier's father, as of my father, as my father knew the Premier's father when we were youngsters. This small community that makes up British Columbia allows families like that, regardless of divisions, to have that kind of personal and intimate contact.

Like his father, Jack Wasserman was an open, fair and honest person who professionally went around this province doing his job with a confidence and a

[ Page 2649 ]

surety that he would always be fair. As a consequence, all politicians from all political parties responded to that confidence.

His loss tonight comes as a shock, as the Premier said. I want to echo the words of the Premier in saying that his loss will be felt not only by those of us in public life, in terms of our public role, but all of us personally. His loss can be truly said to be a loss to the family of this province, and in that sense it touches us all the more deeply.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, while I don't share the knowledge and intimacy of the friendship that the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition had, I had a great deal of respect for Jack Wasserman and very much enjoyed his constant championing of the underdog. I would add my personal condolences to his family.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, perhaps on behalf of all of the members of the Legislature, a letter could go forward from the office of the Speaker to the Wasserman family, indicating our sincere grief in this loss,

Hon. members, I believe that we'll recess just briefly until the Lieutenant-Governor is in the building. Would you return to the chamber at the sound of the bell?

The House recessed at 10:43 p.m.

The House resumed at 10:49 p.m.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Pollution Control (1967) Amendment Act, 1977

Department of Housing Amendment Act, 1977

Gift Tax Repeal Act

Succession Duty Repeal Act

Psychologists Act

Travel Agents Registration Act

Power Amendment Act, 1977

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1977

Supply Act, No. 1,1977

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet. Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time. In the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead and for purposes of this order.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, the motion, I think, deserves some comment, particularly from the opposition side of the House inasmuch as it leaves in a state of complete and total uncertainty the kind of commitments that any member of this House may have in the coming weeks and months. This kind of motion leaves us and all members of this House, unless the government caucus is party to information which is not made available to the opposition parties, with not the faintest idea when we might be called back into session, at a time when we are all particularly sensitive to the fact that the voters of British Columbia do expect a great deal of their MLAs. That involves traveling, commitments at association meetings and all kinds of other responsibilities which are part and parcel of being an MLA, and more particularly in the case of being a party leader.

We're living at times when the expectations of elected representatives are very high. We're also living at a time when I think the voters in Canada, not only in British Columbia, are looking for a sense of maturity and wisdom in their politicians. I frankly have to question whether this kind of indefinite motion to adjourn this House tonight gives the public any hope to think we are developing some maturity in our political system in British Columbia.

We have been, in the past week or so, even uncertain as to when the session was to adjourn. Now we are completely uncertain as to when we might be back here, with the very obvious consequence, Mr. Speaker, that if any one of us is asked to accept some kind of political engagement two weeks or three weeks or four weeks from now, we just have no idea whether we can make a promise to meet that commitment or whether we must await the pleasure of the government.

I see the House Leader shaking his head, and I hope I am misinformed. But the motion, as I listened to it, left me very uncertain as to how I determine the approximate time we might again resume the business of this House.

Apart from the other factors I have mentioned, I think that continuity of debate is an important element also. We have carried out second reading on certain bills. When we come back into the House, a long intervening period does not help in the positive and constructive nature of debate when much of the

[ Page 2650 ]

arguments are simply repeated all over again if we have been away from this chamber any great length of time.

The Premier may wish to correct any wrong impressions that I have or he may care to explain the motives behind this kind of adjournment rather than setting a definite date for us to continue business. The Premier has made many public statements, as he has every right to do, that there is a long programme of legislation to be carried on this session. I welcome that and I'll be here as often as I possibly can to fulfil my role as an MLA. But I happen to have a lot of other responsibilities that I am also trying to fulfil. I really feel that this kind of motion is just another - I won't say obstacle - but it is certainly an inconvenience to members on this side of the House and members on that side of the House trying to meet the various commitments in their ridings and on behalf of their parties. I wonder if the Premier would care to clarify the content of the motion.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As the member may be aware, being in the former parliament, this is the same motion that has been presented on adjournment in the years 1974,1975 and 1976. It is identical. The change was made from having a single session a year to allow the Legislature to go into a state of adjournment rather than prorogation to be brought back.

I want to advise the member that the adjournment tonight did not come as a surprise. It was my understanding that it was negotiated between the Whips some time ago as to adjournment, All members will be given adequate notice on the return of the Legislature.

One of the problems was that we have been sitting in the earliest session ever called - January 13 - for some considerable time. At that time, perhaps with undue optimism, the government in its planning did anticipate the conclusion. As such, many ministerial meetings were scheduled for the immediate period which will have to be rescheduled because it would be unfair to call this assembly, without ministers especially, with estimates to be concluded. What will happen is an attempt to reschedule some of those meetings that involved other governments. But all members of this assembly will be given adequate notice so that they can conclude constituency business and other commitments before we reassemble.

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we certainly understand that the ministers are tired. We can understand that they need a rest. We'll give them our blessing to go have their rest, but, Mr. Speaker, to suggest for one second that this kind of motion or this kind of an adjournment was negotiated would be to suggest something that's most inaccurate. The other Whip and myself discussed how long might be desirable. He rather put me over a barrel, and I indicated I imagined we'd be adjourning for two weeks. At that point the Premier indicated to him, "yes, it'll be two weeks, " or whatever. But certainly, Mr. Speaker, there was never a time or a thought in the mind of the Whip, I'm sure - if there was, he certainly didn't communicate it to me - that we would be going for this kind of adjournment.

The second thing that I'd like to draw to the Premier's attention, through you, Mr. Speaker, is that when we were the government, we did have adjournments. We adjourned for another session in the fall, but before we had that adjournment we concluded the business before the House.

MR. SKELLY: The estimates.

MR. COCKE: All the estimates, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I was somewhat suspicious when I saw an interim supply bill calling for four months, but even at that I thought, well, maybe the Premier just wants to impress the House with his conservatism. But at no time has there been a precedent for what is occurring in the House tonight - at no time.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Ask anybody, Mr. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) . Quick with the lip but, you know, you're just about as sincere as you look tonight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. COCKE: Oh, order!

Mr. Speaker, I'm very sad that we go away from this House unable to make plans to do the work efficiently.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: "Stick around, " the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) says. Mr. Speaker, what we should be doing is being able to make plans so that we can serve this province better, instead of waiting beside a telephone to be beckoned back at the will of the government.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if an intelligent debate can really take place at this time of night. I suppose that every one of us finds it necessary to mumble and grumble from our seats, hopefully making imaginary political points on really what is trivia. This debate will not be noted as a major exchange in the Legislature.

Perhaps in some quiet reporting in an observing

[ Page 2651 ]

weekly somewhere they will say that there seemed to be a mild flurry and then away we went, But it's these very little things, these very trivial things, that really are the measure of some maturing of the House. No one here is innocent or guilty of any less or any more maturity. It's a question of really trying to do the people's business.

Interjection,

MR. BARRETT: Go ahead and get your groaning and mumbling over with. If it's done by rote or whatever it is, let's get it over with so we can deal with a question that's being raised.

The point that's being raised by the member for Oak Bay is valid. I don't think it's necessary to go in through the kind of answer that the Premier gives, saying that we had anticipated that the House would be finished its work. If that were the case, then the legislation wouldn't still be brought in even today. To say that we are anticipating an early adjournment would have meant that all your legislative programme would have already been on the floor of the House weeks ago. You brought in major bills today.

So to try to tell those of us who sit here and know the workings of the House that one of the reasons is that you had anticipated an early end to the session may convince people out there who don't understand the workings, but how could you anticipate that when you've brought in legislation today and in the last few days?

Can't you just grow up a little bit and lead this House as you are to be the leader and say that we expect to come back at such-and-such a date? Is that a concession that will rock the government? Is that a level of co-operation that is too threatening to a stubborn position? Is it an attitude that is impossible to adopt or accept, or does it have to continue to be reduced to a basis of: you said, I said, he said, what said? If it's a continuation of that kind of you said, I said, he said, what said.... You can do your thing, we do our thing, but the House doesn't benefit at all.

I just find that we expect to be treated as mature legislators by a mature Premier who would honestly stand up and say: "We hope to get back by X date." Now if we can't expect that, please don't give us specious arguments that you expected the session to be done, because you wouldn't have had legislation still coming in today.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Perhaps it's too much to ask this group or the Premier. Perhaps it's too much to expect to stand up and honestly say that we expect to be back at X or Y date. But the appeal made....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

Interjections,

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. members please accord the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity to speak on this particular motion?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it is my opinion that the House would be better served ' the people of the province would be better served if we had a date whereby we would return to finish the estimates and the legislative programme in front of us. If the Premier doesn't know, that's fair enough - say that. But can you give us some indication? Is it going to be two weeks or three weeks, or do you have no idea at all?

I think that's only fair. It's reasonable and certainly responsible. I don't think the member for Oak Bay is incorrect in making that request. Surely the same demands that exist for backbenchers on the government side are the same demands on all MLAs in their constituencies. Those demands aren't any different. Surely they have the same demands, both personal and public. Surely the information shouldn't be something as a matter of trivia. Surely to goodness there should be some maturity and a target date at least, or else a return to petulance. I don't think that serves the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:09 p.m.