[ Page 9057 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

Introduction and first reading –– 9057

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

Introduction and first reading –– 9057

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

Introduction and first reading –– 9057

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

Hon. Mr. McClelland

Introduction and first reading –– 9057

Ministerial statement: West Kootenay Power and Light Co.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 9058

Mr. D'Arcy –– 9059

Tabling Documents

Report No. 2 on the committees of the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker –– 9059

Oral Questions

Gulf Islands development applications. Mr. Barber –– 9059

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Finance annual report, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 9062

Ministry of Municipal Affairs annual report, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 9062

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

On section 1 –– 9062

Mr. Gabelmann

On section 2 –– 9063

Ms. Sanford

Division

On section 4 –– 9063

Division

Third reading –– 9063

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

Mr. Barber –– 9063

On the amendment –– 9083

Mr. Barber

Hon. Mr. Williams

WEDNESDAY, JULY 28, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I have friends in the gallery today: Norman and Marion Nichol. They have brought visitors to the House — I believe they're first-time visitors — George and Elma JobeL. Would the House please welcome them.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are some northern residents who are visiting the NDP caucus. Here from the Nishga Tribal Council are Mr. Rod Robinson, the vice-president, Alvin McKay from Greenville, and their adviser Don Rosenbloom. Would the House give them a warm welcome.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Joining those who are in the gallery today are two visitors from the constituency of Saanich and the Islands, Mrs. Kathlyn Benger and Mr. George Griffiths. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. BARBER: Cretia Harper and Reuben Ware are in the House today. They are members of the Vancouver Island Coalition for Disarmament, which is asking that municipalities be allowed to put referenda to the people on that question. I ask that the House make them welcome.

Also in the gallery today are some more people who care about the future of the islands, the Islands Trust and the beauty of those places. They include Monty Drake of Denman Island, Jane Sproule of Lasqueti Island, and certain others who are wearing T-shirts. One hundred and forty-two British Columbia citizens have signed a petition, which, if a Page will come, I would like to present in the Premier's absence — perhaps she could leave it on his desk — asking that the government reconsider and abandon its proposal to destroy the Islands Trust. I ask the House to make those people welcome.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I ask that the House welcome three constituents from Richmond who will be in the gallery today: Mrs. Catherine Alongi and her daughter Elizabeth, accompanied by the wife of our Minister of Energy, Denise McClelland.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Visiting us from Seattle today is His Worship Mayor Charles Royer and a delegation of officials from that city. Would the House please make them welcome.

In addition, all members on occasion have the opportunity to rise and introduce their constituency secretaries. We have a new constituency secretary in Vancouver South, who has been with us for the last four months learning the hard ropes of this business. Would the House please welcome Mrs. Alison McLallen.

MR. RITCHIE: Visiting in the members' gallery today are two young ladies from Central Fraser Valley; Helen Waterfield and Brenda Regier. Would the members please make these two young ladies welcome.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I know that all members of the House would like to extend very happy birthday greetings to a popular member of this assembly whom I shall leave nameless. I would very much like to read three lines from this individual's horoscope: "This is a year for greater independence, for initiative, originality and self assertion." He is "creative, romantic at times and very often spoiled by members of the opposite sex." Who is that nameless individual? The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Davidson). Happy Birthday.

Introduction of Bills

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1982

Hon. Mr. Fraser presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982.

Bill 69 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

CRIMINAL INJURY
COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Hon. Mr. Williams presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Criminal Injury Compensation Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill 75 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

COAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Hon. Mr. McClelland presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Coal Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill 78 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MINISTRY OF ENERGY, MINES AND
PETROLEUM RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Hon. Mr. McClelland presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill 77 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. STRACHAN: By leave I move that the rules be suspended and the sixth report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills be adopted.

Leave not granted.

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

[ Page 9058 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

WEST KOOTENAY POWER AND LIGHT CO.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: My statement deals with a decision which the government has reached on a matter involving Cominco Ltd. and the West Kootenay Power and Light Co.

Before providing details of that decision, I would like to offer a little background on the issues, on the status of Cominco, and on the question of security of supply for West Kootenay and its customers. These issues have been with us for an awfully long time — close to 30 years. In fact, these matters have been before the B.C. Utilities Commission, its predecessor and the provincial government on at least four occasions since the 1950s. The issues involved came to the forefront again in 1981 when Cominco and West Kootenay applied to the Utilities Commission for two things: in the case of Cominco, the company sought exemption from regulation as a utility, while West Kootenay sought commission approval to purchase three hydroelectric plants — Upper Bonnington, South Slocan and Corra Linn — from Cominco for an agreed price of $20 million, to be debt-financed.

Hearings were held by the commission in the fall of 1981. Subsequently the commission forwarded its recommendations to the government in April of this year. Those hearings, conducted over a three-month period from August to October, were detailed and exhaustive. I would like now to commend the commissioners who participated and the parties themselves for what was a very determined effort to resolve once and for all a situation which was long overdue to be cleaned up. In its report the commission said that one of its fundamental concerns was to bring about a resolution which would provide a high degree of certainty to the operations of both Cominco and West Kootenay. Subsequently the commission said it recognized that the recommendations contained in the decision which it forwarded to me were based on evidence heard in the fall of 1981 and which might not fully reflect economic conditions which existed in the spring and summer of this year.

All members of the House are aware that by last April economic conditions in the province had been severely hit by the global recession, which has particularly affected the province's vital resource areas and resource companies, including the operations of Cominco, which is a major employer in the Trail area. Right now the Cominco lead-zinc smelter is shut down in a bid to reduce inventories of unsold metal, and the company has indicated it must cut back on production of fertilizer and close some of its plants to reduce stockpiles. We have had some good news in the last few days, with the announcement that Cominco will be calling back to work some 4,400 employees.

Mr. Speaker, like many other resource companies, Cominco is clearly going through a very difficult period. While things will eventually improve, an illustration of the present problems is that in the first quarter of this year Cominco recorded a loss. It's of interest to the members of the House that Cominco has never recorded a loss since the Depression year of 1932.

In reviewing and studying the commission's report, the changed economic picture which brought about this situation was taken into consideration, along with the impossibility in the current financial market of West Kootenay achieving satisfactory debt or equity financing, and other factors relating to West Kootenay's long-term prospects and future plans. Copies of the commission's report are being made public, but I'd like to summarize its key recommendations to the House: that Cominco be granted exemption, subject to cabinet approval, under the Utilities Commission Act, and that the price to be paid by West Kootenay for the three power plants would be $9.2 million debt-financed. Let me repeat that these recommendations were based on historical circumstances and did not take into account the economic changes and the money supply situation which occurred after the 1981 fall hearings.

In light of these changed circumstances and after a thorough review of the recommendation, the government has decided, under section 27 of the Utilities Commission Act, to somewhat vary those terms proposed in the report. We agree that it is appropriate that Cominco be exempted, as recommended by the commission. But the government believes that, as a result of the downturn in the economy and the difficulty of West Kootenay Power and Light in achieving satisfactory debt or equity financing, it is necessary to make the following changes: the purchase price to be paid by West Kootenay for the three plants will be the agreed-upon price of $20 million. This price, agreed to by both parties before they appeared before the commission, is acceptable to Cominco and to West Kootenay, and is actually less than the current value of the three plants. The purchase will be financed through the issue of 200,000 shares of West Kootenay stock to Cominco.

This decision will provide important long-run benefits to West Kootenay, which at present has a high debt-equity ratio and short-term and expensive bank borrowings. The utility will thus be able to restructure its financing and convert its debts to a long-term basis. As a result, it will be in a much healthier financial position than that proposed by the parties last year.

The sale will become effective as of December 31 of this year; this will mean no impact on West Kootenay rates in the current year. West Kootenay will be guaranteed firm annual sales of up to 75 average megawatts of power from Cominco until the end of 1990. This compares to 69.8 average annual megawatts, proposed by the commission. This sale will be at a preferred rate and will have a value to West Kootenay Power and Light of $40 million to $50 million over the cost of purchasing power elsewhere. It will help West Kootenay with security of supply, and allow the utility enough lead-time to consider additional sources of firm power supply after that date. In addition, West Kootenay is guaranteed a right of first refusal to any further surplus power at the preferred rate over and above the annual average of 75 megawatts.

After 1990 and up to 2005, West Kootenay will also have first rights at the preferred rate to future surpluses generated by Cominco during this period. Cominco, under a ministerial order which is now in effect, will be required to file long-term plans to reduce the company's equity in West Kootenay to not more than 50 percent. This move will promote greater independence for West Kootenay in the future. Cominco will be allowed to export surplus power, subject to the province awarding an energy-removal certificate and after West Kootenay is given first right of refusal to that surplus power. In the past Cominco has reinvested the cash flow from its export sales to modernize its Trail operations, and the company will benefit from any future export revenues to continue with this modernization and expansion program.

[ Page 9059 ]

The government believes that these changes under section 27 of the Utilities Commission Act will, in both the short and the long run, prove beneficial to both Cominco and West Kootenay. The provincial government is responsible for the electrical cogeneration strategy in this province, for industrial strategy initiatives and for energy export policies. I believe that today's announcement means that we have taken very positive steps in these areas which recognize changed economic conditions and the needs of the region, and which will have significant long-term advantages.

West Kootenay will have greater independence and an improved financial structure, while we have also ensured a continued cash flow to Cominco from its exports to assist the company in its Trail operations. In addition, Cominco will be exempt from regulation as a utility, which could have resulted in increased financing costs which would constrain or hinder further growth at the Trail plant. West Kootenay gains by improving its debt-equity ratio to a lower figure, and will be in a situation where it will be possible for it to convert to a long-term debt picture with lower interest rates. By exempting Cominco from utility regulation, the company will, as global markets for its products improve, be able to move ahead with its plans for industrial expansion at Trail. These plans will create new projects and new jobs which would not have been possible without these actions. I have secured strong assurances from Cominco's management on their very major commitments to the future of the Trail operation. In short, I believe the decisions we have reached are appropriate under present day circumstances and are in the best interests of not only the parties themselves, but also the people of the Kootenays, the employees of Cominco and the employees and customers of West Kootenay.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the minister's rather lengthy dissertation on these matters. It's very good news not only to those of us in the West Kootenays, but also and especially to those who live in the area of Kimberley, to whom the announcement is just as important, and to all those people retailing and wholesaling power through the West Kootenay system, which includes the south Okanagan. I want to note, however, that the minister's announcement is really not significantly different from those recommendations that were made by the old Energy Commission in the spring of 1980. I appreciate the minister's judgment on a brief that I presented on this matter to the Utilities Commission last August.

I want to support the minister in noting that one of the things we really need through West Kootenay Power and Light is a modernization of switching gear, transmission facilities and distribution equipment. That is long overdue, and the company has acknowledged that. I also want to make the point that it has been of tremendous significance to us in that part of the interior — and, as I mentioned, even in the Kimberley area — that we have an adequate guaranteed supply of low-cost industrial power. As has been noted in this House before, that is the only reason we have a secondary and tertiary manufacturing facility in Trail and, to a lesser extent, in Kimberley. It is not due to the availability of ore or proximity to markets or any of those factors, and it's certainly not due to transportation costs; it is due entirely to the existence of, low-cost electrical power. That is why we welcome the minister's announcement so much.

I want to reiterate that, on a long-term basis, the announcement is probably more important to the East Kootenays than it is to the West Kootenays. While the Sullivan mine in Kimberley is tremendously rich, no mine goes on forever, and Cominco has made a long-standing commitment that they are going to replace at least some of the facilities there, as that mine phases out over the next 20 years, with industrial manufacturing, which would not be there except, as I mentioned, for the existence of low-cost industrial power.

It's good news indeed, Mr. Speaker, to all those of us in the southern part of the interior who depend, for our standard of living and our industrial strength, on these hydroelectric facilities which have been in place for many years.

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

Oral Questions

GULF ISLANDS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

MR. BARBER: My questions today concern political interference on behalf of developers proposing to subdivide in the Gulf Islands. My first question is to the Minister of Finance, the MLA for Saanich and the Islands. Will the minister admit today that he has, on more than one occasion, used his political influence to advise developers on how to circumvent the planning decisions of the Islands Trust?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member who posed that question in this House a year ago made some very serious allegations, which were dealt with by my solicitor. I would invite the member to make any such allegation outside this chamber this afternoon.

MR. BARBER: Neither a year ago nor at any other time have I ever heard from the minister's solicitor. Not once; not ever. I have no idea what he's talking about.

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

MR. BARBER: Is the minister prepared to admit that, specifically, he has used his political influence with a colleague on behalf of a developer proposing four separate subdivision applications on Saltspring Island, all of this commencing four years ago?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise only to draw your attention and the member's attention to the earlier statement. The member is directing a question to me which does not deal with my responsibilities as Minister of Finance. I view the allegations contained in the two questions with extreme seriousness. I invite the member to leave the sanctity of this chamber and make the allegations outside.

MR. BARBER: Wait for it.

Will the minister admit that when he took these steps, beginning four years ago, on behalf of a developer on Saltspring Island, he did so in order to avoid the knowledge and participation of the then chairman of the Islands Trust, Mr. Marc Holmes?

[ Page 9060 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, again I must direct the member and this House to the comments made earlier. I invite the member to say, here if he wishes, but more appropriately outside this chamber, precisely what he is referring to.

MR. BARBER: On December 20, 1978, the minister wrote to his colleague the Minister of Transportation, Communications and Highways a letter which I will table today. I ask the minister whether or not he recognizes the contents of this letter favouring a developer on Saltspring, and recognizes his signature at the bottom of it. I will quote briefly from it in order that the minister may know what I'm referring to.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The purpose of question period is not to bring information to the House, but rather to seek information. I'm sure the member has a question.

MR. BARBER: We think this is a very serious matter ourselves, Mr. Speaker. I want the minister to have the benefit of knowing the content of the letter which I'm asking him to authenticate.

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

MR. BARBER: Did the minister, on December 20, 1978, write a letter to Mr. Fraser in which he said, among other things, regarding Mr. Gordon Cudmore and his subdivision on Saltspring Island: "I definitely agree that this application should be resubmitted, and I appreciate very much the efforts that you and your staff have made in concurring that this is definitely a situation in which application was in stream before 1971"?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

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

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

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, there is considerable objection not only to the length of the question but to the fact that the question seems to be seeking to bring information to the House rather than asking for information. I would ask the hon. member to please have some regard for the rules which we have in question period.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BARBER: My question to the minister is: did he advise his colleague the Minister of Highways on December 20, 1978, briefly, in part, as follows…? That's all there is, to it. I'll table the whole letter anyhow; I won't read all of it.

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

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

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

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

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

MR. BARBER: Did you write a letter in which you said, among other things: "My only hesitation in not writing you sooner was that the term of Mr. Marc Holmes, chairman of the Islands Trust, was so close to expiring that I did not see the need to involve him in this matter" — that is the subdivision application — "especially in light of the feelings that he expressed in his letter"? Did the minister write that letter of December 20, 1978, to his colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that that member, with a pontifical voice, has alleged wrongdoing insofar as my activities as an MLA or a minister are concerned. Perhaps he seeks a headline tonight or tomorrow, and that.... I have not taken my seat yet, Mr. Member.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I'm satisfied, while I do not immediately recall the letter to which the member has referred.... I gather, Mr. Speaker, through you to the interjecting member, that in fact it was from 1978. I would like to examine the letter. Again I caution the member, through you, with respect to allegations made last year which that member has not had the decency to apologize about, sir.

Interjections.

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

The rules which you have placed in my hands, hon. members, suggest that communications between members and ministers are not to be referred to in question period; however, communications between minister and ministers appear to be subject to questions in question period.

MR. BARBER: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Can he confirm that on November 17, 1978, he wrote to the minister who has just answered these questions a letter which includes the following phrase: "I realize these possible approvals may create some unfavourable reaction, but it is a clear case of being in stream. I have a copy of the letter from the chairman of the Islands Trust to you threatening to resign if the applications were not referred to the Trust"? Did you write such a letter in regard to the proposal of Mr. Cudmore to subdivide on Saltspring?

[ Page 9061 ]

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

MR. BARBER: I have further questions about other political intervention on behalf of developers proposing to subdivide on the Gulf Islands. This first question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Can the minister confirm that the real purpose of abolishing the Islands Trust is to expedite a number of applications for subdivision which are supported by members of the Social Credit cabinet but which are opposed by the Islands Trust?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Categorically, no.

MR. BARBER: Can the Minister of Municipal Affairs confirm that on December 5, 1978, he wrote to the chairman of the Islands Trust in regard to the proposed Rainsford subdivision on Denman Island and said in the letter, among other things: "Consequently it is my position now that the above-mentioned subdivision should be approved"? Did he write such a letter in favour of this developer?

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

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I have two points of order regarding that member's question. First of all, it was my understanding of the rules that you supplied to the members of this House that matters in question period are to be urgent and important. This has been raised on a number of occasions since 1978.

My second point of order has to do with the propriety of debating in question period a bill which is before this House and which will be debated later today.

MR. SPEAKER: The rules which you have placed in my hands and which refer to debating matters on legislation suggest that the legislative record of the present session is not to be dealt with. I'm sure the member is thinking in terms of the need for legislation not being debatable, which is a rule in Committee of Supply. But in question period the legislative record — that is, that record on which the question is already settled, on which the question has already been put — is not subject to question. However, I must remind you that subsection (i) of section 357 of Beauchesne's fifth edition suggests that imputations cannot be made against another member in question period. I would remind the hon. member to be very careful in framing his question.

MR. BARBER: Did the Minister of Municipal Affairs, to whom this question is addressed, write on March 5 this year to the chairman of the Islands Trust on behalf of a developer named Ronald Gee, proposing a subdivision on Bowen Island, in which letter he said, among other things:

"It has not been my practice to question the official plan or zoning designations of local government unless these designations conflict with a matter of provincial interest. I am bringing this issue before you as an individual." — although it was on letterhead and signed as minister — "I do not know Mr. Gee or Mr. Leith but I am familiar with their property in the general area of Bowen Island, on which it is located. I agree with Mr. Gee's complaints. The property in question could easily accommodate the density under a C-2 designation, as other parcels in the general area can and have been so designated."

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, in affirming a question, it is permissible to use perhaps one carefully worded sentence as a preamble to the question. However, to ask "Is this a fact?" and then to use several questions which would ordinarily be considered a preamble should be considered to be out of order. I must further caution that to suggest that another member has used political influence is an imputation.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't believe I've ever met Mr. Gee. I do not know Mr. Gee, nor do I know his politics, as to whether he's NDP or Social Credit. I've written hundreds of such letters to municipalities and regional districts. If the people of British Columbia should be denied an appeal to the Minister of Municipal Affairs whenever they felt wronged, we would live in a sorry state.

MR. BARRETT: Because of the unusual number of points of order during question period, I would ask leave of the House that question period be extended to make up the time taken on points of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I will ask leave. But before I ask leave, I must caution members that the practice is that the speaker who initiates the point of order usually suggests that the clock be held.

Leave not granted.

MR. BARBER: I ask leave to table certain correspondence between and among the Ministers of Highways, Municipal Affairs and now Finance, including several letters which I was not able to ask questions about during question period.

Leave not granted.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

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

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. BENNETT: On a point of order, the member for Skeena yelled across the floor that the Premier said no. In fact, he said: "Bennett said no." That's entirely incorrect — as incorrect as the untrue allegations he made yesterday in my estimates.

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

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Hon. members, when the Speaker stands, silence is expected. The Leader of the Opposition knows that rule very well.

[ Page 9062 ]

[Mr. Speaker resumed his scat.]

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

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

MR. HOWARD: He mouthed, and said no.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

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

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition's question is: is it the ruling of the Chair that a no was heard? It is the opinion of the Chair that a no was heard. An opinion of the Chair is not subject to appeal, and that is a ruling.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The ruling is challenged.

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

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 22

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

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

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

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 50.

LABOUR CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

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

On section 1.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask the minister if he would comment in dealing with the section relating to strikebreaking. The Code now calls for strikebreaking to be illegal when it's performed by those people who could be defined as professionals. The amendments we're dealing with expand that, I think quite properly, to deal with both strike and lockout situations. But in opening up the question of strikebreaking itself, I wonder if the minister would care to share with the House his views concerning whether or not legal strikes should be broken by anyone at all, whether they're professionals or not, and whether strikebreaking — or scabbing, as it's more accurately and properly called — should be allowed. Why didn't the minister bring in those kinds of changes when he opened up this section?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, while I acknowledge the particular question asked by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), that's not really a part of the amendment at all. What we are doing, in my view, is correcting what I suspect is probably an oversight when the Code was originally drafted and passed. That particular section is to add to the definition of a professional strikebreaker so that it covers not only situations where there is a strike but also a lockout. Where there is a strike, it is illegal and certainly improper for the operation which is being struck to import a professional strikebreaker. I believe in fairness, and those same conditions with respect to strikebreakers ought to apply to an operation which has locked out its employees. That is the substance of the amendment, and with all due respect, those comments which have been offered by the member for North Island really have no application to the amendment before the Chair.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, first of all I will make it clear that we support the amendment. We think that the reasons that the minister proposes are right and proper, and that it is something that should be done to the Code.

The situation is not equal, and I think what the minister is trying to do is to demonstrate that there is some equitability. In fact, there is not usually equitability in this situation. Most employers, particularly in first contract negotiations, who have a strike and who then continue operations by employing scabs, do so when a strike is taken, but when they lock out in a similar situation, which doesn't happen very often, it's with the intention of closing. I acknowledge that there are exceptions, but in most cases it is with the purpose or the intention of closing the plant or the operation, so they would not be

[ Page 9063 ]

using strikebreakers of any kind, professional or not. My concern — and it's one the minister didn't address — is, when he is trying to create some equitability, as he would argue — and in a limited sense I would agree — why he does not deal with the whole question. When a legal strike or a legal lockout is in place, that means the business does not operate until that legal strike or legal lockout is over. That's the amendment that we should be debating at this point.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, this is the section that we are very much opposed to, in that it changes the whole thrust of the provisions of the Labour Code. It takes away from the Labour Relations Board the right to handle the very difficult, delicate issues that come before it. Instead, through this amendment the Labour Relations Board is directed to give a consent-to-sue — in other words, taking the issue to court rather than having the Labour Relations Board itself deal with the difficulty that is before it. It is essential that the board have the flexibility that it requires to deal with these issues. The courts are not experienced in labour issues, not in the way that the Labour Relations Board is. That's why the people were appointed to the Labour Relations Board, because they have the experience and the knowledge to deal with these sensitive issues.

I think that when it goes to the courts, Mr. Chairman, we are less likely to get a just decision in the complex area of labour relations. I think the minister is making a big mistake in bringing in this section, and we are very much opposed to it and will vote against it.

Section 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 19

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

Section 3 approved.

Section 4 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 21

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

Sections 5 to 7 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

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

LAND USE ACT

(continued)

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

MR. BRUMMET: Back to the mud.

MR. BARBER: If there is any mud here, it's mud that your own ministers have written to one another in letters that we tried to table in the House, leave for which was denied by you.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

[ Page 9064 ]

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

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

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

The bill itself is a setback for local government and for the principles which local government has always stood for in this province. This bill gives awesome personal authority to a new czar of Municipal Affairs. This bill is a failure of public policy in comparison with the original planning act, which at least contained the welcome tradeoff that the provincial interest would be disclosed, while at the same time local governments were to lose certain of their planning authorities. That tradeoff has been abandoned altogether. I don't know how sincerely the minister attempted to persuade his cabinet colleagues; he may have tried very hard and failed; he may not have tried at all and just pretended. We don't know, and we'll never know, because that remains secret. But I do know that the only admirable feature of the predecessor bill, the planning act, the one which required the provincial government to play by the same rules as they would impose on the municipalities, has been lost altogether. That's a shame. It's a loss of considerable proportions, and it's typical of the way in which this bill we now see has come forward.

This morning the president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities said: "If he" — referring to the Minister of Municipal Affairs — "thinks he can force this on us, he can go straight to hell. He is putting us in the poorhouse." That's a direct quote from Mayor Jim Tonn of Coquitlam, this year's president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. He went on to say: "Here we have the Premier calling on everyone for restraint, and they try to impose this on us. We simply cannot afford this. They are trying to get us to push a wagon up a hill with a rope. It would cost B.C. municipalities millions in legal and consulting fees."

There is one section of this bill which would, the president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities said, result in development being ground to a halt. This is the section which now requires municipal councils to pick up and cover 20 percent of the capital costs associated with new subdivision developments. Previously they have been theoretically entitled to claim all 100 percent back from the developer. The minister shakes his head — no. The minister shakes his head and knows nothing. In Saanich, for instance, they've been doing that for years, in Oak Bay they have done it with two developments on Beach Drive, and they've done it in Victoria. This government may be philosophically opposed to the notion that local government can reclaim the value of the requirements for sewers and other matters that have to be proceeded with when a subdivision is advanced.

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

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

This bill introduces a brand-new principle which never occurred before. For the first time in this version of it, we see that municipalities will be required to pay 20 percent of the capital costs associated with certain developments, and we'll get to that in greater detail during committee, Mr. Speaker. But I just want to remind the House that this is one of several new features contained in this bill which were never observed in any previous form.

However, let me get to the subject of question period today. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) was understandably annoyed when we released and quoted from certain otherwise private correspondence between cabinet ministers and senior government officials. This correspondence clearly demonstrates that at least since 1978 Socred cabinet members have been using their offices and the political weight of them to attempt to influence the Islands Trust in favour of certain subdivision proposals. Now the government may say there is nothing wrong with that. The Minister of Municipal Affairs said that he does it all the time. Why he would admit to that, I don't know, because we happen to think there is something wrong with it. There is no present authority which allows the Minister of Municipal Affairs to act as a court of appeal; there is no present law which permits that. Now there will be under the new law. But it's not law yet, and it's not law retroactively. The minister has admitted doing something clearly outside the law. The minister said in question period — and we'll cite it directly from the Blues as soon as they come down — that he does it hundreds of times, and he went on to ask, rhetorically: "Is there something wrong when the Minister of Municipal Affairs hears an appeal from a citizen on these matters?" There is something wrong if it's outside the law, because all you can do is what the law permits. That's the British constitutional system. That's Canadian law. That's the way we govern this democracy. Every time a minister intervenes on behalf of a developer and tries to persuade an official agency, be it an agency of record, of report or of representation — in this case, the Islands Trust — to vary a plan on behalf of a developer, it's no wonder Social Credit is criticized.

I will read into the record — because I was not able to table them before — the actual letters I was quoting from. These letters demonstrate a pattern, in our view, of abuse that dates back at least to 1978. This pattern of abuse has apparently been resisted by the Islands Trust. For at least four years they have attempted to withstand the pressure exerted on them by Socred cabinet ministers in favour of certain developers. The letters I will read into the record, in their entirety, speak for themselves plainly and clearly. They were not fabricated by a dirty tricks squad that we hired through George Lenko Inc. They were not manufactured by Jack Kelly. These are authentic letters, private correspondence between and among Socred cabinet ministers. I understand how annoyed they are that we should have copies of these. I understand how angered they might be that we would release them. What I don't understand is that they thought they could get away with it.

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

MR. BARBER: How do you know that?

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

MR. BARBER: The principle we're concerned with is the principle that led to the abolition of the Islands Trust. Let me draw your mind back to 1968, when the then lower mainland regional planning panel, the advisory group which was taking a look, on a collaborative and voluntary basis, at

[ Page 9065 ]

planning in greater Vancouver, said no to the Bennett government of the day. What they said no to was the imposition of the Roberts Bank superport, the rail lines and the associated facilities. What they said no to was a view of development of greater Vancouver which was not consistent with their vision of it.

What did the Bennett government do then? Did they listen to that lower mainland regional planning advisory group? Did they attempt to negotiate with them? Did they attempt to collaborate as equals to come up with a compromise that would suit everyone? The Bennett government of that day did what the Bennett government of this day has done to the Islands Trust. In 1968 they simply wiped them out. The organized opponents of Roberts Bank, representing local government, said: "No, we don't want this. We don't like it. It won't work. There's another way to meet the same objectives." The first Bennett government said: "Sorry, not only won't we listen to you, but from now on you're out of business." And in a very tyrannical and undemocratic way they wiped them out; they legislated them out of existence.

What does the government do today? We now know, from correspondence I will read into the record shortly, that for four years the Islands Trust has been resisting attempts by the Socred cabinet ministers to alter the official plans. Those attempts were apparently made on behalf of certain developers whose names appear in the very correspondence that we are now tabling by reading. Every time a Socred minister goes to bat for a developer and asks the Islands Trust to change the bylaw, it appears from the documentation I have, which may not be absolutely complete — I'm sure the minister will complete it if it's not — that the Islands Trust said: "No, we don't care for that. We don't want it. We wish to take more time to study it. We wish to take more opportunity to consult our neighbours. We wish to make it consistent with the official plan."

For four years the Islands Trust has been saying no to these propositions. This year the Socreds are saying no to the Islands Trust, wiping them out altogether. There's a similarity between what they did in '68 and what they're doing in '82. The similarity, I think, angers people who care and feel deeply about the need for competent and intelligent land use. I said yesterday, I repeat and I'll say it many more times before the debate's through: the Socreds want to treat the Gulf Islands like just any other piece of real estate in the province, with no protection, no care, no caution, and no future. To us, the New Democrats, who created the Islands Trust proudly in the first place in '74 and proudly defend it in '82, the attitude which says it's just another piece of real estate is absolutely unacceptable. It is, I think, also unacceptable to the majority of residents on the Gulf Islands, and the majority of off-islanders who use those jewels in the Pacific for recreational and family life.

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

I use names only because individuals change in the portfolios, and I want to identify who the minister actually was at the time. I'm sure the Speaker will understand. I'll indicate changes as they've occurred. I realize it's arguable, Mr. Speaker, but because I can't table the documents I have to identify them so that there can be no dispute.

The then and now Minister of Highways wrote to the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Curtis — for the sake of further clarity, file no. 5132-348920-334800 — re the Cudmore subdivision. This is the letter that the Socreds refused permission to table in the House today. That, by the way, is really unprecedented. Mr. Speaker. I've been here for seven years and I've never known any member of any party to refuse leave to table a document — never. I've never ever heard of that happening before. However, the Minister of Highways wrote to the Minister of Municipal Affairs on that date and said:

"Re: Cudmore subdivision:

"After the meeting with my staff and Mr. Cudmore in your office" — referring to the office of Mr. Curtis — "on October 24, 1978, we have resurrected the whole case and find information dating back to 1967. It was in stream in 1969, when the 10-acre regulation was passed. Ironically, the subdivision was approvable in 1970. Why Mr. Cudmore stopped the project at that time is not known.

"There were three points raised at the meeting: (1) The lots split by the road are approvable if they are accepted by the health branch of the Capital Regional District and any other affected agencies (2) there was a 41-lot subdivision of one-acre parcels being prepared, but it was abandoned for unknown reasons — an application should be submitted to our district office by Mr. Cudmore's surveyor; (3) there is also a residual 33-acre lot which Mr. Cudmore wants to split into three parcels — he should also submit this, as in section (2)."

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

"I realize these possible" — and he underlines the word "possible," Mr. Speaker — "approvals may create some unfavourable reaction" — this is an understatement, surely — "but it is a clear case of being in stream. I have a copy of the chairman of the Islands Trust's letter to you threatening to resign if the applications were not referred to the Trust. These applications would be referred to them for recommendation as a matter of course. Do you agree that these applications should be resubmitted?" It is signed "Alex."

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

"My dear colleague:

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

"Thank you for your letter of November 17, 1978 regarding Mr. Gordon Cudmore and his subdivision on Saltspring Island. I definitely agree this application should be resubmitted, and I appreciate very much the efforts that you and your staff have made in concurring that this is definitely a situation in which an application was in stream before 1971.

"My only hesitation in not writing you sooner was that the term of Mr. Marc Holmes, chairman of the Islands Trust, was so close to expiring that I did not see the need to involve him in this matter, especially in light of the feelings that he expressed in his letter. I would appreciate it if you would correspond directly to Mr. Cudmore and notify him of the procedures that he must now take to put his subdivision back in the process.

"Sincerely,
Hugh"

[ Page 9066 ]

I also have copies of internal memoranda which verify that it was upon the recommendation of the two ministers that it got back into the works. These memoranda were signed by, among others, one Fred H. Sproule, executive assistant, dated February 20, 1979, and indicate perfectly clearly how the intervention — as I have now proven in letters formerly private, now fortunately public, between the Minister of Highways and the then Minister of Municipal Affairs — got Mr. Cudmore's application back in stream.

As an aside, Mr. Speaker, you might ask who Gordon Cudmore is. If you did, you would find out (a) he's the guy who pinched the petroglyphs on Saltspring Island, and who, when caught and asked how he thought he could get away with it, said: "Well, Grace McCarthy told me I could have them." The same Mr. Cudmore, a well-known supporter of the Social Credit Party — surely a coincidence — put forward an application, which apparently was being stalled, if that's the word, by the Islands Trust, which had some concern that it might not be consistent with their plans.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) today says: "Go out in the corridor and I'll sue you if you say bad things about me." What worse things could be said about the Minister of Finance than the words he himself penned in that letter of 1978, making it clear that he wanted to manipulate the process in order to avoid the criticism that he knew Mr. Holmes would make if this subdivision proposal were to go ahead? I don't need to say anything; the minister said it for himself.

MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the member to show soon how this is relevant to the bill itself. The fact that the Islands Trust is mentioned in the bill doesn't make everything about the Islands Trust relevant. I must remind the hon. member that the Vancouver Charter is also mentioned in the amendment section. Following the same logic, everything about the Vancouver Charter would also be subject to debate, and that is just not true. Would the hon. member carry his debate to the relevancy of the bill.

MR. BARBER: I will, Mr. Speaker.

The Islands Trust is being wiped out; Vancouver city is not — at least not yet. The abolition of the trust surely leads to legitimate debate about the functions of the trust and why, in our view, the trust should not only be retained, but strengthened. It should be given greater authority. It should be made a permanent feature of self-governance for the people on the islands.

This correspondence indicates why the trust is being put out of business. It is being put out of business because it had the guts to stand up to Socreds and their developer friends. It's being put out of business because they had the guts to promulgate an official plan for their area which says no to lunatic, unwelcome, stupid, greedy, shortsighted developers who only want to make a profit and don't care to make neighbourhoods better, who don't care to make islands more beautiful, and who don't care to make the homes of these individuals more happy and safe.

There's nothing wrong with honest developers making an honest buck. We don't object to that at all. There is something wrong with the process you see here today, in which one minister is advising another to manipulate the schedule and manipulate the bureaucracy so as to avoid criticism from Marc Holmes, who said he would resign. The Islands Trust didn't have a say in the matter.

I was saying who Gordon Cudmore is, Mr. Speaker. He received a letter on May 15, 1979, from the Premier. I didn't have a chance to ask the Premier about this today, but I believe it's also authentic. Would you like to hear what the Premier of British Columbia advised this gentleman, Mr. Cudmore?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

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

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

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

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: May we have order, please.

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

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

"Enclosed herewith are your materials related to your application for preliminary approval for the subdivisions of your Saltspring Island properties. I have discussed this matter with the Hon. W.N. Vander Zalm, Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Hon. Alex Fraser, Minister of Transportation, Communications and Highways, and I am advised that your application has been reviewed at all levels. While you may consider that the subdivision is in stream, the application must now conform to all present-day statutes and regulations before approval may be granted.

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

"Yours sincerely,
W.R. Bennett"

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

MR. BARBER: What's right with that?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please,

MR. BARBER: I intervened politically on behalf of a developer a few months ago. Let me tell you how I did it. I met with the developer, I met with aldermen, and I wrote a letter to Saanich council. I insisted that the letter be published in its entirety. In the letter I said: "I know this developer to be an honest guy and I believe that what he says he will do, he will do. I believe that his proposal for low-cost rental housing in your municipality is good and timely, and I urge you to support it." Now to me, if you want to intervene in the planning process — in this case on behalf of low-rental housing in Saanich and in an area of Saanich, by the way, that happens to be in my riding provincially — I think it's appropriate to do that as long as it's public. But when it's private, when it's clearly manipulative in the way the correspondence

[ Page 9067 ]

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

I don't know Mr. Cudmore personally. I don't know whether or not his subdivision proposals — there were four of them — are any good. I do know that I'm not competent to say. Neither are the Premier, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Finance. In each case we're not competent to say, because we wouldn't know what we were talking about. I don't think we should exercise some phony competence in favour of "one of the boys" by pretending we know what we're talking about. The people who are competent to assess the value, or lack of it, of Mr. Cudmore's four subdivision proposals on Saltspring are the Islands Trust. They were elected, they are competent, they are there — at least for a few more hours — and they are in the business of finding out what the local people want. That's the beauty of local government, and the tragedy of this bill. You're wiping that out. You are reverting and returning to Victoria powers which you are neither fit nor competent to exercise. You are not fit to exercise it because we understand what this manipulation means. You're not competent to exercise it because you don't know enough — you're not there on the ground, you're not a local resident, you're not affected, governed or touched by it — and therefore you shouldn't try to do it. The tragedy of losing the Islands Trust is that power will now revert to seven regional districts — most of whom are already totally preoccupied with their own problems and issues, including the problems now being created for them by this bill — and to Victoria, which is even more sublimely incompetent, to decide whether or not Mr. Cudmore's application is any good.

I think there's something wrong when a minister writes to one of his colleagues in secret and tries to reschedule the matter in order to avoid the comments of someone like Marc Holmes. I have met Mr. Holmes. I gather he has a good reputation on the islands, and I expect that what he might have had to say — if he were allowed to say it — would have been a legitimate and fair comment. But once again we've found evidence, and have today disclosed it in spite of the opposition of the government, which tried to stop us from doing so. These guys are prepared to do favours for the boys outside the regular process and against the apparent wishes of the local islanders and residents themselves. This is not acceptable to us and to people who believe in good, honest and open planning.

Eighty and ninety years ago in this province there was a major debate, as there was in most of the rapidly growing sections of North America. That debate centred on the question of whether or not the principle called zoning should be established in law and applied to land. Eighty and ninety years ago intelligent people won that debate, and they said: "You may not build a steel mill at the comer of Yates and Douglas, or Granville and Georgia. Even though you own the property, we will not permit you to do that to your neighbours and community. That is the wrong place for a steel mill. The way we will exercise that view is by creating, through a new idea called zoning" — new in North America, ancient in Europe.... "We will hold you accountable to your neighbours and community." Some greedy, selfish people with an incredibly backward notion of the obligations of property ownership said: "Nuts to that. I don't believe in zoning. You can't tell me what I can do with my land. I'm going to do any darned thing I want with it. I'll build anythingI want on it, no matter how ugly or smelly or unwelcome it is." They took the governments of the day to court repeatedly.

It was a major fight to establish zoning as a principle of governments in this and every other Canadian province. Our forbears in this very chamber fought to create the principle that says that you may not offend your neighbours or insult your community; you will collaborate with them to make it the safest, cleanest, most habitable area of the planet that you can. That's what zoning does. It tells us what is and is not welcome here and there on the land resource of this province.

What does this government do? They are taking us back to the days when zoning could not be administered properly because it was being administered long-distance. They are taking us back to the days when local zoning matters will no longer be decided at the local level. Rather, in the imperial fashion of Social Credit, they will be decided in Victoria. Even worse, we seem to find a pattern of preference. How many times has anyone ever tabled secret correspondence between two Socreds trying to benefit the Sierra Club? Has that ever been known to happen? How many times have we released secret documents between Socreds asking a minister to manipulate the schedule in favour of a group that believes in neighbourhood planning, neighbourhood zoning, neighbourhood government and a ward system? Have you ever heard of that happening? Have you ever seen Socreds bend the schedule even one to favour the Sierra Club or neighbourhood government? We don't see that. I give my word; if ever I get a copy of that secret stuff — with your permission — I'll table it here. Without your permission, I'll read it in. Secret letters, bending the schedule for the Sierra Club — I'd be happy to see it, and darned surprised.

It's precisely because we see a pattern of preference that we are also worried about the Land Use Act. We're making a case now; I've done so for a few hours and I'll do so for a little while to come. Thank God for the rule that designated speakers don't have a time limit. The member for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond) shakes his head in horror. How did they ever let that slip through, he thinks. Don't worry; they'll clean it up after the next election — if they're still government.

As I was saying before, this bill offends a great principle — the principle called zoning. One reason regional governments are under attack in the unincorporated areas of this province is that those areas are the last refuge of people who believe they may not be held accountable to the neighbours for what they build on their land. There are some people in the unincorporated areas who still believe it is their right to build any awful thing they want, and that they should not be subject to anyone's zoning, regional or otherwise. This bill allows those pirates of real estate to get away with any piratical act they wish. How does it do that? By abolishing the planning authority of regional governments in the urban area and restricting it to the unincorporated area.

You might think that would be protection, but when you read the fine print you discover three things. First, section 19 allows the minister, if something is an important development, as the phrase goes, to declare that it's in the public interest and to order a rewrite of any official plan. He can do that personally in the privacy of his office, subject to no appeal, legal or otherwise. Secondly, section 46 allows the minister personally, on behalf of any developer, public or private, to do the same thing through another route in the unincorporated areas of British Columbia. Sections 19 and 46 have the same principle at stake; they obtain that principle in different ways. Thirdly, and finally, for the first time in

[ Page 9068 ]

British Columbia law this government and that minister want the power, without appeal to the courts, without appeal by local government and regional government, to decide what is supposedly in the provincial interest, and to impose it wherever they see fit. Now what's good for Art Knapp's nursery may not necessarily be good for British Columbia.

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

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

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes.

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

Some people think, or used to think, as did Charlie Wilson, once the chairman of the board of General Motors, that what's good for General Motors is good for America. These guys think that what's good for Social Credit is good for British Columbia. Wilson was wrong, and so is the minister. They're wrong because they're trespassing upon a great principle; they are wrong because that act of trespass makes it impossible for local people any longer to exercise the authority they once did. That act of trespass is wrong because we see a pattern of preference which has typically and traditionally, under Social Credit, favoured the developers and disfranchised local opponents and local planning.

The minister would have us believe that the planning objects of the Islands Trust will be secured in law because the official plan has already been approved by the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council. Technically he is right; the official plan has been approved in almost all its forms. Not entirely, though, in that the hearings were still on in the Gulf Islands. As of last weekend, they were still holding hearings. They were still making the plan "a more nearly perfect document," to quote the minister. The problem is that the minister didn't bother to tell us that even though that plan has been approved, he will have heretofore unknown authority, but now authority in this statute that we're debating, to personally order the rewrite of any official plan he wants.

So tell us what kind of protection that is. He says: "Don't worry; you don't need the Islands Trust, because the official plan has been approved." That's technically true, and totally irrelevant, because the same bill allows the same Bill to rewrite any official plan in the province as he sees fit, subject to no legal appeal, no political appeal — subject to no one's appeal at all. What kind of sneaky act is that? Does the minister really think we can't read? I know they think we can't count. Fair enough; most MLAs have trouble counting. The Socreds had trouble counting when they appointed one cabinet minister too many under the Constitution Act, discovered it too late, and had to amend the act retroactively. They thought they could appoint 20, but they could only appoint 19. Maybe MLAs can't count, but we can darned well read, and we know what this law provides. It provides, under the regime of Social Credit, a minister who has power that he is not in any way entitled to exercise, and when he has attempted to exercise it in the past, we now learn, he has been halted by the Islands Trust in his efforts to do so.

Let me read another letter into the record. On May 28 of this year the Minister of Municipal Affairs wrote to the chairman of the Islands Trust. Mr. Speaker, here is more evidence of a pattern of preference. I'll get to that one in a moment; I want to do these chronologically.

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

"Dear Mr. Rich:

"With regard to the proposed Rinsford subdivision on Denman Island, it is the position of the Minister of Transportation, Communications and Highways, the Hon. Alex Fraser, that Mr. Rainsford, for all intents and purposes" — get that, Mr. Speaker — "had received preliminary layout approval from the district engineer prior to the February 23 amendment to the Denman Island subdivision bylaw. Consequently it is my position now that the above-mentioned subdivision should be approved.

"Sincerely,
W.N. Vander Zalm"

They go to bat for yet another developer in this case — someone apparently named Rainsford on Denman Island. The minister alleges that "for all intents and purposes," to quote directly from the letter, this particular proposal had been approved by the Ministry of Highways prior to the February 23 amendment to the Denman Island subdivision bylaw. What does that subdivision bylaw do? Well, I'm advised — but I don't have it at hand — that it provides a rewrite of the bylaw locally in such a way that the Raynesford subdivision could not proceed. It does that as a reflection of the expressed interest and view of the islanders on Denman.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Now I don't know if the islanders on Denman are right or wrong about the Rainsford subdivision, because I don't live there. I'm not competent to say, and neither are you guys. But I am competent to say that local people should choose and we should stay the heck out of it. But no, in this instance another pattern of preference is established. In this instance the minister alleges, without any evidence, that "for all intents and purposes" preliminary layout approval had been obtained, and therefore, on the hook of that technicality, alleges that Mr. Rainsford should not be governed or affected by the Denman Island subdivision bylaw of February 23.

I don't know whether the Rainsford subdivision went ahead. We received this information very late. I'm advised verbally that it did, but I haven't seen the evidence; I'll wait to do so. But I do know that on December 5, 1978, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, without providing any evidence of any sort, alleged that for all intents and purposes approval had been received and therefore the bylaw should not apply to this subdivision.

Not only is this possibly technically a violation of the law, in that the minister provides no evidence that the approval had actually been granted, but just as importantly, it is clearly a violation of the spirit of the law. The spirit of the Islands Trust statute says: "…to preserve and protect the Gulf Islands." The spirit of the people of Denman, who approved this subdivision bylaw through the process of consultation that we established when we were government, has clearly been violated as well. What is the greatest violation of all is that the Socreds now wish to abolish the Islands Trust, that had the courage to resist these efforts to manipulate the law, to manipulate the schedule, and, in this instance, apparently to put ahead a subdivision which would otherwise be governed by the Islands Trust Denman Island subdivision bylaw and

[ Page 9069 ]

which would apparently have been denied on that basis. This is a pattern of preference, which makes it clear to us why the Islands Trust is being abolished. However, this is not an isolated incident.

That was December 5, 1978. March 5, 1982 — more letters, again signed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. On March 5, 1982, the Minister of Municipal Affairs wrote to Mr. Rich, chairman of the Islands Trust:

"Dear Mr. Rich:

"In the fall of last year Ronald Gee visited my office to complain about the designation of lot 1, parcel A, district lot 494, plan 11316, New Westminster district, in the proposed Bowen Island official community plan update. Municipal Affairs staff contacted Islands Trust staff about the designation, and the final word was that this property would continue to be designated C4 in the amended community plan."

The following paragraph is the most extraordinary admission of political interference I have ever found this minister guilty of. Listen to what the minister says on March 5, 1982, in a letter on his own letterhead, signed W.N. Vander Zalm, minister. To continue to quote directly from the letter, he actually says this: "It has not been my practice to question the official plan or zoning designations of local government, unless these designations conflict with a matter of provincial interest."

Parenthetically, Mr. Speaker, let me ask: what on earth is the matter of provincial interest at stake in Mr. Gee's proposal to build on his lots? Is it a hydro dam he's building? Is that the provincial interest? Is it a used car lot he's building that somehow represents the provincial interest? Or is it just another proposal to build on another lot on Bowen Island, which the minister pretends, by way of justifying his intervention, is a matter of provincial interest?

To continue with the quote: "I am bringing this issue before you as an individual." Again, parenthetically, what a joke! Here it is on his letterhead, signed as a minister, directed to the chairman of the Islands Trust, and he tries to pretend — as if anyone would believe it — that: "I am bringing this issue before you as an individual." What rubbish! He was using the weight of his office to influence the outcome.

The letter continues:

"I do not know Mr. Gee or Mr. Leith, but I am familiar with their property and the general area of Bowen Island in which it is located. I agree with Mr. Gee's complaints. The property in question could easily accommodate the density under a C-2 designation, as other parcels in the general area can and have been so designated.

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

What is he doing here? The man who wishes to be czar of all the municipalities is writing, pretending in one and the same letter that there's a matter of provincial interest at stake and that he's doing all of this as some sort of favour to Mr. Gee — himself acting as just plain "Bill," an individual. It's on the minister's own letterhead, and it's signed "Minister." What kind of a joke is that? "I'm writing to you as an individual." It's absurd.

I don't know Ronald Gee either. I don't know the individual at all. But I do know the principle at stake, Mr. Speaker. The principle at stake is that a minister does not, I think, have any business telling the Islands Trust to alter its bylaws in order to accommodate a guy who thinks, and apparently the minister agrees, that he can go to higher density because someone else does, and who justifies it in a completely false way by implying in the first sentence of the second paragraph that it has something or other to do with the provincial interest and therefore that rationale will serve. Mr. Gee has nothing to do with the provincial interest, of this I'm certain. Mr. Gee has nothing to do with provincial planning priorities on Bowen Island. He is apparently a guy who wants to go to a higher density on a lot, and because that is not consistent with what the Islands Trust think should happen, he goes to the minister. The minister, in the pattern of preference that is being established by the release today of these previously secret letters, apparently automatically goes to bat for any developer who wants to build anything on the Gulf Islands. We therefore have some reason to worry and be concerned about what will happen to the islands after the trust is abolished.

Interjections.

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

MR. BARBER: That's what the minister wrote regarding Mr. Gee on March 5, 1982. Apparently he was not satisfied with Mr. Rich's reply — Mr. Rich being, of course, the chairman of the trust — so he tried again. On April 6, 1982, a month later, he writes:

"Dear Mr. Chairman:

"In response to your March 18 letter concerning my request that the official plan designation of the Gee property be reconsidered, I do not have further information to add, except that the property in question can support a higher density than is provided in the plan — as it is doing now and has been for some time — and that properties in the immediate area have been designated for a higher density and are no more capable than Mr. Gee's property of supporting the higher density.

"I appreciate the time that you and other trust members have taken to consider this matter.

" Sincerely, Bill."

Just plain Bill. He's writing, I'm sure, still as an individual. Not once, but twice, this minister has attempted to use his political influence to vary the contents of an official plan on behalf of someone who wanted a higher density for his property on Bowen Island, one of the larger islands of the Islands Trust. Why would he do that if Mr. Gee had a good case? If Mr. Gee had a good case, does not the minister consider that the Trust is competent to assess that case on its own merits and make a fair decision, or is he implying that the Trust is so unfair, unreasonable and uninformed that they cannot be trusted to make any decision? Apparently that is, in fact, his final view, because we know that they propose to destroy the Islands Trust altogether.

On April 22, 1982, the minister writes another letter on behalf of yet another developer, attempting once again to subdivide land on the Gulf Islands. Here goes:

"Dear Mr. Rich:

"Mr. Bob Peck and Mr. Jim King, the principals of Surfside Park Estates, had a meeting with Mr. Jess

[ Page 9070 ]

Ketchum, the Hon. Alex Fraser's assistant, and my assistant, Mr. Derek DeBiasio, recently to discuss the problems they have had trying to subdivide their Denman Island property. Mr. DeBiasio advised them to make formal application to the Trust for a change in the zoning designation of their property. They may also require a change in the plan designation.

"From the information that is available to me" — listen to this, it's incredible — "Mr. Peck and Mr. King appear to be victims of the present development approval process."

Because it turns them down and reflects another view of the future of Denman Island, this Socred minister decides they are the victims of the process and therefore special favours will be done following the pattern of preference that has been established by the Socreds. The minister goes on to say:

"I would appreciate it if the Denman Island Trust Committee allowed their application to be considered at least to the public hearing stage so that they may have sufficient opportunity to explain their intentions and the past history of the subdivision proposal. Apparently the Agricultural Land Commission has approved the subdivision" — I gather that wasn't correct — "as proposed to Mr. Peck and Mr. King, and the land would stay in the agricultural land reserve."

This is a curiosity. I can't find evidence to support that. If there is such evidence I'd be interested in seeing it.

"This decision of the Agricultural Land Commission indicates to me that it is satisfied with the relationship of the subdivisions and the agricultural viability of the 160-acre parcel."

Listen how he concludes this missive.

"The subdivision of this land was first stymied by the imposition of the agricultural land reserve, and then by the adoption of the Denman Island official plan.

"Thank you for your consideration."

What kind of values are represented in a letter like this? He seems to think — the letter clearly indicates — that there was something wrong when the ALR was imposed in the first place on farmland on Denman Island. He says these poor developers trying to make a quick buck on a subdivision were "stymied by the imposition of the agricultural land reserve." We know that the Socreds are against saving farmland, but ordinarily they're a little more subtle. This minister lost all subtlety when he joined the coalition. All subtlety went out the window when he wrote this letter and said: "The subdivision of this land was first stymied by the imposition of the agricultural land reserve, and then by the adoption of the Denman Island official plan."

Apparently he first felt that because it was farmland and was declared as such when the ALR came in, the developers were unfairly hampered or stymied. They became victims a second time because the Denman Island official plan stymied them again and appeared to suggest that a subdivision of this 160-acre parcel was not welcome. Really!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I regret to inform the Chair that in this very important debate there are so few members in the chamber that there is no longer a quorum, and the House must adjourn on that basis.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On the same point of order, I concur with the Leader of the Opposition. I think it's a shame that only four members of the NDP are in the House, and I would like to have more members present for that debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The attention of the Chair has been drawn to the fact that there is not a quorum. I will make a careful count.

Hon. members, there is a quorum present at this time.

MR. BARBER: The minister, who under sections 19 and 46 of this act wants the power to rewrite personally any official plan in the province, indicated in this letter of April 22, 1982, how he would do so if he had the chance. He asked the Islands Trust to do so, and they turned him down. Now he's wiping out the Islands Trust, and he can do it himself. What will he do when he has the power? He will go to bat for the poor victims of the Denman Island official plan, and the poor victims of the agricultural land reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I was asking before, when someone else was in the chair, how often we see the Socreds bending the rules to favour the Sierra Club. I got no answer except from the galleries; they laughed knowledgeably. I ask you now, Mr. Speaker: how many times have you ever heard of the Socreds bending the rules to favour the inclusion of farmland in the ALR and to protect the agricultural option for British Columbia? It never happens. In this letter which we have disclosed today for the first time, the minister makes it clear how he would use the power granted to him if he could only rewrite every official community plan in the province.

To repeat, he asked the Islands Trust to rewrite the plan for Denman. Now that he's wiped out the Islands Trust, he doesn't need to ask anyone at all except his own reflection in the mirror. Can you imagine how the conversation will go? "Good morning, Bill." "Hi, Bill. How are how are you feeling today?" "I'm feeling like wiping out another official plan today, frankly." "You are, eh? You know, I've always wanted to do that myself. I think I'll do it a bit today. What do you say, Bill?" Bill in the mirror replies: "Yeah, I think you can do that today, but you know you'll have to consult." Bill number one says: "Okay, I will; I'll call a meeting. Bill, this is the quorum." The mirror replies, "You bet, " winks once and goes dark. Another deed has been done. Mr. Speaker, that's all that's going to happen when the new act comes in. He shows up with a shaving kit, consults himself in the mirror, and decides whose official plan to rewrite that day; which victim of the ALR he will protect that day; which victim of the expressed and popular will of a local democracy he will thwart that very afternoon.

We have more evidence, Mr. Speaker. Let me read another letter into the record. May 28, 1982, and signed by the minister. This one complains that the Islands Trust is going about its business of rezoning too slowly. This is a novel twist.

"Dear Mr. Rich:

"Prior to the April 30 meeting of the Gabriola trust committee, my office received a representation from Fred Russell of De Courcy Island Estates, regarding the length of time that the trust was taking to establish land-use regulations for De Courcy Island. It is my understanding that on April 30 there was a meeting. It was adjourned and continued on May 6. On this date first reading of bylaw number 18 was given and staff were directed to amend the bylaw as agreed to.

[ Page 9071 ]

"The next meeting of the Gabriola Island Trust Committee is July 30. Due to the length of time it has taken to set new land-use controls on De Courcy Island it would perhaps be appropriate for the Gabriola Island Trust Committee to consider bylaw number 18 at a much earlier date than July 30.

"Thank you for your attention to this matter."

Not only is the minister not content to allow the official plan to remain as a feature of law — for years he has attempted to persuade them in private to change it — but he is now trying to get them to change their schedule of events as well, once more to accommodate the possible favourable consideration of a developer.

Mr. Speaker, the pattern of preference revealed by the correspondence today indicates what this minister would do with the power, if he had it, to alter any official plan in the province. He would use the power to favour developers and subdividers. He would, consequentially, use the power to destroy the islands as we know them. That is a power he is not entitled to have. It is a power he is not entitled to use. It is a power no government should attempt to exercise.

The Vancouver Sun, in the lead editorial tonight entitled "Crown Jewels," had this to say:

"Abolishing the Islands Trust would be like removing the Beefeater guard from the Crown jewels in the Tower of London. It would be an open invitation to plunder a one-of-a-kind treasure house.

"Municipal Affairs Minister Bill Vander Zalm must withdraw his unthinkable proposal to disband the Trust and split the administration of the Gulf Islands among seven regional districts.

"For an institution with so little real power, the Islands Trust has done an excellent job since it was established in 1974 to preserve and protect the environment of the islands.

"But Mr. Vander Zalm and his advisers are wrong in suggesting that the Trust's work is completed now that it has put zoning and land use regulations in place. They are naive in the extreme to think that remote control by regional districts could effectively protect the islands from the predations of greedy developers.

"The islands and the regional interests to which their management would be assigned according to the proposed Land Use Act have altogether different interests and needs. It is because the islands are unique that the all-party legislative committee that studied them recommended a unique form of government.

"Mr. Vander Zalm showed a poor understanding of the islands' uniqueness when he suggested yesterday that if the residents want "self- government" they should petition the government to make them a municipality. The islands are not suited to municipal status any more than to administration by seven regional districts.

"To take away the special form of government, even though it is being proposed in the holy name of economic restraint, is to threaten their special value to British Columbia. Hard times notwithstanding. the little extra it costs to safeguard these jewels of the west coast is money well spent."

Amen, we say, to the editorial in the Vancouver Sun.

The minister says that he's going to save a bit of money by shutting down a lot of local control. He says that lie's going to save a bit of money by wiping out the Islands Trust, whose budget this year is less than half a million bucks. Of that budget, approximately $280,000 goes for staff. Those individuals have been told that their jobs will be guaranteed within the existing bureaucracy; $280,000 will not be saved. Of the remaining $220,000, most of it has been spent on the costs of preparing official plans, documents, bylaws and other proposals for public consultation, participation and decision making in regard to the future of the islands.

If that process were to continue, as the minister pretends it will, it will now continue in not one, two or three offices, but in seven offices. Regional districts will be required to spend more money to continue with the planning to spend more money to hire more planners to continue with the objectives of local planning for the Gulf Islands themselves. The government may pretend that it's going to save $220,000 — let's be charitable, because remember that they've already admitted they won't save the $280.000 for salaries and that those people will be kept in public employee — and indeed it may do so out of its own pocket. But the taxpayers won't save any money. The taxpayers will pay even more money, because if planners are to be hired and plans are to be made, they will now be undertaken by regional districts at their cost and as a burden to their taxpayers. Once again, it's the typical sleight-of-hand for which Social Credit has always been notorious in this province.

In any case, the Socreds spent more on booze, Broadway and fancy living last year than they spent on the Islands Trust. If there were a question of public priorities and real value for money spent, we would contend, in all humility, that it's a little more important in the public interest to spend money to conserve the Gulf Islands than it is to waste money to pour booze down the throats of wine-guzzling Socreds. If you have to assign value to money, we think greater value is found in those moneys spent on the Islands Trust, and the lesser spent on Broadway shows like "Sugar Babies" and "The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas," which the taxpayers paid for.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Tell us that Gary Lauk is travelling the world at taxpayers' expense. He's supposed to be here.

MR. BARBER: He's not travelling the world at taxpayers' expense. He's travelling to an educational conference at his own expense.

MR. COCKE: He's not responsible for this; you are. It's a disgrace.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. All members will have an opportunity to take their place in debate. Right now it's the first member for Victoria.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Do you recall when this government passed retroactive legislation to make it impossible for people to take a certain regional district to court? They did so last year. The issue at question was that of proceeding or not proceeding with a sewer enterprise at Ganges on Saltspring Island. Certain of the residents — and they are clearly divided on the island; most are against the sewer but some are in favour of it — said that they felt that what the regional district was proposing to do was unlawful, and they, on the basis of the existing statute, proposed to take

[ Page 9072 ]

the regional district to court, have the sewer bylaw declared invalid, and thus stop the process. It's fair enough; in a nation of laws we're entitled to challenge them in court. If it was found to be invalid, the sewer would have been halted, and that would have been a reasonable outcome as well. The proponents of the sewer, who include the Minister of Municipal Affairs then and now — Messrs. Vander Zalm and Curtis respectively, to make the names clear — and their friends on Saltspring said repeatedly that no one need worry that construction of the sewer would lead to more development on Saltspring.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Although it is traditionally the case that when a new sewer goes in, it tends always to be connected with new development in the future, thus reducing the unit cost of the sewer, thus sharing the tax burden among a greater number of people, and thus leading to greater development, they said it wouldn't be the case in this instance.

MR. REE: It's good for health reasons to put it in.

MR. BARBER: It may well be very good for health reasons; that's absolutely right.

MR. REE: You're against health.

MR. BARBER: I'm not against health; I'm particularly not against mental health, and we'd like to see more of it here.

The proponents of the sewer said, "Don't worry, no new development will result when this major new sewer goes in," and they said the reason no one had to worry about it was.... Guess what, Mr. Speaker. "The Islands Trust will be there to prevent it." The proponents of the sewer said: "Fear not, the Islands Trust will make sure that nothing like you imagine could happen will happen." You know, there were some people who believed it. There were some people who were convinced that, well, okay, fair enough, although the questions of water quality are very controversial, although the evidence in favour of public health and thereby public safety justifying a sewer is, to say the least, technically difficult to assess, let's pretend, let's concede, let's grant that the proponents of the sewer are right, because after all the Islands Trust is still here, and surely the Socreds wouldn't wipe that out. Surely, they said, the Socreds wouldn't simply arbitrarily rewrite the official plan for Saltspring to accommodate more development in Ganges, and so the sewer went ahead. Some of the people who fought it lost spirit, but they were at least comforted by the claim the Socreds made that the Islands Trust would be there to protect their interest and to prevent future unwelcome development in Ganges.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Lordy, lordy, what a difference a day makes! That's what they said last year; look what's happening this year. Lordy, lordy, suddenly those old assurances are forgotten; suddenly on Friday the Islands Trust is abolished. Mr. Speaker, the assertions made by Socreds regarding the sewer and the alleged protection from future development which would be guaranteed by the Trust are, in a word, worthless; they have now been proven to be absolutely worthless. A year later they are wiping out the agency of protection; a year later this bill specifically provides in sections 19 and 46 that the minister may rewrite any official plan in the province. Mr. Speaker, among the official plans in the province are those on Saltspring, which would prohibit the unwelcome intrusion of development where islanders don't want it. I think there is a connection. I believe it is no coincidence. It is in fact political design, it is political strategy, it is a political purpose and it is most profoundly a political agenda.

The sewer goes in, the costs are considerable, and the overruns are already occurring, and I predict that within six months we will begin to hear the first justifications for its extension so that more people can share the cost and fewer will be hurt individually with the greater cost. Within six months, Mr. Speaker, I predict that proponents of development on Saltspring, when the Islands Trust is wiped out, will stand up and say: "You know, this inflation is really getting us. The costs are really terrible; the recession has hit. We've got to do something about the cost of the sewer. It's not fair to penalize these poor old folks in Ganges." They'll make pitiful, heart-stirring, sobbing, emotional speeches, pretending that they're interested in protecting the interests of the residents of Ganges. Six months from now they'll stand up and say: "These poor people are really going to be hurt so badly that we have to extend a sewer just a little to hook up with a development just over there so that the tax base will be broadened, the burden will be lightened and everyone individually will pay less — and that's the way it has to be." That's what they will say.

That's really not an acceptable public policy. If there is a need for sewer on Saltspring, let it be proven on the basis of health reasons, not on the basis of political subterfuge. If there's a reason for sewer at Ganges, let it be demonstrated by health professionals who know what they're talking about, not by politicians who don't. The minister is not a public health officer and never has been; I'm not and never have been, and neither of us ever will be. We're not competent to talk about it. We rely on professionals to advise us. You don't have to be a professional and a public health officer to realize what's wrong with a sewer that goes into an area where it's not wanted by the majority of the residents, and where it apparently is not needed. But let's leave that aside. Maybe it is needed, although the technical evidence is very dubious.

In any case, arguments were made a year ago which said: "Don't worry. No more development. The Islands Trust will forbid it." A year later those arguments are conveniently forgotten — at least by them, not by us — and the Islands Trust is destroyed in a single act of vindictiveness on Friday last. The motivation for that single act of political vengeance is now obvious, as I have read into the record. For four years the Trust has been resisting the propositions of Socred cabinet ministers to rewrite bylaws to favour subdividers and developers. For four years they've resisted it, and apparently they resisted too well and too often. Having succeeded in their resistance and won the occasional battle, they now discover they are victims of the war.

The Islands Trust, regardless of its incredible record of achievement, is being wiped out altogether. The process began on Friday. It is being delayed by us today and will be delayed as best we can. However, the principle will endure and endure, and endure as long as people care about local planning, local control, and — in this instance — the rare and special characteristics of the Gulf Islands. Although the Islands Trust may be wiped out, the principles for which it has

[ Page 9073 ]

stood will endure in the minds of people who care about those values and possibilities.

On that basis, the trustees and the many volunteers who have worked with the Trust should feel incredibly proud of their achievement. They need not feel that it was all for nothing. A new standard was created, new values have been applied. The exercise of those values has been entirely successful and the achievement of those people, then and now, is worthy of the deepest respect. The achievement of the Socreds is to wipe it all out. It's a disgrace, a tragedy, a defeat. The only happy event that will come from it is that with any luck it will lead to the personal defeat of the current MLA for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis) in the next general election.

Let me now address the personal responsibility of the MLA for Saanich and the Islands in the destruction of the Islands Trust. It's important that residents of the Gulf Islands know what this particular member of the government has always felt and believed about the Islands Trust. Did he support it in the first place? Let's find out what he had to say about it. I just happen to have a letter dated October 12, 1973, from the then and now MLA for Saanich and the Islands, Mr. Curtis. He was then a Conservative; he is now a Socred. He used to be a Liberal, and next time he will be a retiree or a defeatee, if you prefer. We do.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps this is some anticipation, but the line of debate which the member is now embarking on does not involve the minister in charge of the bill. Although a passing remark can certainly be permitted, the member will soon have to indicate how his remarks are relevant to the bill.

MR. BARBER: They'll be relevant to the bill in this particular regard, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated before, I propose to move a hoist motion. It's the first and only one the official opposition has made and very likely will make this session. It's a rare gesture. It's a rare and special attempt to persuade the government to delay implementation of the bill by six months. I will be challenging the MLA for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis) to vote for it. I will do so on the basis of statements that he used to make. I will ask whether or not he still believes in those statements. And at the appropriate point, having moved that particular motion — which I'm not yet debating — we will see whether or not he has any commitment whatever to the special way of life on the Gulf Islands.

In 1973 he said in an open letter to the residents — part 4, page 3: "Residents want and are entitled to an active role in planning the future of the islands." That's what he said then. What does he say now? Today he says: "Bye-bye Islands Trust; hello Victoria." That's what he said in 1973. I'll read later in this debate, as it continues in the hours and hours to come, further evidence of the — to be polite — inconsistency of approach taken by the member for Saanich and the Islands, who, on June 14, 1974, apparently began to see things differently. On June 14, 1974, the member for Saanich and the Islands proposed his own hoist motion. What bill did he attempt to kill in that hoist? We're being perfectly obvious through the purpose of ours; we propose to kill the Land Use Act and thereby save the Islands Trust. That's why we're going to move a motion. In 1974, when the MLA for Saanich and the Islands, the now Minister of Finance, used the unusual power and purpose of a hoist motion to try to kill a bill, what was the bill he tried to hoist? It was the Islands Trust Act. I know you were here then, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure you remember, with shock and horror and alarm, the efforts of the MLA for Saanich and the Islands to kill by a hoist motion the Islands Trust Act. What he couldn't get in 1974 he's got today. He's killing the Islands Trust. That particular MLA has changed stripes so often that he could be used by the Ministry of Highways as a lane divider on the 401.

MR. COCKE: That would be confusing, though — too many colours.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the member for New Westminster please come to order. Debate on the principle of the bill is in order, but personal allusions and personal attacks are not in order, hon. members.

MR. BARBER: I think he would make a very good highway divider. You know, I'm just concerned about his future after the next election.

MR. SPEAKER: The member is out of order.

MR. BARBER: I agree it's out of order, but it's also a good joke. I'm sure you don't mind. At least it's a good joke for New Democrats.

The Times-Colonist for Tuesday, July 27, 1982 thundered as angrily as did the Vancouver Sun in this afternoon's edition in regard to the Gulf Islands. I will return after this to my comments about the personal responsibility of the MLA for Saanich and the Islands for the destruction of the Islands Trust. The Times-Colonist, a newspaper which has only once in its 120-year history endorsed the New Democratic Party — only once; its owners no doubt considered that a mistake, because shortly thereafter they fired the editor — does not in fact ordinarily support the view of social democrats. Fair enough; they represent the interests of their owners, and that's okay; so do the Socreds — they represent the interests of their owners too. In an editorial headed "Islands Set Adrift in a Sea of Reasons" they said:

"With a single stunning line in a bill introduced to the B.C. Legislature last week, Municipal Affairs Minister Bill Vander Zalm proclaimed the death of the Islands Trust. Established in 1974, the trust was charged with preserving and protecting the remarkable archipelago lying between the lower mainland and Vancouver Island for the benefit of the Trust area and for the province generally:

"The startling move comes at a time when trustees have been promoting regional status for the Trust area. The proposal was put forward in March of this year, and could have been the answer to many of the area's unique problems. Vander Zalm has unilaterally scuttled the idea."

The editorial goes on to talk about the islands. The editorial goes on to talk about the sewer issue. I won't quote all of it. I'm particularly interested in the issue of political accountability that the editorial has established. The editorial continues:

"When the Trust was established the islands were considered worthy of special consideration. What has changed that? Surely the minister isn't suggesting that threats to the islands' special character no longer exist. The most reasonable idea to date has been

[ Page 9074 ]

regional district status for the islands, although the present ponderous setup that has infuriated many islanders would certainly have to be streamlined.

"The Trust was set up after islanders voted three to one in favour of it. It is unfortunate that Van der Zalm didn't give those same citizens an opportunity to vote for retention of the Trust or a viable alternative. To abandon the islands now to the varying and uncertain mercies of seven different regional districts is reckless and foolish."

Amen to that editorial, Mr. Speaker.

The first referendum passed by a vote of three to one; that was some time ago. I argue that if a referendum were held today, if it were fairly worded, it would pass by a margin of ten to one. I think the islanders today are more convinced than ever of the value, the worth, the purpose and the ability of the Islands Trust to reflect and represent their interests. Three to one was a pretty good margin when the first referendum was held. Very few members of this House ever get elected by that margin. The Minister of Municipal Affairs has never been elected by three to one; he's never even received one-third of the vote in his two-man riding. Three to one was the previous vote in favour of the Islands Trust. If it were held, today ten to one in favour of the Trust would be the result.

No wonder the minister doesn't want to keep a promise he made just a few short months ago. I wonder if he remembers what the promise was. He's looking skyward; maybe he doesn't. The minister said that if he were to contemplate any significant change in the present status he would call a referendum.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Wrong again.

MR. BARBER: Wrong again? I've read your press releases. I've no idea why you think that you were wrong then, but you are wrong now if you think that's not what you said then.

Mr. Speaker, the minister clearly indicated that a significant change being contemplated would justify a referendum. The residents of the islands who have spoken on this issue have spoken with one voice. They have said that they want the minister to keep his promise. They have said that they have confidence in the results of a referendum. They have said they believe that a referendum would authentically reflect the views and interests of the people of the islands, They have asked for a referendum; hereby so do we.

The official opposition formally now demands that you delay this bill altogether, and demands as well that you keep a promise you made, that you honour a tradition that was established....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You're in no position to demand.

MR. BARBER: We are in a position to demand by equal right as legislators in this House. We formally demand that you hold a referendum on the Gulf Islands in the Trust area, and that you put to them a question devised on a bipartisan basis between your House leader and ours…

MR. SPEAKER: Address the Chair, please.

MR. BARBER: Through you, Mr. Speaker.

...so that the question will not be rigged in order that the outcome can be rigged. A bipartisan question acceptable to both sides of the House must be put to the residents of the Gulf Islands in the Trust area. That question plainly and simply should ask whether or not they favour retention of the Islands Trust. It needn't go any further than that; it needn't be more complex than that; it needn't be an attempt by the government to twist the outcome by wording it in so deliberately clumsy a way that no one can make sense of it. We formally here and now demand a referendum on the islands in the Trust area.

We insist absolutely that you must canvass and hear the opinions of the people whose lives you are changing, and whose future you are changing by this proposed law. If you are afraid to call a referendum, you must be afraid of the results. If the government is afraid of consultation they must be afraid of the advice. If they are afraid of the islanders they have no business bringing in this bill; if anything, this bill should give greater authority and greater permanence to the Islands Trust. To destroy it — as imperially as they propose to do, Mr. Speaker — is to destroy the ability of the islanders to exercise home rule and be responsible for their own planning affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I charge that if the government does not accept our call for a referendum on the islands, it will be specifically because the MLA for Saanich and the Islands refuses. The MLA for Surrey, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), in a sense has nothing to lose. Twice previously the bill in its earlier form died on the order paper. Although he was embarrassed by it, he didn't lose a lot of face. It's okay to allow a bill to die if what comes back is better. For that you shouldn't lose face at all; you should be commended. So he's got nothing to lose, because twice already this bill has died on the order paper. Let it die a third time, and as it dies, let the government take a referendum and consult the people. The member for Surrey has nothing to lose. He's not going to lose a single vote if the Islands Trust is destroyed. The people of Denman Island do not live in Surrey. They are no doubt happy for this. Be that as it may, the only MLA in this House whose seat is at stake in the next election as the result of this bill is the MLA for Saanich and the Islands. The only MLA who may lose his seat in the next general election is the MLA who can say yes or no to a referendum.

My colleague from Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) has islands in her area as do my colleague from Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), most certainly my colleague from Comox (Ms. Sanford) who is a valiant defender of the Trust and my colleague from Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead). All of these New Democrats have islands in their areas, but each has only a few. The voting population is relatively small, and their own margins of victory in the last two and three general elections have been far more considerable than would be affected by the outcome, even if it were 100 percent in the negative, of a vote on, say, a Lasqueti Island or Denman Island. The votes of those people are terribly important, but the political reality is that they probably wouldn't make the difference between winning or losing for any of those MLAs.

However, there are two Socreds whose seats include islands in the Trust area. One of them is the current Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams). As with my colleagues on Vancouver Island, his margin of victory in the last several campaigns has been great enough that even if all of Bowen Island rose up in indignation against him, he probably won't

[ Page 9075 ]

lose his seat. But that rule of political life does not apply to the MLA for Saanich and the Islands, because his district includes Saturna, Galiano, the Pender Islands and Saltspring. among others. Saltspring has traditionally been a strong pocket of Social Credit support. During the 1979 general election, at one point in the evening the race for Saanich and the Islands was so close that the CBC actually declared that John Mika had been elected. Mr. Mika didn't win that time because it took a little while longer to count the vote from the islands and the vote from the islands saved the seat of the MLA for Saanich and the Islands. That's a matter of public record. Anyone can go and check the results of that election.

If our call for a referendum on this bill — and specifically on section 190 of the bill, that feature which kills the trust — is refused, I tell you simply this: the one person who stands to lose is the MLA for Saanich and the Islands. He is the one person who can say yes or no, the one person whose seat is at stake. Everyone else has a wide margin. The member for Surrey has a wide margin. He won't worry about how people on Lasqueti feel about him in Surrey, because it's of no consequence. I charge that the MLA for Saanich and the Islands will be guilty of dereliction of duty if he refuses to accept the apparently unanimous demand of his own constituents in the Gulf Islands, that he and his government hold a referendum. If Social Credit isn't afraid of the results, why should they be afraid of a referendum?

If they're worried about the outcome, we know why they won't permit the vote. It's perfectly clear that the MLA for Saanich and the Islands pretended, in 1973, to support the principle of local control at the Trust and island level. In 1974 he actually moved a hoist, which is recorded in the Journals of this House, to kill the Islands Trust, through the usual six month ancient and parliamentary device that has always been used, and that we will use ourselves to try to kill this bill and thereby protect the Trust.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have leave from the House to introduce a guest who has just come into the gallery.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted to interrupt the proceedings?

Leave granted.

MS. BROWN: Seated in the gallery is Miss Kathlyn Benger from Galiano Island. I wonder if the House would join me in bidding her welcome at this time.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: My colleague asked if she could have leave. I said: "Sure, I'll yield while you ask leave." That's fair enough. You guys do it all the time, and we grant leave.

For the record, it should be said that the Socreds frequently ask leave during the middle of speeches to make introductions, and we grant it. My colleague asked for the same. Why would you object to that?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You handed her a name.

MR. BARBER: I didn't hand her any names. What are you talking about?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the Minister of Municipal Affairs is saying that my colleague the first member for Victoria handed me a name. That is not true.

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

MS. BROWN: Miss Kathlyn Benger is known to me.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BARBER: I've been discussing the political responsibility of the MLA for Saanich and the Islands for the destruction of the Trust. I have formally demanded, on behalf of the official opposition and the residents of the islands, that the government hold a referendum. We have served verbal notice that we will move a hoist motion.

Earlier. we disclosed for the first time the attempts at political intervention on the behalf of developers made for them by Social Credit cabinet ministers. We established that they're in a pattern of preference. One of the areas of preference exercised by the Socreds, who never do it for neighbourhood groups or Greenpeace types — but they sure do it for developers — is reflected in a letter which I would now also like to read into the record. It just came to my attention a few moments ago. It is dated November 8, 1978, and concerns the Cudmore matter.

The Minister of Finance was understandably very upset today with my questions in question period. As you know, he threatened me with lawsuits and all the rest of it. I wish now to read into the record more of the background so the House and public may understand our view of the very difficult problems created when ministers conspire in private to bend, twist and manipulate in order to benefit developers, in this case, Gordon Cudmore, the man who pinched the petroglyphs on Saltspring, in the name of Grace McCarthy, apparently.

On November 8, 1978, Marc Holmes, then the chairman of the Islands Trust, wrote to the then Minister of Municipal Affairs. The letter says:

"Dear Mr. Curtis:

"I refer to the meeting of October 24" — this was the one that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) referred to as well — "concerning subdivision proposals put forward by Mr. Gordon Cudmore. I regret that most of those present did not have an opportunity to express, in a calm and orderly manner, their concerns and legitimate interests. Mr. Cudmore continually dominated the meeting, and I left with the knowledge that I had not brought forward the facts and opinions that it was my duty to do.

"The in-stream status argument appears of doubtful validity. All over the islands we have situations where some work was done prior to later restrictive bylaws which have been enforced for years. In Mr. Cudmore's case, he did not even have a preliminary layout approval, unlike numerous others.

"I would like to state that if I had sufficient reason to believe that four or five 5 small lots, and possibly a

[ Page 9076 ]

further 40 or 50, are going to be allowed without an opportunity for fullest prior consideration and recommendation by the Saltspring Island Trust Committee, then I would publicly resign immediately. I could not accept a situation where I tacitly, at least, acquiesced in open breaches of Saltspring Island bylaws in several specific regards. Presumably I would be accused of collusion and of concealing important information from the public.

"Especially, it is essential that no precedent be set that the averaging concept can be cast aside by creating small lots without compensating large ones. This principle has been enforced many times. with perhaps a degree of hardship resulting in order that the principles and effectiveness of island implementing bylaws and community plans be maintained.

"Within the existing bylaws there appears to be no reason why the subdivision discussed could not be accommodated with the usual restrictive covenants relating to subdivision of remaining large parcels, provided that there is an adequate community water supply and that road and sewage requirements can be met. Since this matter has raised hitherto unanticipated criteria, the other two general trustees particularly wish to clear up the issue of how to enforce compliance with bylaws in the case of future applications which may have stronger reasons for the granting of approval.

"Sincerely,
Marc Holmes."

It's understandable, Mr. Speaker, why the MLA for Saanich and the Islands wanted to avoid Marc Holmes' involvement. It's understandable why he wanted to manipulate the timetable so that the retirement of Mr. Holmes from that office was something that could be achieved before the subdivision went ahead. Mr. Holmes said he would resign if certain planning principles were not adhered to. Mr. Holmes said that he would resign if the Saltspring Island Trust Committee was not consulted. Mr. Holmes'said he would resign if he were put in a position in which he felt he could be accused of, as he put it, collusion and concealing important information from the public. Mr. Holmes was prepared to resign on a matter of principle. This government continues to govern without any regard for principle and without any apparent thought of resignation. What a standard! You know, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) is caught doing what he's done, and he stays in office. Mr. Holmes has done nothing but protect the public interest, and he has to threaten to resign in order to defend the interests of his islanders and those whom he was elected to represent.

This now is the background of the correspondence between the Minister of Highways and the now Minister of Finance. This is the reason that the Minister of Finance was apparently persuaded to write a secret letter to his colleague, indicating that he wanted to wait until Mr. Holmes was out of the picture before proceeding with it, thereby implicitly, as far as we can understand it, avoiding the problems that would result if Mr. Holmes, who is a well-known public figure and apparently very well regarded in the islands, was still involved. Mr. Holmes did an excellent job as chairman of the Trust. It is to his credit that he raised these objections, because they are rational, lawful and intelligent. His successor, Mr. Rich, has also done an outstanding job as chairman, and he too has raised objections to clearly political intervention by cabinet ministers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Would you repeat that last statement?

MR. BARBER: He resisted clearly political intervention by cabinet ministers.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Have you got it all? It will be in the Blues, anyway.

In regard to the Rainsford subdivision proposed for Denman Island, let me bring the committee further up to date on that issue. In order that it can understand why the minister went to bat for yet another poor victim of an official plan. I'm advised that the Rainsford subdivision, which had been recommended for approval by the Minister of Highways and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, was finally turned down by a court decision — in this case, Seaview Estates Ltd. v. the Crown. I am advised it was so defective in law that even the courts threw it out. Now I don't know if the Crown is appealing that decision, but I do know that if the courts find that there is something so wrong, so defective and so in error with the procedure or the content of a bylaw that they have to throw it out altogether, Mr. Rich, together with the Trust, was probably well advised to say: "Hold on, Mr. Rainsford, not you, not necessarily and not yet."

No wonder this government, in the pattern of preference which we have established, has made such strenuous efforts to bend the procedure and manipulate the schedule to accommodate the developers. Apparently they have to do it, because if it were to ever get to court, it would be thrown out. They can only hope that it won't get to court and will therefore somehow survive.

I don't know if that particular plan had any validity, if that subdivision was welcome, if the neighbours of that estate wanted it — I don't know and neither does the minister. He doesn't know any better than we do, but he thinks he knows better than the Trust does, because in the future he personally will be able to make that decision and no longer anyone locally. Well, we say: nuts to that! You don't know enough about the legitimate aspirations and the planning purposes of the residents of the Gulf Islands. You don't live there, you weren't elected by them and you don't have anything like the personal or the technical grasp of the issues at stake in order to ascertain whether or not this or any other subdivision should go ahead.

In whose interest is it to shut down, wipe out and abolish the Islands Trust? Is it in the interest of the islanders? Did they request it? Was there some referendum we haven't heard about yet carried on by the government which, in fact, said that they don't want the Islands Trust to govern them? Of course not. We've already indicated that the only referendum that has been held passed by a vote of three to one. Do they have any evidence whatever that the islanders themselves have welcomed the destruction of their Islands Trust? They don't. There is no such evidence. If any of any sort ever comes forward, no doubt it will be manufactured in the way that other so-called evidence was manufactured out of the Premier's office and in other places in the last campaign.

[ Page 9077 ]

I read into the record before statements that were made by the MLA for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis) purportedly in favour of local governments, and then I read into the record that issue which resulted when he moved a motion to hoist and thereby kill the Islands Trust Act. Let's look for a moment in Hansard at May 21, 1974. On that date the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Bennett, debating the Islands Trust Act, said as follows:

If the government feels that local people don't have the qualification or don't have their own best interests at heart and are incapable of making their own decisions in determining their environment and their surroundings, I think they should state so.

But I quite oppose that view, because I believe that nowhere else do you get the true expression of opinion of what should be done with the surrounding area than with the people who choose to live there and have a continuing interest in that area.

MR. BARRETT: Who said that?

MR. BARBER: That's what the now Premier said when it suited his purpose to do so in 1974.

MR. LEA: What day was that?

MR. BARBER: May 21, 1974.

When it suited his political purpose, the now Premier of British Columbia, the then Leader of the Opposition, pretended that he believed in local government and in home rule. He specifically said so during debate on the Islands Trust Act. He specifically said so then, and today he says through this bill something quite different. Today Social Credit, and in particular the MLA for Saanich and the Islands, is making it clear that they don't believe in home rule, local government or the principles of local planning.

Regional districts have now made it clear what their view is. I wish to announce to the House that we have just been advised that the following regional districts have indicated that they were never consulted and that they wish the Islands Trust to be sustained. As of four minutes past five this afternoon, the Capital Regional District, the Greater Vancouver Regional District, the Powell River Regional District and the Comox-Strathcona Regional District have all said that they wish the Islands Trust to be maintained. These four regional districts have all indicated that they do not wish to take the power away from the islanders themselves, and they wish the Trust to be retained. In particular, the chairperson of the Capital Regional District — the mayor of Sidney, Norma Sealey — has come out strongly against Bill 72 and equally strongly in favour of keeping the Islands Trust.

Whose interest is served when the Islands Trust is destroyed? I think we have proven that the interest of the islanders will not be served. They were not consulted. We demand a referendum, but if it's not granted they will not be consulted. It's quite clear that the present general and island trustees were not consulted and do not favour the abolition of the Trust. Editorial opinion across the province so far has unanimously condemned the destruction of the Trust. Furthermore, as far as we can tell, the only people who favour it are those who stand to benefit financially from the subdivisions that will result once the minister gets his own way. No one else appears to favour it — not a single person. The only people who do are Socreds who have contempt for local government, local planning, home rule and the value that says that the islands themselves are unique, irreplaceable, important and in absolute, deserving need of special protection.

Let me draw another comparison, Mr. Speaker. Social Credit always opposed the ALR. We know that the Minister of Municipal Affairs still does. The Socreds — the Wenger properties, Spetifore, Gloucester, Moffat, all of the other incidents; my colleague will remind them of more of them; all the occasions when the Socreds have overruled the Land Commission and imposed their own view of land use — are fundamentally opposed to the ALR. They voted against it in the first place, they have undermined iti n the second, and we are left with this third problem of public policy. If ever a developer turns a tomato patch into a K Mart, once it's no longer a K Mart it doesn't revert to a tomato patch. Once farmland is gone, it's gone forever; it doesn't come back. The economics cannot justify that. They don't justify it. Farmland once abandoned as farmland is lost for all time as such. Do you need more proof than where we are right now in the legislative precinct? The very site we stand on was once called Beckley Farm. It was owned by the Hudson's Bay Company. With the founding of Fort Victoria it was the primary food source of the first settlers. Of course, once it is no longer farmland and is used for another purpose — in this case the purpose of the capital city — it doesn't come back.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Let's plough it under and plant some lettuce! [Laughter.]

MR. BARBER: The minister's laughter makes our point, although I'm sure he didn't intend it to. No person would propose tearing up James Bay and converting it back to a tomato patch. We're simply observing that it wouldn't happen, that no one would favour it, that no one could afford it, that no one would argue it. You are right: this land right here that used to be Beckley Farm is no longer such and it never will be again. That's absolutely correct. We don't say it should be. What we do say is that you should recognize the truth of that conclusion and the problem in that regard.

The agricultural land base of this province is enormously limited. It is dangerously limited. When Mexico and California become net importers of food, as they will within the next two decades, we will no longer be able to rely on them for cheap and easy food. If we lose the agricultural option, we lose our ability to feed ourselves. That's why we have to save farmland. The same principle applies to saving the Gulf Islands. We know that once you abandon the ALR you abandon protection for farmland. We know that once you abandon the ALR that farmland will be converted to some other purpose, just as we also know that when they abandon the Islands Trust, those islands then become targets for developers and speculators and all of the other people who move in when a political vacuum is established and exploit the vacuum for their own gain. When that vacuum is created, upon the destruction of the Islands Trust, as apparently it will be, developers will get the green light, the go-ahead and the signal.

Most developers aren't dumb; they're pretty smart as far as their own business goes. They know an opportunity when they see one. They can assemble capital when they need to. They know in a usually fairly quick-minded way when it is in their interest to move in. Currently it is not in their interest to move in on the Gulf Islands, because those islands are protected by a special law. When the instrument that administers

[ Page 9078 ]

that law is abolished, what protection is left? The only protection that will be left is seven regional districts, four of which have now told us they don't want to have anything to do with it and they trust the Trust to do its business, and they trust the official plan that is almost entirely in place.

When we know that the regional districts are preoccupied with other matters and don't want to take over the Trust area, should we expect that they will be able to pay attention to the predations of developers who want to come in and subdivide? Probably not. They have other things on their plate, and we don't criticize them for it; they've got a lot of work to do. When we know as a matter of practical fact and human consequence that they are not going to have the time or the resources to deal with all the planning problems that will be put to them when the Trust is abolished, we also know that the regional districts will not be in a position to defend the interest and conserve the assets of the Gulf Islands as we know them today. Secondly, when we also know that the minister, under sections 19 and 46 of this act, may in the future personally rewrite, subject to no appeal, any official plan in the province, including the Gulf Islands plans, then we also know that there is no protection therein.

Regional government won't protect the islands. The so-called protection of the official plan turns out to be worthless, because the minister, in the pattern of preference he's established, always favours developers. We are then left with the third crucial and incriminating fact. The Gulf Islands will be treated just like any other piece of real estate in the province, no special status, no special care and no special regard. We've seen what happens when this minister has to deal with any other piece of real estate in the province — it ends up looking like Surrey.

If the Gulf Islanders wanted to live in subdivision heaven they would live there. They would move to Surrey, downtown Vancouver, North Vancouver or Colwood, and that's fine. People who want to make that choice are entitled to do so; that's fair enough. That's okay. That's what those bylaws provide for. That's what those local governments have chosen. That's how that statute is applied. But the special point is that the islanders don't want to live in subdivision heaven. They want to live in the islands as they know them and love them today.

It's been pointed out repeatedly that petition after petition, letter after letter, phone call upon phone call and telegram upon telegram piling up in the offices of that minister and his colleague the Minister of Finance, as we know they are, are from people who live on the islands.

Let's talk about the problem of self-interest, because it's a legitimate criticism that the minister might raise in his reply to this. The problem of self-interest is that always raised by people in favour of development who say that once people move into a neighbourhood they don't want anyone else to move in; they want to keep everyone else out. That's not fair, because how could any community develop? And that's not fair, because what sort of rational planning is that? That's not fair, they say, and therefore we have to write laws and pass bylaws to allow rational and orderly growth and to allow other people to have a chance to enjoy this wonderful community, be it James Bay or Surrey. That's a fair argument — as far as it goes. The special issue at stake in the Gulf Islands, though, is that that argument is completely irrelevant.

There are probably far more off-islanders than islanders angry about this issue. The islanders are angry and numerous enough — their numbers appear to be almost unanimous; their anger appears to be almost universal — but in numbers they are relatively few, a few thousand. There are tens of thousands of off-islanders who vacation on the Gulf Islands, who take their kids there, who re-establish and reanimate the family life that binds them there, who did what my parents did for years — every summer, when I was growing up, going to North Pender for a few weeks and to rediscover what a wonderful thing it is to have contact with clean air and salt water, to have that contact with undeveloped land in British Columbia as the natives knew it 5,000 years ago. My parents knew what the islands were worth and we went there every summer for a long time. I was born in this community; so was my father. Our people have been here for many years, since about the turn of the century. I, like many others who have never actually lived there but often visited there, care just as deeply and feel just as hurt that you are going to wreck all that forever.

Once you have allowed subdivisions on Saltspring, that land will never come back for any other purpose. Once you abandon the agricultural option, and the farmland becomes a subdivision, you don't get it back as farmland — ever. The principle is complementary, the problem is parallel and the issue is identical.

We believe that we must conserve farmland now and forever. If ever there comes a day when human beings don't require food, great; maybe we can do something else with the land. But as long as we do, it's a simple fact of our species that we have to feed ourselves and that if farming doesn't provide it, who and what will? The answer is no one and nothing.

Similarly, if we respect the value of farmland, we might also respect the value of preserving the Gulf Islands as we know them — rare, beautiful and special. It's not just the self interested opinion of people who are lucky enough to live on Denman or Gabriola, or who are lucky enough to visit Saltspring Island and go around East Point and see those incredible natural sculptures the water has gifted to them. It's not just people who live there and can see that every day. East Point is a staggering achievement of natural power. Everyone should see that at least once in their lives. But it's also the interests at stake of tens of thousands of British Columbians who are off islanders and visit, respect and like, and have fallen in love with, all the islands, one by one, as time goes by.

What's happening is that the only agency of conservation and care, the only agency uniquely and specifically designated to protect the islands, is being wiped out. The agencies that are being asked to take over the so-called planning that will result are agencies that don't want to have anything to do with it.

Let me read a telegram — and make it public; we've just received it now — from the chairman of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, Mr. Emmott, with a copy to ourselves:

PLEASE DEFER FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY THE LEGISLATURE OF BILL 72, THE LAND USE ACT. THE GVRD BOARD AND ITS MEMBER MUNICIPALITIES HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS WITH RESPECT TO THE FINANCIAL AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS OF NEW PROVISIONS IN THIS LEGISLATION WHICH WERE NOT IN BILL 9 AND WHICH HAVE NOT RECEIVED PRIOR CONSIDERATION BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

IN ADDITION, THE BOARD STILL STRONGLY PREFERS THE CONTINUATION OF AN INTERMUNICIPAL PLANNING FUNCTION BASED ON THE PRESENT ARRANGEMENTS AS OUTLINED TO YOU BY THE LOWER MAINLAND PLANNING REVIEW PANEL AND CAPITAL REGIONAL DISTRICT. THIS POSITION HAS THE SUPPORT OF 14 OF OUR 15 MEMBER MUNICIPALITIES.

[ Page 9079 ]

MR. HALL: Including Surrey?

MR. BARBER: Including Surrey.

We congratulate Mr. Emmott and the board of directors of the Greater Vancouver Regional District. They have made a powerful and clear statement that this bill must not pass in its current form.

There's something new here in that the GVRD makes plain what the minister refused to make plain. The minister pretended that this bill was simply a perfection of the previous statutes. That claim was rubbish, absurd, indefensible and intellectually unsound. This bill contains several new provisions, and the Greater Vancouver Regional District recognizes what they are. So do we, and so do the residents of the islands.

I'd like to talk for a moment about what the Gulf Islands could be. I'd like to talk about why it is that some people care so much. I'd like to talk about a very special and human vision that many people have about what the Gulf Islands could be like. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the great majority of the land on the islands is undeveloped. Some of it is Crown land, some of it is park and some of it is forest land used for such now and in the past. A fair bit of it is private land, used for private accommodation and for retail and commercial purposes. Most people seem to feel, and the process of public hearings undertaken by the Trust appears to confirm, that the islanders there and the off-islanders who visit are basically pretty satisfied right now with the balance between developed and undeveloped land. Most of them are pretty happy right now with the situation as it stands. Most of them see no value in subdividing Saltspring like Surrey.

Whose interest is served when the Trust is destroyed? In part, it is the interest of the future that is not served upon destruction of the Trust. Let me talk about what the future of the Gulf Islands could be like. Twenty, forty and fifty years from now, the population of greater Vancouver will be well in excess of two million people. Twenty, thirty and fifty years from now, the population of greater Victoria will be in excess of 600,000. Those areas happen to be those of greatest proximity to the Gulf Islands, and therefore you can expect that the residents of those great urban communities are the most likely to be those who will use the islands for recreational purposes.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Let's not talk for a moment about the self-interest of the people who are lucky enough to live there, because some people might think that's a conflict of interest on their part. I don't. I happen to think it's honest, legitimate and fair comment, but the Socreds might not think so. Putting that aside for a moment, let's address the interest of the people of British Columbia 20, 30, 40 or 50 years from now. The Gulf Islands could, in a moment of rare vision and foresight today, be protected for the people who are alive then. Imagine what it would be like if, using the rapid marine technologies of 30, 40 and 50 years from now, people are able to travel from New Westminster down the Fraser, out the Delta and over to Denman. Using the marine technologies that will no doubt exist then — rapid and cheap, affordable and useful — a family will be able to go from downtown New Westminster to one of the Gulf Islands in half an hour or 45 minutes. They'll be able to do that on a Saturday and go back in time to an era when people respected the values of clean air, salt water and undeveloped land. The people of New Westminster will, 50 years from now, jump aboard one of the rapid marine vessels that will no doubt exist then. when those technologies are upon us, and will praise the names of those who had the guts today to say no to development, no to developers, no to the prostitution of the public interest which would serve those developers and abide that development.

Imagine what it might be like if we were to establish a great system of public land and marine parks on the Gulf Islands, a great system which preserved the Crown land and, over a period of time, was able to preserve the foreshore and other rights in order that the people of greater Vancouver, two million strong, and the people of greater Victoria, 600,000 strong, and anyone else who could get there might be able to enjoy those acres. Can you imagine what it would be like? The crowded cities of North America, the crowded downtowns of Victoria and Vancouver blessed with another Stanley Park 50 years from now.

Someone had the vision — it wasn't Lord Stanley; it was simply named after him; it was a guy called Oppenheimer, if I'm correct — to realize that Vancouver was going to grow, that one day it would become one of the great urban communities of Canada. He saw it as being in the interests of future generations to set aside that great area of land from Lost Lagoon way out to where the Lions Gate bridge now predominates — to Prospect Point. In his day, Mr. Oppenheimer was laughed at by people who said: "What to you mean, we need Stanley Park! We have all this other land, all these other areas, all this other opportunity. What do you mean, Stanley Park," they sneered. "Let's use it for development." Oppenheimer had to fight to get Stanley Park.

A guy called Olmsted in New York City in the 1840s had the vision that one day Central Park would be a great public asset for the city that was to become, 150 years later, the capital of the western world, as New York City has become. When Olmsted first proposed Central Park, no one in New York lived about what is now 38th Street. There was a small Dutch settlement in an area called Harlem, a great area of farmland was in between, and St. Patrick's Cathedral on Fifth Avenue was located in a pasture. But Olmsted knew that future generations counted for something. He knew what Oppenheimer knew: that you have to fight the developers, the speculators, the greedy interests that prefer to use cheap land which could be preserved for years to come for a great purpose called parks, and in turn could end up abandoning altogether the wonderful option that existed.

Sir James Douglas, 100 years ago next month, had the vision to set aside 64 acres called Beacon Hill Park, here in the capital of British Columbia. Douglas knew that one day the people of Victoria would be profoundly grateful if, as it turned out, he said in 1882: "These acres are for public enjoyment forever." The principle of human planning and the gift of human aspiration that Olmsted, Oppenheimer and Douglas had is the same principle that compels us to say today, pure and simple: leave the Gulf Islands alone as they are.

AN HON. MEMBER: More emotion, Charlie, more emotion! Put a little more into it.

MR. BARBER: The Socreds are saying "More emotion, " as if there's something wrong with displaying any emotion in this House about a matter of great issue and great public concern. The heartless government opposite that shuts

[ Page 9080 ]

down hospitals in an equally heartless way seems to think there's something wrong with feeling some passionate concern that we protect the Gulf Islands in the same way that we protected and set aside Central Park, Stanley Park or Beacon Hill Park. The principle of human opportunity is the same. I envision a day 50 years hence when the people of greater Vancouver and greater Victoria will be able to travel to that great system of land and marine parks and enjoy, for themselves and their families, the return to something quiet and green and special.

In greater Vancouver today, you could not create another Stanley Park. That land does not exist; it has all been used. In greater Victoria today you could not create another Beacon Hill Park. We had the chance once. Fortunately the chance was taken, the parks were created, and the future interest was well served. Today, if we allow the Socreds to kill the only instrument that protects the islands as we know them, for the benefit of the future, as we cannot yet envision it but as we know it will surely come and it should be served, then we know that this is a dereliction of public duty in a way as profound and as dreadful as any for which this coalition of opportunists will ever be held accountable.

Imagine what it might be like if on the Gulf Islands we were able to do what the, people of Quebec City in Old Town have done. Imagine what it would be like if we were able to do what the people of Williamsburg, Pennsylvania, have done. Imagine what it would be like if we could create and preserve the islands as we know them now for all time in this particular aspect: that in certain special areas — in a few special areas only — we create a kind of living human museum that says, as they've done in Quebec City magnificently and as they've done in Pennsylvania magnificently, here is how the people lived; here is how they worshipped; here is now they walked and moved in their own time; here for people 50 years down the road is how you can walk back in time and enjoy and recreate something very fine and very wonderful. Fort Steele is like that absolutely, and it's a wonderful achievement. Barkerville is like that to a small extent, and that's a wonderful thing. Upper Canada Village could be like that, and is, for part of the year. Dawson City is like that for part of the time.

We are as equally well aware as you are of how successful these can be. The problem is that when you abandon the Trust you won't have a chance to do it, because the developers will move in, the subdividers will move in, the speculators will move in, and the beauty, charm and the way of life will move out.

We have a special vision of the future of the islands. That vision accommodates the people who live there now. That vision accommodates people who are not yet born but who will enjoy, if they are given the chance, that great system of marine and land recreation that can be created now from among the Gulf Islands we we know them now.

There are no more Stanley Parks to be had. There are no more Beacon Hill Parks to be created.

MR. SEGARTY: Aw, trash!

MR. BARBER: What do you mean: "Aw, trash."

MR. SEGARTY: There are lots of them all over the place.

MR. BARBER: Where in Vancouver city could you find the land for another Stanley Park, you nitwit? What a nitwit comment!

AN HON. MEMBER: The endowment lands.

MR. BARBER: Do you know what your colleagues want to do with the University Endowment Lands? They want to develop, subdivide and build to density on them. What do you mean, the University Endowment Lands? You don't have the guts to say no to your own colleagues. We know perfectly well what your plans are for the UEL.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're just like Rasputin.

MR. BARBER: Rasputin? Can I heal bleeding children with my hands?

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that the member has finished speaking and is still standing. I was going to ask him to sit if he had finished.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that the reason the member was not speaking was that he was continually getting interrupted from the other side. There's no reason why the member should speak when he's continually being interrupted, particularly by people like the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot), who don't seem to understand the significance of what the member is talking about.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's an excellent method for a member to regain control of an otherwise disorderly House. The member continues.

MR. BARBER: You're a very good acting Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your protection and kind words. It's really a shame that you're not in the cabinet. I bet their meetings would be a lot more fun if you were there.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: You'd probably be a very good minister.

Mr. Speaker, the danger of abolishing the Trust is the danger that the first member for Surrey will come to exercise his powers. We've seen what he's done already, attempting to influence those powers; we've seen what he's done when he had a chance before to influence local government, and we know what he did in regard to it. We know what the history of Social Credit is when it comes to diminishing and finally wiping out altogether local governments. That tactic is currently leading to the destruction of the Islands Trust. That tactic has been used by Social Credit before; that tactic is being used by them today, because it's clear that they are not prepared even to listen to, much less to be bound by, the obvious and useful opinions of the Islands Trust members themselves.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye, Aye.

MR. BARBER: There is a bit of a double standard here, Mr. Speaker. When ministers gives speeches, refer to their

[ Page 9081 ]

officials, consult their notes and stand in silence for a moment while doing so, we never ask them to proceed until they're ready to do so. If I choose to try to find from among this great file notes for the next section of this debate, why do you object to my taking a moment in silence to do that? It's because, I think, basically you're not prepared to be fair in this House.

Let me talk about the ways which in the past Social Credit has attempted to diminish home rule and reduce local control. The municipal restraint bill, Bill 32, said: "Notwithstanding any other act, the minister may limit the operating expenditures of a municipality in 1982 and 1983." No other Minister of Municipal Affairs or a provincial government, even during this period of world recession, has assumed this type of power over local government. But that's what they did, that's what they said, and that's what they took as an opportunity, when they could create it to control local government as best they were able. The Education (Interim) Finance Act, Bill 27, gave the same kind of power over local government — in this case, to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith). That act said: "The minister may at any time before May 1 of any year issue directives limiting the budget of school districts." The Minister of Municipal Affairs wants to be able to rewrite any municipal budget in the province. The Minister of Education wants to be able to do the same with school boards. Each of them can now do so. The law passed by Social Credit over our opposition has permitted that.

The Revenue Sharing Amendment Act was another assault by Social Credit on the powers and authority of local government, In this case, it resulted in vastly reduced discretion on the part of local government in regard to the use of the unconditional funds. It was described by the president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities as "mining legislation." He said: "The province gets the gold and we get the shaft." He makes it quite clear that the result of this was a unilateral, arbitrary and imperial 60 percent cut in unconditional funding to municipalities.

The Socreds also, through the Transpo amendment act this year, cut representation from the city of Vancouver on the Expo board of directors. There used to be three persons representing local interests, now there are none. As with the Islands Trust, so too did the city of Vancouver raise opposition to the imperial ambitions of Social Credit. Rather than negotiate, collaborate or compromise, the Socreds instead wiped out altogether Vancouver city representation on the board of Expo. Vancouver was not even advised in advance that this was going to happen. They learned about it only after the bill was tabled.

The Socreds have done the same thing with transit, in the same way that we now see the planning authority of regional government reduced by this bill. We now know why the Socreds have brought in this bill in particular regard to ALRT. Once again the Socreds, fearing the message, have killed the messenger. In this case, what they have done is severely limit the planning authority of regional government. They have done this in the GVRD. They have reduced its role to an advisory one and, even so, only with the consent of two thirds of the municipalities voting to be so bound. Further, they do so because they are embarrassed, chagrined and annoyed that the GVRD has another vision of good planning for rapid transit, the financing necessary to achieve it and the technology that might be more appropriate in order to obtain it. Just as the planning authority of the GVRD is being wiped out because of their opposition to the ALRT so the Islands Trust is being wiped out because of its continual opposition to Socred predations on the official plans of those islands.

This sixth illustration of the way in which this bill is an assault on local government and is consistent with the pattern of Socred attack on local authority can be seen when you examine what they have done with the ALR. In the case of the Gloucester property in Langley and the Spetifore property in Delta, the GVRD, together with soils experts, the staff of the Agricultural Land Commission, local planning departments and regional district boards, agreed with the Agricultural Land Commission that properties should not be exempted. The same was the case in regard to the Moffat proposals in Prince George. In each case, because of Socred amendments to ALR legislation, the cabinet was able to hear appeals directly from the landowners, something forbidden by the first New Democrat administration. Formerly such appeals could only come forward if the Agricultural Land Commission felt there were grounds for appeal. In each case, the Socred cabinet and the committee of cabinet on environment and land-use matters overruled the advice of its own Land Commission, soils experts, local planners and local and regional governments, and took the land from the ALR and gave it to the developers. That is a further, but not the first or final, illustration of the Socred will to dispose of the local government's view whenever they see fit.

In this case, the profits to be made by the developers are in the millions upon millions. In all but one of the cases, the proponents of the developments are demonstrably well-known supporters of the Social Credit Party. Some people would think that's a coincidence. Other people believe in Santa Claus. Other illustrations are B.C. Place, Transpo and Expo. These are massive developments in the heart of downtown Vancouver. In major feature, they are in direct contradiction to the liveable regional plan published by the GVRD. The proposals here call for dispersion of development to regional town centres — that's what the GVRD said — in order not to overdensify downtown and thereby kill its pleasant aspect. In this case, in the typically imperial move that Social Credit makes in these instances, they've moved in and have made it clear that they're prepared to impose their view, regardless of local interest or input.

Bill 72 will destroy the current regional planning function of the GVRD. Apparently the only reason the government wishes to do so is because of the GVRD's continued criticism of B.C. Place, ALRT and the transit formulas imposed on them by Social Credit.

Section 19 of Bill 72 will allow the cabinet and the minister to amend plans and bylaws of any municipality, including Vancouver — this, by the way, is another new feature; this amendment to the Vancouver Charter did not appear earlier — that cabinet feels stands in the way of a project they regard as being "in the public interest." In fact, if Vancouver tries to protect itself and its citizens from some of the excesses that may be caused by B.C. Place and Transpo, and the provincial government does not agree, then in 90 short days the minister may simply overrule them. The minister may exercise the power under this act and rewrite the bylaw.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[ Page 9082 ]

This year — in fact, this very day — the Socreds have attempted to put through amendments to the Vancouver Charter which are opposed by the Vancouver council. The Socreds, for all practical purposes, have abandoned the principle of home rule in the city of Vancouver. The Socreds have said that, because the people of Vancouver voted by majority in favour of a ward system, they will amend the charter to make it virtually impossible for that to happen. The Socreds will now require 60 percent approval by majority vote of the electors in Vancouver before a ward system can be created therein.

In fact, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, in the typically czarist way in which he does these things, has personally given himself the power to write the referendum. He wants personally to put the words on the ballot. He doesn't trust the people of Vancouver or their council to do it; he wants to do it himself. In this instance, they think it's in their interest to require a referendum. Even though the minister can gerrymander the outcome, can do an Eckardt when it comes to predicting what will happen, nonetheless, with 60 percent and the minister's approval of the wording, it could somehow pass. This is another Socred double standard. Even under those conditions, if they feel a referendum is advisable for the people of Vancouver when it comes to changing their form of government, why on earth do they deny a referendum requested by the people of the Gulf Islands?

The Minister of Municipal Affairs has also used the political influence of his office to try to bully and intimidate the people of British Columbia. He's used his political influence to stop municipal councils from holding referenda on the question of nuclear arms. He's done so because, being as right-wing as he is, he fundamentally favours Ronald Reagan's crackpot view of the world and Leonid Brezhnev's equally insane view of armament. The extreme right-winger who sits in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has told local government as intimidatingly as he can that if they actually had the nerve to consult their people on such a fundamental question as the nuclear arms race and the future of the planet, it's just possible they could go to jail for a year and be fined a lot of money. We know where his right-wing heart lies. It lies in the pockets of Ronald Reagan and Leonid Brezhnev, two world leaders who believe in the arms race.

When local leaders attempt to obtain the opinion of their councils, what does this guy do? Does he encourage them in the name of peace? Does he encourage them on behalf of their own people to conduct a referendum on the question of nuclear arms? No. They are threatened with jail, with fines. He tells them that they are personally liable for both. If we had a Minister of Municipal Affairs who actually believed in consulting with the people, he would be encouraging local government to conduct these referenda on nuclear arms in November. If it was his view, supported by council, that the Municipal Act does not currently permit such a referendum, then he would bring in an amendment to the Municipal Act to permit it. So would we, and we would pass it in a day. We would grant leave for all three readings in one day, I promise you that.

But, no, the Ronald Reaganists in that cabinet are afraid of public opinion on the nuclear arms question, so he bullies them. This, too, is part of the pattern that has been established by this minister and which is reiterated in this bill. Sections 19 and 46 make it clear that the minister wishes to make it clear that he will be the czar of all the municipalities.

In the process of work that goes on at this very hour to attempt to defeat this bill, we have now obtained a letter, dated July 19, signed by John Taylor, Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs. It was addressed to the secretary of the Capital Regional District. Do you know what the letter said? Just nine days ago the letter signed by Mr. Taylor, a very competent deputy, advised the Capital Regional District:

"Under the provisions of the Islands Trust Act, the election of local trustees is necessary this November. Since the date for these required elections coincides with municipal polling-day and since the requirement applies within six regional districts, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs felt that this reminder might be helpful.

"Section 5 of the Islands Trust Act places responsibility for the conduct of local trustee elections in the hands of the regional districts. The basic procedure to be followed parallels the principles of electoral area polling enumerated in section 781 of the Municipal Act.

"Should any further procedural questions arise, the minister will be glad to provide advice."

On July 19 they were telling regional districts to get ready to hold new Islands Trust elections. Nine days ago they were either still planning to keep it or they were fibbing, because nine days later they've changed their mind and have introduced a bill to destroy the Trust. These are either the most totally incompetent government officials we ever saw — nine days ago they were telling the Capital Regional District to hold elections for trustees this November — or they were hypocrites. They were telling the regional district something they knew not to be true. They were pretending that there would be elections when they knew there wouldn't be. They were pretending the Trust would be there when they knew it wouldn't be at all.

Which one are we supposed to believe? The minister's own deputy, who never writes a note without the minister's personal consent? Their relationship is very close. He's a very able deputy, by the way, who would never write such a letter without being instructed to do so by the government member to whom he reports.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Not true? He wrote it on his own. It was a mistake, was it? Was it Mr. Taylor's mistake? You're going to blame this on your deputy?

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

MR. BARBER: Is he going to blame it on his deputy? He writes a letter as important as this on July 19 and says the Trust is going to be reelected in November, and the minister now tries to blame it on his deputy. That's awesomely familiar. When the second member for Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) gets caught, he blames it on the typewriter. When this guy gets caught in another Socred boo-boo, he blames it on his deputy. Apparently they will never accept responsibility for what they do.

The president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, in a telegram released this afternoon, said: "The minister can go to hell if he thinks he can impose this on us."

[ Page 9083 ]

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: I'm quoting from the statement that he made to the press. I've read the telegram into the record, and it's perfectly clear that local government is as angry as are the residents of the Gulf Islands that Social Credit wishes to pursue this bill.

We have not, before this session, used the parliamentary device of a hoist to try to persuade the government to reconsider, delay and kill a bill. We haven't done it before because we haven't had cause before, but we have cause today. In the name of the islanders who protest the destruction of the Trust and the local officials who protest the contents of the bill, I move, seconded by my colleague the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), that the Land Use Act, Bill 72, not be read now but be read six months hence.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion appears to be in order. It does not really need a seconder, although it does have one.

On the amendment.

MR. BARBER: We're always happy to give the Socreds a second chance. We're always happy to give them an opportunity to take a second look — a second look was the saving grace of the first Bennett administration. It, so far, is a grace we haven't seen in the second, but maybe we'll see it. We ask that Social Credit reconsider. We ask that they accept this motion in order to send the bill back to the drawing boards. We ask that they do so in order to protect the public interest. We ask that they do so in order to preserve and protect the Gulf Islands as they are. We ask that they do so....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, may I observe that during the course of the day when there are very few members present, it is perhaps not objectionable for members to speak out loud, even in conference, one with another; however. when the number of members increases, that individual luxury can no longer be extended. I would remind all hon. members that if conference is necessary, they should use whispers.

MR. BARBER: We ask the government to consider our motion to kill the bill, to delay second reading for six months. to reconsider, especially to consider the possibility that they have made a serious mistake in introducing new features and by killing the Trust.

In order to give them a chance to consider, I move that this debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the House.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 26

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

MR. SPEAKER: We are on the motion that the Land Use Act, Bill 72, be not read now but be read six months hence.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, we're not. That was defeated.

MR. SPEAKER: We have just checked the proceedings, and the standing orders and the precedents provide....

We have not been here very often. I'll explain where we are right now. The motion to adjourn the debate on a motion to hoist has been defeated. Therefore the motion itself that the Land Use Act, Bill 72, be not read now but six months hence is defeated.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It is important for the Chair to know that the members understand where they are.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. One up for the Speaker; I was right the first time.

The debate now continues on the motion that the Land Use Act, Bill 72 be not read now but be read six months hence. However, the member, having unsuccessfully moved adjournment, now loses his place in the debate, and I recognize the Attorney- General. This is on the motion that the Land Use....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members, please understand this now. This debate is now on the motion that the Land Use Act, Bill 72, be not read now but six months hence.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The motion to hoist second reading of a bill of this significance, Mr. Speaker, is one which should not be taken lightly, and I'm sure that there are many members of the House who wish to speak on this particular aspect of Bill 72. But in order that there may be appropriate time for that, — Mr. Speaker…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, Oh!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: …I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[ Page 9084 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Closure!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. You've heard the motion before you. I must put the motion.

MR. BARBER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, as you will know, at one or two minutes before six, in the absolutely traditional way in this House, as everyone does every day at that time, I moved adjournment of the debate. I did so in a perfectly ordinary and traditional way.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Let's hear the point of order.

MR. BARBER: The point of order I'd like to raise is to ask you how individual members in this House who followed the tradition, who followed the rules, who moved a motion of adjournment at the correct time, in the correct way, and had every expectation that it would be accepted, who was aware that one could lose one's place if the motion was defeated but never presumed that any dirty little government would pull a trick like that....

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, under the guise of a point of order we must state the point of order without entering into debate. Please proceed with the point of order; I must hear it.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, my question is how a member who followed the rules, made the motion at the right time in the right way, with every expectation it would be accepted, as it traditionally is, may be protected in this case, as his party's principal speaker on a bill of real controversy, from the effects of closure that a government would impose and exploit in the way they just did — how an individual member, with the right motion at the right time in the right way, with every expectation it would pass, as it does every night at this time, can be protected from the effects of closure when a government wishes to deny him the right to continue to speak on an important issue.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same point of order, I'll accept one other opinion.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm afraid that the hon. first member for Victoria presumes too much with respect to the procedures and practices in this House. If the hon. first member for Victoria was in fact the designated speaker for the opposition in second reading of this bill, then it would have been appropriate for him to have moved his motion to hoist when he had concluded his remarks upon second reading. That is the appropriate practice. If he believes he can bring in his hoist motion whenever he wishes and yet preserve his right to speak, then he presumes too much.

May I also say, with respect to motions for adjournment at 6 o'clock, that while he doesn't appear to understand the procedures in this House, motions to adjourn on such occasions, in order to be moved by a member of the opposition, usually require the courtesy of first indicating to the House Leader…as to whether or not the motion is acceptable. It may be that the members of the opposition have fallen into sloppy practices, but that's their fault and not the government's.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I must now address myself to the point of order. From the vantage point of the Chair, the motion was made, the motion was put to the House, the House has spoken and the Chair must accept the decision of the House. That decision is binding, certainly upon the Chair; I am the servant of this House, after all. The motion before us now is adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that the setting of the time is debatable.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, but a motion to adjourn is not a debatable motion.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:18 p.m.