[ Page 5529 ]

CONTENTS

An Act To Declare British Columbia A Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (Bill M203). Mr.

Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading –– 5529

Critical Industries Act (Bill 31). Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading –– 5529

Oral Questions

Workers' Compensation Board. Mr. Cocke –– 5529

Northeast coal. Mr. Williams –– 5530

Expo 86 exhibits. Mr. MacWilliam –– 5530

Mr. Lauk

Growth rate forecast. Mr. Stupich –– 5531

Low Interest Loan Assistance Revolving Fund Act (Bill 27). Hon. Mr. McClelland.

Introduction and first reading –– 5531

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Attorney-General estimates. (Hon. Mr. Smith)

On vote 11: minister's office –– 5532

Mr. Lank

Mr. Williams

Mr. Davis

Mr. Rose

Mr. Mitchell

On vote 12: ministry operations –– 5538

Mrs. Wallace

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Lauk

On vote [4: corrections –– 5540

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Mitchell

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

Hon. Mr. Ritchie –– 5540

Mr. Blencoe –– 5541

Ms. Sanford –– 5549

Mrs. Wallace –– 5551

TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 1985

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today — I can see by the numbers sitting up there that B.C. Ferries have done a great business today; I saw a number of them earlier this morning — there are some people from the islands I would like to introduce: first of all, Mr. Ozzie Sexsmith from Gambier Island, Jean Jamieson from Bowen Island, Stuart Jamieson from Bowen Island, Inga Nykwist from Bowen Island and Luz Budzinski from Bowen Island. I wish the House would make them welcome.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, from the Royal City we have guests in the House today: Bob Osterman, who is a school board member in New Westminster, and his wife Marion. I believe their son is with them, but I'm not quite sure. In any event I'd like the House to welcome people from the great Royal City, where our capital should still reside.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce to the House today my assistant from the constituency, Miss Chris Haley. With Chris is our new secretary, Angela Zenzen. Would the House please welcome these two ladies.

Also, Mr. Speaker, in the gallery we have, with a number of his friends, Mr. Mike Humphries, the chairman of the Islands Trust, whom I met with today. Would the House please welcome Mr. Humphries and his guests.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon are guests from Nanaimo. Will the House please welcome Ed Kisling and John Cook.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, other Gulf Island residents who are in the gallery today include Sue Hiscocks, Geoff Gay and Robert Burbridge of Saltspring Island, George Morrison of Mayne Island, and Nick Gilbert of Saltspring. Would the House make them welcome.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our party I would like to generally welcome all those people from the islands today, particularly those Islands Trust members, and Mr. Mike Humphries, the chairman of the Islands Trust board. We met with them today and had a useful meeting.

In particular, Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce Leslie Dunsmore of Denman Island, Kathie Snook and Glen Snook of Denman Island, Elmer Bichel of Thetis Island, David Fraser of Denman Island, Edward Harrington of Denman Island, Amelia Humphries of Lasqueti, Nora Laffin of Hornby Island, Harnish Tait of Denman and Carol Martin of Hornby Island. I welcome all those people to the House today.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon is a long-time friend of mine, Mr. Hank Hofsink from Smithers. Would the House please make him welcome.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to extend a special welcome to Elmer Bichel from Thetis Island, Thetis Island being the one Gulf Island in my constituency.

MR. SPEAKER: With the number of introductions today, could I encourage members to, if possible, get the names to Hansard for correct spelling, as that is now the responsibility of members and not of Hansard.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO DECLARE BRITISH COLUMBIA
A NUCLEAR WEAPONS FREE ZONE

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in two minutes I want to say this about the bill. I don't think that deterrence is not an important factor in maintaining world peace at the present time. But the extent of the madcap, escalating nuclear arms race should give concern to every thinking human being, wherever he may be found. I am not suggesting that British Columbia should not do its share by devoting resources to the problem of world peace. Nor is it anti-American in any sense, because I'm sure there are many Americans who would applaud what we are doing. It is like New Zealand making a protest against the dangerous extent of the nuclear buildup throughout the world. The overkill possibilities of the nuclear arms race are such that civilized life cannot survive if a few missiles get through. I hope the Legislature will say by this bill that enough in nuclear buildup is far too much.

Bill M203, An Act to Declare British Columbia a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, 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.

[2:15]

CRITICAL INDUSTRIES ACT

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Critical Industries Act.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I would like to make very brief remarks, and I'm looking forward to longer remarks at the time of second reading debate, when it is called.

This bill establishes a commissioner for critical industries and creates a mechanism to restore and enhance the competitiveness of business enterprises in the province. Members of the House will note one particular section which speaks to the principle of the bill: that is, the need to balance the interests of the business enterprise, interested parties and public bodies concerned in a fair and equitable manner by sharing the burden of restoring and enhancing the competitiveness of the business enterprise.

Members might also be interested to note that the bill is a sunset bill. It has a two-year life; it terminates two years from introduction.

Bill 31 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.

Oral Questions

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

MR. COCKE: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. The provincial government has reduced

[ Page 5530 ]

services and benefits to injured workers. The workers' compensation system has a severe backlog; it is a bit of a disaster. Has the minister decided to arrange a full public inquiry into the operations and policies of the Workers' Compensation Board?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with the member that the provincial government has created the backlog; workers' compensation is independent of government. Over the course of the next several weeks, I will be consulting with a wide range of British Columbia constituents on ways that we can eliminate the backlog. It is a serious problem, and I thank the hon. member for his question.

MR. COCKE: I'm pleased that the government has nothing to do with that creature of government. In any event, serious concern exists over problems of health and safety in the workplace as well, particularly for farmworkers. What action has the minister decided to take regarding workplace health and safety?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, Rome wasn't built in a day, and it's only a month ago that I took over the portfolio. As I said earlier on to the hon. member, I will be consulting with a wide range of British Columbia constituents on ways that we can improve accident prevention and eliminate the backlog in the appeal process.

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. WILLIAMS: I have a question for the Minister of International Trade and Investment. Last year in March, and again in November, the minister said, in effect, that every conceivable eventuality is covered by the contracts with the Japanese in respect to northeast coal; that if the Japanese make a commitment they stand by it — their word is their bond. He said later in November that there is no room in the northeast coal contracts for down pricing in terms of the price per tonne paid by the Japanese. Can the minister advise us whether he's made inquiries with respect to his staff or his advisers in terms of being mistaken in both March and November of last year, in view of the fact that there has been down pricing, and on a significant scale?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to advise the member that these details will be answered in the fullness of time.

MR. WILLIAMS: And we may wait for more than a full moon.

The minister did indicate earlier, Mr. Speaker, when he made an error in judging that coal royalties were 3 percent of $10, amounting to 3 cents, that he was going to report back after confirming with his staff what in fact 3 percent of $10 is. Maybe he could let us know today whether his staff have advised him that 3 percent of $10 is in fact 30 cents, not the 3 cents he thought it was.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, I said that I would be advising the House, and I will in the fullness of time. But it's far from the $108 million that the member erroneously tried to advise the general public of in British Columbia.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is the minister prepared to reconsider his statement that their word is their bond and there can be no downpricing on coal from northeast British Columbia?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, when you're dealing in the international marketplace, responsibility, awareness of your customers and building up a reputation are very important. It's something that member will never have to worry about, because he'll never have it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I notice Prime Minister Nakasone made a statement yesterday with respect to international trade people dealing with Japan and indicated how unhappy he was that none of them spoke Japanese. Could the minister advise us whether he has taken Japanese, and arithmetic lessons as well?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, all I can say is thank heaven for the people of British Columbia and the general public that that member is not dealing with the Japanese.

EXPO 86 EXHIBITS

MR. MacWILLIAM: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism. Late last month Expo unveiled plans for a $4 million sculpture of a four-lane freeway 217 metres long which will have to be torn down once the fair is ended. Has the minister checked with his colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) to see whether any permanent roads costing $4 million might be needed elsewhere in the province and thus provide us with a more permanent benefit?

In the absence of an answer to that particular question, I ask a supplementary question, or a new question. Has the minister therefore determined why an American consultant was hired to design the $4 million temporary highway to nowhere, when there are in fact plenty of British Columbians willing and able to design useful projects which do lead somewhere?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the exhibit that the member speaks of is exactly that: one of the exhibits at Expo, not intended to be used after the fair is over. It is not "a piece of highway" that would concern my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways. It is an exhibit of technology, a temporary exhibit, as are many hundreds of others at the fair.

Tenders went out for the design of the Highway of the Future, as it is called, and many were submitted from all over North America. The design chosen was a firm from New York, but the member failed to read the remainder of the press release, which said that although the design was from a New York firm, $3.65 million of that $4 million will be spent in British Columbia.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Does the minister advise the House that the spending of $4 million for an edifice that will later be relegated to rubble represents a judicious use of our hard-pressed revenues?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Just to refresh the member's memory, there are hundreds of millions of dollars of exhibits at Expo that will be used for the five and a half months to

[ Page 5531 ]

generate $3 billion in economic activity and 60,000 person-years of jobs. To refresh his memory further, four buildings will remain at the conclusion of the fair: the CPR roundhouse, which will be a legacy, the British Columbia Pavilion, the Expo Centre, and of course Canada Harbour Place. The rest has all been designed to be taken down when Expo is finished.

MR. LAUK: Aside from the millions of people who are going to flock to Expo from all over the world to see this sculptured highway or sidewalk, one of the buildings that will be left is the Expo preview centre — that's the dome — which I understand cost $24 million. Is that correct? Just nod your head.

Is there anybody home over there, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Recent reports have it that it has sprung a number of leaks, and it's endangering the expensive viewing screens and equipment within the structure. Will the minister advise, first of all, what money has been spent on this structure? Am I correct in assuming it will be a permanent structure? And if these leaks continue, will it then become an indoor pool for Expo?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Perhaps it isn't the only dome that has sprung a few leaks. One we can do something about, the other one will take a little longer.

The member's figures on the costs are reasonably accurate.

MR. LAUK: I wonder if the minister could reply. Has it sprung leaks? How serious are the leaks? My information is that it's endangering the very expensive equipment within the building. What action has the minister taken?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the dome has indeed sprung a few leaks, and experts with far greater knowledge than I are working diligently to correct this problem.

MR. LAUK: Are they the same experts who built the building in the first place? Are they the same experts who built the building that has the leaks? Is that who are plugging them now? Would the minister respond by indicating what estimated extra costs there will be to plug the leaks?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of what it will cost to correct this design problem or construction problem, but I can assure him that I can find that out for him from the firm that built it, Cana Construction of British Columbia. If the member wishes I will find out what the extra costs are and bring that back to him.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: If any, yes.

GROWTH RATE FORECAST

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Finance, who today introduced a bill with a two-year sunset clause. The Royal Bank of Canada's Trendicator forecasts British Columbia will have the lowest growth rate in Canada over the next decade. The Premier says this is not a criticism of his government. Does the minister regard B.C.'s expected performance as satisfactory?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, is the member for Nanaimo referring to the publication Econoscope? Or Trendicator?

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Trendicator he said? Okay.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It is Econoscope?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

HON. MR. CURTIS: When the member finds out which journal he's quoting, I could perhaps respond. Seriously, Mr....

AN HON. MEMBER: The Royal Bank.

[2:30]

HON. MR. CURTIS: The Royal Bank. Mr. Speaker, I have made a point during my short time as Minister of Finance to not respond to specific isolated forecasts, whether they are good or bad, depending on one's point of view. I like to see, rather, the trends — whether it's Conference Board, then two or three banks, then the B.C. Central Credit Union or others, as an example — and then we start to see particular forecasts and particular trends, which I think are more meaningful than one which is above or below a trend line.

To answer the member's question, I was in Toronto last week meeting with a number of investors, present and potential, in British Columbia. I met with a number of banks and with a number of insurance company representatives — senior people in the insurance business. After the four days of the visit, I came back from Toronto very, very optimistic about how the rest of Canada views British Columbia — having gone through the difficulties of the recession — and confident that our growth is going to be very good in the balance of the 1980s and into the 1990s. If I had any mild doubts or uncertainties before I went to Toronto, Mr. Speaker, I can assure that member for Nanaimo and the members of this House that those were very quickly erased on the basis of my meetings last week.

Introduction of Bills

LOW INTEREST LOAN ASSISTANCE
REVOLVING FUND ACT

Hon. Mr. McClelland presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Low Interest Loan Assistance Revolving Fund Act.

Bill 27 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.

[ Page 5532 ]

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, in the galleries is an old friend, Mr. George Whiten, who was my counsellor a few years ago when we were both social workers. He is here today with the Islands Trust delegation, I believe. I ask the House to make him welcome.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 11: minister's office, $223,385.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, last time my colleague, the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), asked the Attorney-General for the leases and other documents surrounding the jetfoil contracts, and I wonder whether over the Easter break he's been able to gather some of those documents together.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I told members that when the leases have been finalized and duly executed, I will make public the terms of those leases, and that has not occurred. That should be done later this month, I would think.

MR. WILLIAMS: I note that the Marguerite will be sailing in early May and the jetfoil on April 19. Can the minister advise us what studies he undertook when he made the decision to change the date by one week rather than the two weeks originally recommended by staff? And knowing the date of April 19 for the jetfoil commencement, why might he not have entertained a longer time period for the Marguerite's operations?

HON. MR. SMITH: Unlike the hon. member who asked the question, I don't conduct studies for the making of all decisions. The appraisal that was made was that a promotional period of reduced-fare operation a week earlier than the starting season that had been set would be an advantage to the service, and that decision was made. It was certainly not made with any firm knowledge by me of the starting date of the jetfoil, because I am not the minister in charge of the jetfoil, even though through the forum of these estimates.... All the negative points of view from the other side and the anti-competition sentiments have been expressed through these estimates against the jetfoil, but I do not take responsibility for the jetfoil.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, again, before the House broke for the Easter break, Mr. Chairman, the minister was asked whether he had reviewed internal studies that indicated significant losses for the Marguerite from allowing the jetfoil to make use of their facilities. Could the minister advise us whether he has had time now to review those internal studies

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I am not aware of internal studies. No doubt every time some pal of the member puts something to paper, that might be considered to be an internal study; I don't know. But the evaluation that we did of the service, Mr. Chairman, indicated to us that there was room in this city for both services.

You know, I don't understand the negative point of view of the opposition or the spokesman on this issue, because, just to go through the history of it a little bit, since it continues to be raised by the member for Vancouver East.... Originally, the jetfoil service sought to be located down by the Air B.C. terminal on that side of the harbour. That was where they wanted to go. The city of Victoria had a policy that they wanted to locate enterprises such as this in a designated Inner Harbour transportation zone on the south shore of the harbour. So it was at the request of the city that the location on the south side of the harbour was examined.

On October 25, 1984, the city council of Victoria passed the following motion: "that council agrees to locate the jetfoil in the Inner Harbour, subject to compliance with all city bylaws." Then on November 4, 1984, Victoria Alderman John Cooper, chairman of land use and planning – you probably have met that individual at some time, hon. member — clearly stated the position of the city in a letter which he wrote to the newspaper, in which he said.... And this is a member of the city council of Victoria who is in charge of land use and planning — Alderman Cooper, not a notorious supporter of this government. This is what he wrote:

"Victoria city council enthusiastically endorses jetfoil service to the capital city. At present, this extensive, publicly owned waterfront transportation zone" — that's where the Marguerite is — "is under utilized. Does it not make good sense for the jetfoil to vigorously pursue once again the use of the underutilized Marguerite facilities? Victoria city council thinks so. We have taken the initiative on behalf of Island Jetfoil and formally requested that the B.C. Steamships board of directors give favourable consideration to an Island Jetfoil application for use of their Belleville Street site."

Then, following that motion by council and that statement by Alderman Cooper, Mayor Pollen and Alderman Cooper met with my predecessor, the hon. Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser), who was then in charge of the Marguerite, and urged him in the strongest terms to go back to the board of the B.C. Steamship Company to see if they would not reconsider, in view of the city's policy of having transportation developments on the south side instead of the north side of the harbour, and go ahead and review this and change their policy. That is what was done. So, Mr. Chairman, the people in this town who wanted the jetfoil included the city council of Victoria and the chamber of commerce, and we had endorsements from a number of people who supported this project. Indeed, one correspondent wrote to my predecessor, the Minister of Highways, as follows: "I have just read the correspondence from Island Jetfoil Corp., and I do hope that you are able to give them the approval they required by this date." This gentleman wrote on November 30, 1984. He said: "Any improvements in service for the travelling public would have a positive effect in building our tourist industry. I am most impressed by the fact that they are not looking for financial help."

Who would that have been? Who would that observer? Who wrote that letter, who would that friend of Jetfoil, have

[ Page 5533 ]

been? Can anyone venture a guess, Mr. Chairman, as to who that would have been? Well, I have a letter which I am going to file from the hon. member for Nanaimo, Mr. David Stupich. You know, maybe it is of significance that the member on the other side who is the critic on financial matters and who examines these things from the standpoint of financial implications instead of from the standpoint of political implications would, having studied this, be all in favour of the jetfoil and be first off the mark to give his written endorsement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Documents referred to to be tabled must be tabled in the House and not in committee. That can be done later, Mr. Attorney, when the House is in committee.

MR. LAUK: Well, moving right along, Mr. Chairman, there is another aspect to the jetfoil problem that bothers me. I understand that the SeaBus facility.... I notice the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is here, and she would be interested as well. The SeaBus facilities in Vancouver have been earmarked and arranged for this jetfoil service as well. The implications of that are horrendous from a safety and traffic point of view in Coal Harbour. A cursory investigation has indicated to me that the traffic there is already horrendous. The SeaBus had already been asked, some years ago, to reduce its speed because of wave damage to flotillas of moored private yachts and smaller commercial vessels, and they did so. The action of the jetfoil moving under the bridge and into the harbour in a very high-traffic area presents a very real safety and noise pollution problem, which I'm not sure has been addressed. Has the minister addressed the problem? Have the jetfoil people addressed it? How are they going to deal with the anticipated negative reaction of the people living around the shore and using that harbour today?

MR. DAVIS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down is asking questions of the Attorney-General, who has, admittedly, the responsibility for the operations of the Marguerite, but he is not the federal Minister of Transport, who is responsible for navigational rules and regulations in the port of Vancouver, and he's not responsible for transportation in the general sense. The hon. member for Cariboo (Hon. A. Fraser) is, and he might otherwise be the recipient of questions of the nature he's addressing to you, Mr. Chairman. I repeat: he is not on the subject, he's not on the minister's estimates, and he's wasting our time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken. The Attorney-General has responsibility for the B.C. Steamship Company, and that really is the extent to which we can discuss the administrative actions of his ministry during these estimates. The questions posed previously by the second member for Vancouver Centre, as pointed out by the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, are not relevant or in order.

MR. LAUK: Well, I don't blame the Attorney-General for ducking that question...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: ...and hiding behind the former federal Minister of Transport to do it...

AN HON. MEMBER: Fisheries.

MR. LAUK: ...or Fisheries, whatever; it's the same thing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the estimates, please.

[2:45]

MR. LAUK: What disturbed me over the break.... I can well understand why the hon. Attorney-General wanted his vote concluded before he rushed off to Vancouver and made some rather alarming remarks about the government's attitude toward the charter and the new provisions — section 17, I think — that will be brought in later this month. The attitude expressed by the Attorney-General is a bit of a dog-in-the-manger attitude. It's not an attitude that I did not share at one time, but now that we have the charter passed and we are dealing with this hybrid American-British system, is not the Attorney-General being rather incautious, as the chief law officer of the province, in expressing a rather dog-in-the-manger attitude towards the new charter provisions? In particular the minister intimated that he was pleased that there was this opting-out provision in the charter. He gave the impression to some at that meeting — not all, but some, and perhaps he could clarify this — that the government would be using that provision to opt out rather more extensively than he had first thought. If that is the case, could the Attorney-General indicate in what areas of the administration of justice and the equality provisions the province is intending to opt out?

HON. MR. SMITH: The statement that I made on the charter and the opting-out provision was to a national seminar on the Charter of Rights that was organized at UBC the week before last. It had a number of distinguished speakers on the charter, including Jean Chretien and Paul Weiler from Harvard University. There were quite a few academic experts, people who tried to envisage — indeed, guess — where the charter might take us in a number of court decisions.

My speech was on the issue of the supremacy of parliament, and my long-held view that in the final analysis parliament or the legislature has to be responsible for social and economic change, and that that is not a matter we can consign to the judiciary. In my speech I pointed out the bad record of the judiciary in the United States of America, which has an entrenched charter of rights, since time immemorial. Under decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the nineteenth century and through into the twentieth century.... Their entrenched charter of rights did not safeguard the rights of workers, did not allow legislation to protect children from long working hours in the mines, did not uphold the New Deal legislation of Franklin Roosevelt, and so on. So the first point I tried to make was that a charter, through the courts, is not necessarily going to either protect human rights or provide us with the social and economic policies that we wish in this country at any given time. Therefore, in their wisdom, the framers of our new constitution included in the 1981 accord a provision which was as much a part of the constitutional changes and the Charter of Rights as the freedoms themselves, and that was the provision for an override.

We must now get away from the notion, popular in some trendy circles, that it is wrong or somehow unjust or illiberal to talk about ever using an override to override a section of the

[ Page 5534 ]

charter in relation to some given matter. I was simply trying to banish that mindset and prepare people for what I believe is going to be the reality of the next five years — that is, that we will be forced to confront issues where the override must be used.

In the province of Quebec, as the member is probably aware, where they don't recognize the constitutional accord — didn't sign it and didn't agree to any of it — they have nevertheless used the override in a blanket way, in attempting to exclude whole areas of their provincial legislation from the effects of the charter.

I also said in my speech that I felt our position in British Columbia would be to use the override judiciously and sparingly, in appropriate cases and probably after the courts had spoken. I mentioned one major area, which comes to mind, where the override will have to be considered. I think it's commonly agreed across Canada that an issue that will be before us as soon as the equality rights section comes into play in several weeks' time is compulsory retirement. But a whole host of issues were addressed at this conference which might give rise to an override. The field of pornography is one. Another area involves various union security clauses and closed-shop provisions, which the labour movement is extremely concerned about in light of the Charter of Rights. All of those are considerations that each legislature in Canada — indeed, the Parliament of Canada — will have to look at in relation to an override. We haven't used or threatened to use an override in a specific case. Our approach has been to try to let the courts speak first and to consider the effect of court decisions. If we had a court decision that appeared to offend public opinion in some area of social and economic policy, then and only then, in my view, would we give consideration to using the override. But there might conceivably be cases involving fundamental issues of policy where we would want to pass legislation overriding the Charter of Rights right from the outset.

MR. LAUK: I think that the Attorney-General's characterization of the American experience is a little bit harsh. I would guess, from his comments, that he's probably not that much aware of what the Supreme Court of the United States has done with interpretation of its constitution, particularly since the Warren court, and so on. The United States Supreme Court has been a model of judicial restraint over the years, until the Warren years, with respect to the interpretation of the constitution and in deference to the legislative branch of government. I might point out that the only time.... Remember, Earl Warren was appointed to that court as a conservative appointment by President Eisenhower, to pull back the New Deal appointments — Douglas and Black and so on — from judicial activism and creating legislation from the bench. What Earl Warren did, though, was to react to a rather negative attitude on the part of the legislative and executive branches. If it wasn't for the Earl Warren court, the McCarthy era would have been much worse than it was. If it wasn't for the Earl Warren court, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka — which virtually brought in desegregation of schools in the south of the United States — would never have occurred if left to the legislators in Congress and to the executive branch. There are other criminal law decisions of that court, like Gideon and others, which, although there was a controversial view of those decisions, brought in their view of the administration of justice and imposed an impost, if you like, upon the government there to provide counsel to everyone who was appearing and was charged with criminal offences.

So I don't think that the Attorney-General's characterization of that court is an accurate one. I caution that the Attorney-General plays the nineteenth century role of legislative arrogance, if you like, in relation to this charter. He might well encourage the kind of judicial activism he's trying to avoid. I am relieved, however, when he says that he's going to wait, at least, to see how the courts deal with it. We can analyze their decisions before he makes decisions about overriding provisions of the charter.

As I say, a number of people at that distinguished conference expressed concern to me about the Attorney-General's attitude toward the charter, which is getting off on the wrong foot. At least this afternoon the Attorney-General has clarified it to some small extent.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say a few words about the plight of victims of crime but first, if I may, add a few words re the charter. I'm one of those who is in favour of a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We've had a bill of rights. We've had the Bill of Rights which was passed in the thirteenth century in England. We've had the Bill of Rights of John Diefenbaker of the late 1960s. We've had the common-sense interpretation of the rights and freedoms of individuals embodied in many of our laws. So in that sense the charter isn't really new. It makes more explicit some of the rights and freedoms that Canadians believe they enjoy.

But the Attorney-General mentions the sanctity of parliament — that parliament must rule. I think the essence of the charter is that the individual is more important than any legislature or parliament. The bill of rights and freedoms, however described in the United Kingdom, in the United States and in Canada, sets forth some basic parameters, and if legislators legislate in contradiction to those basic rules the laws fall to the ground. I think that we've long since needed a bill of rights and freedoms which was explicit in that regard.

Moving on to the rights and freedoms — but particularly the rights — of the victims of crime. I think the public generally feels that the victims of crime have been overlooked and are in fact being seriously overlooked. One of the reasons for this is the rise of the state, of government — the rise of both legislators and administrators — into the seats of power. Originally the courts dealt with disputes between two individuals, one offended and the other presumably the offender. With the exception of actions where the king was involved — and the king presumably could do no wrong — the courts adjudicated between these two individuals and eventually came to some conclusion as to what was the right thing to do. It was individual versus individual. But as the concept developed that the public at large had certain rights and that the state had certain interests, the Crown became involved in cases. Increasingly it became a matter of the individual against society or society being somehow hurt by the individual. The attorney representing the Crown — presumably in later times really representing the government and enforcing laws for the protection of the public in general — began to occupy the attention of the courts more and more. Increasingly it was the state versus the individual. That, as I understand it, is the nature of criminal law. It's the individual in contradiction of some law propounded by a legislature — by parliament. So the two parties became quite different; not

[ Page 5535 ]

an individual versus an individual but the state versus the individual.

[3:00]

The state has taken over the territory of murder, for example. An individual who has suffered in respect to murder is forgotten. It's the state that picks up the cudgel. It's the state that tackles the offender — the murderer, presumably. The contest is continued in the courts. The lawyers representing the people, the state, the Crown, are paid out of the public purse, and the lawyers representing the individual who has presumably committed this offence are paid by that individual. The contest is finally concluded and the individual who is the offender is either found guilty or not guilty. But ignored, forgotten totally in this process, is the victim. The victim isn't in the court; the victim is rarely present. The victim may indeed be called as a witness, or the victim's relatives, but they're forgotten. And when the ruling finally comes down, the penalty is levied on the offender; the penalty may be incarceration or a sum of money paid over to the Crown, but the victim is sitting there, hopefully waiting for some resolution which will help overcome the anguish or the hurt, but is ignored. So the state has really assumed the role which formerly was the role of the individual or group which rose up to make sure that this wrong was offset or somehow made right.

Increasingly we have this concern about whether the individual who has committed a criminal act — murdered someone or stolen something from the public — is treated properly, whether he is incarcerated for a sufficient length of time and then whether he can get out early enough for good behaviour and so on. The preoccupation is with that one individual, the offender or presumed offender, and not with those who are hurt. I think the public at large is groping for some answer. What about the other party which was hurt in this process — not the state, which obviously can look after itself, but the other party to this action, this theft, this physical act of violence, whatever it was?

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Now to the south of us in Washington state we have one or two new institutions developing. Interestingly enough, the state has been calling for tenders for private firms to operate some of their institutions, some of their prisons and so on. The idea is that the inmates who presumably committed some crime be employed in these institutions, that the products of their labours be sold on the market, that there be an income, and that some part of that income go to the victims of those criminals. I think the Attorney-General and this government would be well advised to look carefully into that development to the south. As an aside, the principal interest would not then be on getting some of the criminal element out of the jails as soon as possible, but to have them in there engaged in productive work and paying off some of the hurt which they have imposed on other individuals.

I would certainly like to hear the Attorney-General comment on this broad question of victims of crime, where our system has gone wrong over the years, why the innocent parties are now hurt in our society without compensation or with little assistance or aid from the Crown, and indeed no aid whatsoever from those who committed the offence. Also, if the Attorney-General feels he can comment on the developments in Washington state I'd appreciate hearing from him.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I don't feel that I can comment, and having a knowledge of them.... But I will say that in addition to trying to emphasize the importance of the victim more, which we are doing through establishing a victims' services steering committee, and by having a coordinator of victims' services — Miss Linda Light — we are making recommendations and taking part in a federal-provincial working group which is looking at amendments to the Criminal Code, a number of which would place much greater emphasis on restitution, on the accused person's doing things to try to pay some debt more directly to society and to the victim. That, of course, in relation to some offences is probably impossible, but it certainly is in offences that deal with property.

I should also mention the wife-assault policy in British Columbia, which I believe pays more cognizance to victims than has hitherto been the case and is very positive. It is receiving a great deal of support from the community groups and agencies that in the past have been left to bear the burden of wife assaults that have not been acted upon or have been met with counselling and urgings for the wife to go back to her husband or stay with her husband.

I do believe that we are becoming more cognizant of the importance of the victim in the justice system. I totally agree with the member's main thrust that the victim has been unjustly forgotten in the system for a number of years, but I do believe that major strides are being made in this province to try to treat the victim differently and, at every level, to be more sensitive and attuned to the needs of victims.

MR. ROSE: I wanted to return to something, the thread of which has probably been lost now because of the other subjects of an intervening speaker. Of all people in the House, I'm probably the only one that was there, as part of the development of the Charter of Rights, and served on that committee — the Charter of Rights and Freedoms committee — and I still have the scars from all the controversy, federal and provincial, to prove it. So when I hear the Attorney-General, even by word of mouth or second-hand.... I apologize to my colleague the member for Vancouver Centre for offering a second-hand opinion about a speech that the Attorney-General made, but when I hear something that might appear to threaten that charter, it worries me.

What particularly worries me was the inference, not very explicit but perhaps implicit.... The Attorney-General said that the courts would decide. He felt that the courts should speak first, and that's when the provinces, or a province, might intervene with an override or notwithstanding clause. I'm thinking of a number of things that are happening. Suppose the Attorney- General doesn't like a court case, whether we're dealing with native land settlements or the matter of equality provisions — an action that the Teachers' Federation might launch: if you didn't like the answer from the courts, it was then that the province would move in. In other words, a court case could be won, and the province then could move in and change the rules. That's really what frightens me.

I well recall the lengthy debate with the provinces, particularly the western provinces, all during that period when Prime Minister Trudeau said he would go it alone because he couldn't get provincial approval. He went it alone until a supreme court decision said that in points of law the federal government had a perfect right to go to London and have that charter patriated, but that under matters of convention, they

[ Page 5536 ]

didn't have that right. According to convention, it wasn't the practice, really. That brought the provinces back into it again four-square.

The reason the western provinces signed the deal — because of a kitchen debate between the Ministers of Justice of Saskatchewan and Ontario, and the federal Minister of Justice — was override. The override was granted during that conference as bait, if you like — syrup — to get the western provinces to agree. So we could agree on a package; as a matter of fact, it got everybody including the official opposition to agree.

That wasn't an extension of freedom. That was permission for the province to limit freedom; if a province didn't like a freedom granted under the charter, test it in the courts. Then they could say: "No, notwithstanding everything that's been said, we don't like that. We don't like that decision."

I find it worrisome that the Attorney-General says: "Yes, we intend to let the courts decide first. Then we'll come in and maybe we'll consider a notwithstanding clause." I would be much more comfortable if the Attorney-General would declare first what charter clauses he finds worrisome or that he might be prepared to override. I would think that that would be better than having everybody go through all this costly exercise of going to the supreme court, and then saying: "Oh, no, we don't like that decision. Therefore it's our intention to change that notwithstanding clause or to add a notwithstanding clause to that point."

I know there are all kinds of other rights that could have been guaranteed. We heard a lot of screaming about property rights, and this House expressed itself on that subject, but there are all kinds of others that could have been added: the right to a job, for instance; the right to a clean environment; the right to decent housing. Those things weren't mentioned.

I would like some reassurance from the Attorney-General as to what he actually meant there by talking about letting the court speak first. In what instances does he foresee that he might consider recommending an override to this House?

HON. MR. SMITH: I think that right at the outset, Mr. Chairman, we're beginning to see an attitude on the part of some distinguished Canadians and parliamentarians, including the member who just spoke, who had the advantage of dealing with the matter nationally, as I did in 1981, that somehow the override is.... He described it as syrup, bait for the provinces. My point is that it is as much a part of our constitution as are the fundamental freedoms that he's particularly interested in. It is there to be used, not to be admired and looked at as something that will never be used, or to be put on the shelf and threatened to be used but never used. It's there so that parliament can sometimes speak instead of the lawyers.

Those of us who were involved in the parliamentary debate knew that the Charter of Rights was going to be a cottage industry for litigation. There will come times when the courts are not able under the Charter of Rights to reflect the contemporary views of society, and the legislature and parliament will have to intervene. The member for Vancouver Centre gave me a constitutional lecture on American experience, but I was talking about the pre-Warren court days. I was talking about that era from the dreaded Scott decision in 1857 up to the decisions on the New Deal in 1930, when the court....

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm sorry, but I consider court decisions in the United States during that period as judicially reactionary. The courts were then really unable to protect freedoms and liberties. After the Warren court came into vogue in the 50s and 60s, many in the United States thought that the court was then too liberal.

All you can conclude is that the court is never going to please everybody; it may not even please the majority. The court is no better an arbiter of contemporary social and economic values than are people elected specifically to deal with that. I am saying that ultimately elected people have to deal with these issues, and the override is a mechanism whereby they can. I think it would be quite irresponsible of me to lay out some kind of blueprint in this House as to which measures I would recommend an override for, or when, or anything else. I think they all have to be dealt with on their merits.

I have been preaching two things: one, that the override is there, and must — and should — be used; and two, that it should be used sparingly and responsibly. I don't say that it should only be used, hon. member, after there is a court decision. There may be some cases where the process of going through the courts — the delays and expense and so on — are such that an override should be used immediately. One other thing which I'm sure you're aware of is that overrides are only good for five years. You have to take the legislative responsibility for renewing that override every five years. So it's a limited check on the authority.

[3:15]

But all freedoms don't reside in entrenched bills of rights. All freedoms are not guaranteed by courts. Freedoms are also guaranteed by Parliament and the legislature. You don't have to stretch your imagination very far to imagine that our citizens are going to be somewhat distressed by decisions under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They would be somewhat distressed, I'm sure, with the decision handed down by the federal court of appeal in the Luscher case two weeks ago, a decision that wasn't appealed but was legislated away by Parliament last week when they changed the customs tariff. I think that was the fastest and best way of dealing with that, and not through the courts. It probably can be dealt with by Parliament without the use of any override.

MR. ROSE: The Attorney-General, with his usual eloquence and diplomacy, charged my colleague with preaching or giving him a little lecture on the history of American jurisprudence at the supreme court level, and I get a reciprocal lecture from him about the fact that charters of rights do not necessarily guarantee personal freedoms. But I'm sure the Attorney-General would be quick to agree that there's an extra reinforcement of those freedoms in the fact that we have a written charter. It may not have appealed to the provinces who have been reluctant to give up any kinds of powers at all in this federal state, far more than exist in any state of the United States federation.

However, those are our traditions. If we have a tradition of liberty and common law, then I think the charter buttresses that and makes it stronger. What does concern me is if a particular province with a particular ideological mindset, either to the left or the right, doesn't like a particular part or clause of the charter and deliberately, because a majority seeks to override it, limits freedoms. It doesn't expand freedoms. It may be convenient in a number of cases, and

[ Page 5537 ]

politically expedient, for the provinces to step in and establish an override for some particularly sensitive area. I'm not satisfied, but I feel somewhat reassured in that the minister said he felt it should be imposed on the rarest of occasions.

MR. MITCHELL: I didn't want to change the tenor of the debate — I would quite enjoy listening to debate on the charter — but I would like to get back to the more practical end of the Attorney-General's responsibility and deal with something that I normally don't like to get involved in, especially in the Legislature, and that is the labour problem in the armoured car service.

The Attorney-General is fully aware of the responsibilities laid out in private investigators legislation for those employed in the armoured car service. Why I say he's aware is that this is one group of employees that carries guns in the community. We are all aware that a police officer has to have ten weeks of training before he can carry a gun. My worry right now, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Attorney-General, is this problem of the armoured car service. It's been dragging on in a labour dispute. One of the tactics being used is harassment of the management versus the employees. There is a danger to the public in this continued exposure of disruption in the service of people who are carrying at times large amounts of money. For anyone who has worked in security, the last thing you need is a lot of attention being brought to the situation. I think the Attorney-General should be working.... Maybe it is a labour dispute, but it is a different type of labour dispute. It does involve guns. We can't have a continued disruption in the operation. Not only does it cause a disruption with the employees, who are endangered, but it is also dangerous to the public who may be around when something takes place. They may think it is only a picket disturbance when it becomes the real thing — when someone is going to rob the armoured car employees or those who are working — and guns may be drawn and shots may be fired.

I'm convinced that somewhere down the line the Attorney-General must take some responsibility for what's taking place. We're having a situation now that they're subcontracting out various vehicles, and they have their routes. What happens in times of economic problems, people wanting jobs, with people putting in bids to do the service for a lesser amount of money, is that there's not the proper training of the people in that type of security. It's not taking place. We have all the legislation that says that people must be registered, and people must be responsible and bonded, but handling firearms, especially with the temptation of robbery getting stronger and stronger because of the economic times.... There are more people, not only those employed doing the work or those who are competing in the anti-union or the pro-union side of it but also the public, who are going to be the unfortunate victims if guns start being fired. This is something that I am concerned about.

There hasn't been any kind of public leadership from the Attorney-General with the legislation that we have now. I know the philosophy of the government. Maybe they're branded as being right-wing and anti-labour and wanting to break the trade union movement, but I don't think this is a particular industry that we can afford that privilege of getting involved in a kind of labour dispute. There are guns involved. There are large sums of money. Temptation is there, and I think there should be some leadership from the government, especially the Attorney-General, in this particular area. They should get back to the bargaining table.

As a citizen, I want to know that whoever is packing a gun is going to be well trained. The Attorney-General has insisted that the police officers must have at least ten weeks training before they can carry a gun, and here we are allowing people coming and going and changing in a very hostile particular situation. You don't know who's going to be carrying the gun tomorrow, or who's going to be hired. I think that someone is going to get hurt. Someone is going to get killed. It's not always going to be those who are getting paid for it; it's eventually going to be somebody in the public. I know we had one situation where there would have been a death if he had not been wearing a bullet-proof vest. This type of situation occurs at the best of times, but to also have thrown into that danger the labour turmoil — union, anti-union or whatever the position is — is something I don't think the public can afford to get involved with. I think there should be some positive leadership by the government to get it settled.

HON. MR. SMITH: I would only respond very briefly to the training aspect of these various security services and of the people who are required to carry firearms. I think we basically agree that there has to be more training available. We've started in the last year at the Justice Institute; we made a beginning with some training programs. We will be more proactive in developing those programs and trying to have some better assurance that people who are involved in this business and carry firearms are indeed demonstrated to be competent in their use. I think we've probably been slow in moving that way, but those courses have already started at the Justice Institute — a beginning has been made.

We have an official who is the chief firearms officer for the province. I'm sure you're aware of that. He is seeking to introduce some minimum standards for the employees of armored car companies to ensure that their annual firearms renewal is not just an automatic thing, that it's based on some sort of standards and some sort of training. I think that's the part of the member's message that I'm going to pick up on, and respond to positively.

I don't wish to inject myself in any way into the Brink's labour dispute. But I do think that he has merit in what he says about standards and training in the use of firearms.

MR. MITCHELL: I agree with the Attorney-General. If you have a stable workforce, if you have a stable employee-employer relationship, then you can move your employees through the various training courses. But since November of last year there has been turmoil in the industry. Right now a certain number of trucks have been leased out to independent security-type officers. I know that when you haven't got a job, you're going to bid a little lower to make sure that there is an opportunity to work, pay your mortgage and keep your kids going to school. In some of the other trades and professions that may be well and good. But we have an industry here where guns are involved, and if you don't have some stability in that particular industry, if you don't have some stability in the employer-employee relationship — the relationship of the person who is driving the car to the employer — and then through the Justice Institute, where they can have proper training and some monitoring of it.... To issue a person a gun solely because he has a contract to drive an armored car and pick up large sums of money creates a very dangerous situation.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

[ Page 5538 ]

If we don't look at it and do something now, something tragic is going to happen. I agree with the Attorney-General when he says that he doesn't want to inject himself into the Brink's armored car labour dispute. But it is a serious situation that is taking place now. I don't know if you do this behind the scenes or how you get the parties together, but we just can't afford to wait until something happens and then all of a sudden we set up a commission and say that someone got shot unnecessarily. I don't want to see a coroner's report come down saying it was too bad that the government and the Legislature didn't do something earlier.

Vote 11 approved.

[3:30]

On vote 12: ministry operations, $237,530,816.

MRS. WALLACE: I am sure that the minister will be aware, when I tell him I am rising to speak on the matter of the fire marshal's office, of the two items that I want to discuss with him, because I think this is the third year that I have done this.

The first issue relates to the inspection of the installation of oil furnaces. This is presently under the control of his colleague the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty). The former Minister of Labour wrote me on March 6 of last year that the gas safety branch, which inspects gas furnaces in homes, has added propane. They do not intend to have any further extensions to the service in the immediate future. That was in March. However, on June 20 the Attorney-General wrote me to say: "With respect to the issue of inspection of furnace installations, my officials have been in contact with the Fire Commission relating to this matter. As I indicated during estimates debate" — that was in 1984 — "I share with you the desire to rationalize these types of services, and I'm hopeful that I will soon be able to report success on that matter." I'm wondering whether or not he has been successful, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. SMITH: The fire commissioner, hon. member, has been meeting and is continuing to meet with members of the industry on this whole matter. I haven't had a report from him as yet that I could give you, but I'd be quite pleased to notify you and advise you of what his findings are. He has not reported to me as yet.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, that's what the minister said in 1983 and what he said in 1984. Now it's 1985; how long does it take? Is it going to help, I wonder, that we have a different Minister of Labour now, who may be prepared to make this change? It has gone on a long time. In the meantime, we have this situation where the fire marshal simply does not have sufficient staff to do the inspections. We do have gas inspectors travelling around the area who, it seems to me, could well handle the inspections of both oil and gas installations.

The other issue that I want to raise relates to the Ministry of Attorney-General and the Ministry of Finance. This has to do with the removal of sales tax from fire apparatus purchased by volunteer fire departments. Again, in 1983 and in 1984 the Attorney-General assured me that he agreed with me. He wrote to me on June 20 — the same letter, from which I have already quoted — on the issue of sales tax applicable to fire apparatus: "I have similarly initiated discussions with both the fire commissioner and with my colleague the Minister of Finance. I will advise you further when our review has been completed."

I was very interested to see that the Minister of Finance had added some new items to the exemptions in his budget which he just brought down, but lo and behold, there was nothing about firefighting equipment for volunteer fire departments. It seems very strange that for something we're sponsoring and supporting in this manner — and we're raising funds from the taxpayers to assist in this — we have to pay sales tax on that equipment. I know the minister agrees with me. He says he's trying to do something about it, but why isn't he more successful?

HON. MR. SMITH: I did my best. I agree with you on this issue. We'll just try again. We have been successful in getting portable fire extinguishers, smoke and fire alarm designs. Smoke and fire alarms that are purchased for residential purposes are part of the exemption list. I just happen to agree with you totally on this: that we should be encouraging volunteer fire departments to get this equipment and that they should be exempt. I can just urge you to continue to press, and I will do the same. Maybe in next year's budget we can achieve two great things: that, and the reduction of that iniquitous increase in tax on tobacco, which I'm still smarting under, as of April 1.

MRS. DAILLY: Under this vote we have police services. I want to take this brief moment to give some praise to the Attorney-General.

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: Very straight praise. No caveats. The whole thing.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm designated to do that. Thirty minutes.

The Attorney-General himself referred to this matter earlier; it's the change which now allows police to place charges in wife assault cases. I think this has been a very progressive move. I've talked to women involved in transition houses who say that this has been excellent, that many women are now able to get away from these tragic situations because of this move.

I have one question left to ask the minister. Because of the increase in women going into transition houses for refuge and help, the financial strain on the transition houses in British Columbia is increasing. This is not in his ministry, I know, but would he — he obviously showed a concern about the women who are battered and assaulted by their spouses — please use his influence with the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) to see that she will aid and assist with increased financing for transition houses? Because of this new policy in the Attorney-General's ministry, this has put an extra burden on their resources. I wonder if the minister would comment on that, please.

HON. MR. SMITH: Certainly we support them, not with funding, as the member has already indicated, but it's a resource that's important, along with a number of other resources that we've harnessed with our wife assault policy. I

[ Page 5539 ]

would tell the member that we have been running a series of regional workshops on wife assault across the province. We're holding one in Cranbrook on April 30 and another one in Nelson on May 1, and these are put on by the Justice Institute in our ministry, community service centres, and women's organizations in these communities. We've had a really good response. I think that the field is now totally supportive of this new approach, and it is having the effect of liberating a number of women who in the past felt there was no way out for them, that if they complained they would be dragged back and more of this would continue. There was no incentive on the part of the assaulter to do anything about it, because he knew it would be treated and swept under the rug as a domestic matter. I do appreciate that support from the member on behalf of her caucus.

MR. LAUK: I have two questions under police services. During the minister's salary debate I raised the question of a contribution toward the city of Vancouver's extra costs that they will experience as a result of the exposition next year. There is a very conservative estimate of just over $1.5 million; it will probably be close to $2 million with respect to extra police services. I understand the Attorney-General's ministry has reviewed the estimates of extra police services and regard them as conservative. Will the Attorney-General advise whether a decision has been made to contribute extra grants to the municipality of the city of Vancouver for the police services?

The second question is with respect to the Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit. Could the minister advise whether there has been any increase in dollar terms and in percentage terms to CLEUs budget over the past three years? If so, what are those figures?

HON. MR. SMITH: In answer to the first point on the policing costs of Expo, it is not contemplated that additional policing costs would be supported under our budget. If they were to be supported, they would be under a different budget. I wouldn't encourage the member to believe that the presence of my assistant deputy, Mr. Robin Bourne, on this committee has to do with costs. It really doesn't. It has to do with ensuring that there is adequate policing and adequate security, particularly in view of the expected presence at Expo of a number of heads of state. I can't give him any encouragement or support that there is going to be an additional grant for policing, but it would not be out of my budget.

Basically, the answers to the questions on CLEU are no, no, no. The budget for 1984-85 was $3 million and 1985-86 is down to $2.54 million. I don't have the 1983-84 figure, but it would probably be close to $3 million. It's been stationary and declining slightly this year. In the operation of CLEU there hasn't been any fundamental shrinking in responsibility. There has been some curtailment of resources and personnel, and I guess probably there has been some research curtailment of a minor kind. The major operations are still undertaken. We had some reduction in equipment purchases, which accounts for that reduction this year, and there was some staff reduction as well. But the fundamental missions of CLEU are still being carried out.

MR. LAUK: I have no doubt that CLEU still has the same responsibilities, Mr. Chairman, but I do doubt that the Attorney-General has demonstrated his confidence in CLEU sufficiently to expand its ability to carry out its mission.

The things that are now filtering through the law enforcement and administration of justice establishment is that CLEU was a great idea; it still has tremendous responsibilities; but it's not being given the tools to do the job. Quite frankly, with that kind of unit one would expect an expansion of a budget at a time when there is an expansion of population and an expansion of organized crime within the province. CLEU's record has been salutary with respect to such high level crime. It seems to me that the Attorney-General has not demonstrated, nor has his government in the past three years, the sufficient confidence or desire for CLEU to be best able to carry out its mission. That's the first point.

[3:45]

The second point is the Clifford Olsen case and other such serial murder cases, the Ming kidnapping-murder case and a variety of other crimes which require a vast strategic component to law enforcement which did not seem to be required before. In relating similar incidents, similar allegations, similar crimes, in communicating with other law enforcement groups in this jurisdiction and outside of it, and in other provinces, in the States and in Hong Kong and so on.... This requires a lot of resources. It is not enough to say that this is just one kidnap-killing. The Attorney-General has recognized that this is the seed of a very serious law enforcement problem that is not going to go away.

I want to emphasize that the opposition is monitoring the support that the Attorney-General is giving to CLEU. It's not enough for the Attorney-General to stand in the House and say he's ordered everybody to do a good job, when the budget continually decreases for CLEU. Sure, he could say their research components are down, that the employment is down, that we don't need the same equipment. Nonsense. Other jurisdictions, smaller cities in Canada and the United States, are expanding this strategic component of law enforcement at the same time that I would say the government in this jurisdiction is treating that very strategic component in a very myopic way, to the extent where we are going to be disadvantaged. We won't even be able to fit into the advanced law enforcement strategies of other jurisdictions, because we won't even understand them unless we keep up this aspect of CLEU. I'm not aware of any other group that can do the same kind of coordinated strategic law enforcement approach that is being done by CLEU in this jurisdiction which would fit in and be complementary to the similar bodies in other jurisdictions. If you analyze the budgets for other jurisdictions, they have steadily gone up. Qualified staff have been sought and acquired, computerized equipment and a maximum of that kind of hardware has been acquired, and law enforcement efficiency against high-level crime and serial murders and other such things has increased. I wanted to put that on the record so that when we roll around in this same situation next year the Attorney-General will have that before him; he'll know what my comments will be the next time that question is raised.

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't think the member needs to fret that by that budget figure we're cutting back on CLEU in the field sense or in the operational sense; we're not at all. What is happening is that while the budget is remaining static, CLEU is expanding its work through the use of seconded municipal and RCMP personnel who are not part of the police budget.

When CLEU started, it filled a vacuum. There was no coordinating facility of any kind in the police community.

[ Page 5540 ]

There was no organization that could bring together police expertise on Vancouver Island or in Vancouver to meet the threat of organized crime or to assist in the solving of matters like the Ming killing. It was to fill that vacuum that CLEU was set up.

The big thrust of CLEU, besides running its joint forces operations which deal with the major organized criminal drug conspiracies and serious organized crime.... That continues unabated; in fact, that activity has increased. The other thrust of CLEU is to coordinate and to use and bring together and ensure that there isn't overlapping in the various police forces in the jurisdiction, some of whom may be under police boards and some of whom may be RCMP contract forces. So while we have fewer functionaries in our office doing research and secretarial work, we actually have more police personnel on a seconded basis — not under this budget — who are doing the sort of things that you're concerned with. So I can reassure you that CLEU is healthy, even though the budget figures, if you looked at them, might give rise to some concern that we are standing pat. We're not. I'm also told, hon. member, that in the past year several American law enforcement agencies who were consulted and requested to evaluate CLEU and its effectiveness gave it a very high rating in relation to other agencies in North America. So I think CLEU is healthy, alive and well.

Vote 12 approved.

Vote 13: judiciary, $14,713,906 — approved.

On vote 14: corrections, $114,872,944.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I have a question to do with the Private Investigators and Security Agencies Act. The area I want to ask the minister a question on deals with the licensing of the patrol and security people. We just had a discussion of another aspect by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell). My question is: why is the licensing of these people not being enforced? I understand there's no real enforcement of the licensing of people hired as patrol and security people. So what guarantee do the citizens of British Columbia have that these people have been checked out? Why is the licensing not being carried out? That's the first question.

Also, in the area of locksmiths and who is licensed as a locksmith, what enforcement is there re licensing?

HON. MR. SMITH: There certainly is enforcement in the case of private investigator and security agencies. They have to be licensed, and we have a director for that, Mr. Newson. Where there are complaints that the investigator or his agency are not living up to the conditions of their licence, they are investigated. Licences are suspended. Indeed, hearings relating to licences and appeals go on all the time in this province under that act. If you have a particular complaint, I would suggest you bring that complaint to me, and I would be quite pleased to advise you as to how it's being handled and the disposition of it.

In relation to the locksmith item, there perhaps isn't the same degree of regulation that there is re the licences, or that the member would desire. But we do have an advisory committee in the industry that has been working with the director, Mr. Newson, with a view to having some standards implemented. We have been proceeding on that with a voluntary and not a compulsory approach. I would be happy to give you some more details on that if you're interested. It has been done on an industry committee basis to date.

MR. MITCHELL: Just one short question. The Metchosin youth camp has been privatized, and I was just wondering when they set the standard for the people who qualified to take those contracts. Was there any consultation with the previous administration, or was it just a case of who put in the lowest bid for that particular service?

HON. MR. SMITH: It's obviously not just the lowest bid. Before the contract is awarded, our officials ensure that the applicant is competent to run the program, because there's no point in us having a program run by someone who is not qualified and not able to do so, although they may bid $500 or $1,000 more than somebody else. We can't afford to have programs run by people who are not qualified and then have to replace them in the middle of the contract, not only spending more money but disrupting the program as well. So they consider it from the standpoint of competence; that would be the primary consideration and would override everything else.

Vote 14 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Second reading of Bill 30, Mr. Speaker.

ISLANDS TRUST AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

HON. MR. RITCHIE: In making some brief comments in respect to this bill.... Actually, what is intended by the bill, Mr. Speaker, is to clean up some little problems that exist with the present legislation whereby the Islands Trust Act gives the Islands Trust the authority to appoint staff in their particular department. However, they do not have the authority to meet the wages or benefits of the staff. On the other hand, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs does have that responsibility. In addition, staff now working with the Islands Trust are part and parcel of the municipal ministry as far as staffing is concerned. They are also members of the BCGEU bargaining unit, and therefore are part of the mainstream of the ministry. However, the ministry does not have the legal authority to assign staff to the Trust to carry out their responsibilities. It's with this in mind that we wish to bring in and have passed this legislation that will clean up this matter.

There have been some fears expressed as a result of misinformation through the news media. There has never been any intent by this minister to remove the Islands Trust. I have stated that publicly on a number of occasions, and advised the Islands Trust representatives of that. My critic, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), says he doesn't believe it. He doesn't believe very much, unless it's what he states himself. The fact is that I am on record as not in any way, shape or form giving any consideration to the removal of the Islands Trust.

I recognize the value of the work carried out by the Islands Trust, and it is with that in mind that I do not intend to

[ Page 5541 ]

make any move in respect to the removal of that Trust. They have a very important role to play, and no doubt they will continue to do so. I believe that the tempest in a teapot which we're beginning to experience is to a great extent being aggravated by some political byplay. I am really disappointed in that, and further agitated by the second member for Victoria. However, Mr. Speaker, that is something that is to be expected, and not at all surprising.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Also, I am not at all surprised by the concerns expressed by some, because some people — indeed, many people — don't like change at all. That's something we're dealing with all the time. I have made some pretty dramatic changes in my own ministry. We have streamlined staffing and procedures. We have cut the cost to the taxpayer of operating the ministry, and that wasn't easy either. However, there wasn't the same political involvement there and it was allowed to proceed, and things are now running very smoothly indeed. People recognize that some of these changes are necessary.

[4:00]

Mr. Speaker, changes are inevitable. I don't think we can get away from that. At the meeting this morning I was asked by one of the interested parties if I was open to any suggestions by people from the Trust in respect to further amendments to the act that would, of course, enhance that act. Certainly my response to that was: "Yes, I'm always open to suggestions." I think that the record of this ministry speaks for itself in that only recently we have, indeed, carried out a fairly major review of one section of the Municipal Act that will be introduced to this House shortly, I hope, and that will be very beneficial to all municipalities and regional districts and, of course, to the people that I'm most concerned with, the taxpayers of the province.

Those changes are the result of the open-door policy of this ministry — a ministry and a minister who listens. Certainly I admit that I can't always respond to the things that are being recommended; for instance, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) or the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) could come along and make some suggestions which I may not be able to incorporate. But they can never accuse me, Mr. Speaker, of not listening. I always listen. I guess mainly because of my background I do my best to separate the grain from the chaff, and we do get a lot of chaff in this business, particularly whenever politics gets into it. Mr. Speaker, I think that I do have a responsibility to recognize the chaff from the grain and clean that out. My response to that member this morning was to indeed accept and give a good hearing to any proposals that would be made in respect to the Islands Trust legislation that could enhance that. I assure them that that will be so.

With that, I don't think there's much need to say any more, other than that I would now move second reading of this bill.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the NDP, the opposition, to make a few I hope cogent remarks about this particular piece of legislation.

First, let me indicate that it was our hope that after this morning's meeting, where a number of ideas were expressed by members from the islands about the possibility of accommodating the minister, if he is sincere about his housekeeping measures.... Those housekeeping concepts could very easily be accommodated in a non-controversial way. I will indeed, during the course of the debate on this particular bill, indicate how that can be accommodated. If the minister is sincere that it is indeed just housekeeping that he wishes to see take place, then he will ensure that that happens and that the autonomy, the work and the directions set by the island trustees will not be put in jeopardy by this minister or by Bill 30. In other words, we will suggest the ways that he can do his job without taking over control and administering the Islands Trust.

We've said from the start that the Islands Trust is indeed — think, and our party thinks, and I think many British Columbians believe — an extremely dedicated, hardworking organization. Since 1974 over and over again it has proven its worth, not only to the Gulf Islanders but to all citizens of British Columbia. We have in those islands a very special, unique environment. It's one that many other areas of the world would give their eye-teeth to have at their doorstep. We have 2,000 square miles, which the Trust administers, that is perhaps one of the most unique environments in the world. It is a most beautiful part of British Columbia.

It's an area that in 1974 — and prior to that, Mr. Speaker.... In 1968 I believe the former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, made some fairly substantial recommendations about land freezes because of the concerns that the government of the time had about what was happening to those islands. There has been support, I believe, on all sides of the political spectrum for those islands — their aspirations, their goals, and their objectives as a community on the one hand, and also as an important ingredient and component in the British Columbia society and landscape.

Time and time again, for a number of reasons, that Trust and those people and that unique area have come under the gun. So many times those islanders and that Trust have had to respond — often in a confrontational way, because they were given no other opportunity to do so — and have had to react to the government's intentions, particularly this government.

Here we are once again in this Legislature having to enter into discussion and dialogue about the future of the islands and how the Islands Trust will administer and who will take responsibility for the staff. I categorically state: enough is enough. We have seen too much interference and meddling and centralization by this government. It is time they took their hands off local government and let local government do its job. That's what we need in the province of British Columbia. Local government and the Islands Trust do a good job, and they should be allowed to do that job without meddling. How many times do we have to see this government, in its backward ways in its approach to local government, usurp the responsibilities of duly elected people in local government? I indicate now, and I will say it many times: the Islands Trust has duly elected trustees who have the faith and support of their electorate to do their best for those islands. Here we have a piece of legislation with virtually no consultation with those people and the trustees and their constituents about this particular piece of legislation. You cannot treat local government in this way. How many times do we have to indicate from this side of the House that there has to be a better process, that there has to be a better and fairer and equal way of treating local government?

We — 100 percent on this side of the House — support the work of the Islands Trust and of the 14,000 people currently living in the islands; and they support their trustees, and they support the staff that does the job for those trustees.

[ Page 5542 ]

The minister has indicated in this House and right across this province, it is my understanding, that he wants cooperation and partnership with local government; that he wishes to develop mechanisms that will improve the lines of communication between local government and the provincial government. He has spent much time, in various ways, trying to tell the municipally elected people across the province that he was interested in entering into a dialogue, into a partnership of cooperation; that there was a new era emanating from this current government vis-à-vis their attitudes and the way they deal with local government. We had all the fancy literature, the television cameras and the lights at the Newcombe Auditorium to tell the people of British Columbia and all those elected people that this government was changing its position and its ways of dealing with local government; that they wished to enter into partnership; that from now on, before they brought in legislation that would dramatically affect the daily running of any municipality, they would sit down with those organizations and try to work out an equal framework for the orderly conduct of those particular jurisdictions. Yet one week later, after all the pomp and circumstance about partnership and cooperation, this government introduces Bill 30, with virtually no discussion with the Islands Trust. There was some indication to the main people of the Islands Trust that there may be some changes, but no treatment on an equal basis, and no opportunity for dialogue, or trying to come to some arrangement that might accommodate the government's views about the Islands Trust and the direction of those islands, and accommodate the views of the trustees and their aspirations for those islands.

When you are talking about partnership and cooperation, you have to have respect for the other side who is supposedly your partner. You must have a sincere belief that you are equal in that partnership and that cooperation. Here we have a classic example of what this government really means by cooperation and partnership. What it means in the province of British Columbia is that if you wish to be a partner with the Social Credit government in 1985, you take it or leave it; and if you don't like it, you go away.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, the member obviously hasn't read the bill. He's mixing up two pieces of legislation. I believe the bill that he has been referring to, the Provincial-Municipal Partnership Act, is Bill 25, if I remember correctly. But in any case, his remarks seem to be off beam. We're on Bill 30, not on the Provincial-Municipal Partnership Act.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I guess all points of order are well taken. The bill before us, as I read the explanatory notes, indicates that the ministry will be able to provide staff assistance to the Islands Trust. I presume that members will make their comments relevant to the principle of this bill, although we must be reminded — all of us in the House — that second reading does allow some latitude. However, the principle of this bill would appear to be staff assistance to the Islands Trust, and I'm sure that the member now taking his place in debate can make his remarks relevant to the principle of the bill before us, Bill 30.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on that same point of order, what my colleague from Victoria alludes to is the question relating to partnership that the government raised in the throne speech and in the budget speech. He's using that as his argument. It has nothing to do with the bill that the minister raised this point of order on.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, it would also appear, then, if it was discussed in the budget or throne speech, that that would have been the point at which to debate it. But we are in Bill 30, and we are allowed some latitude.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The second member for Victoria, I'm sure, could continue, with the principle of Bill 30 in mind.

[4:15]

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, the point I am trying to make.... I think it's a valid one, given the minister's and this government's intention or.... The major platform, if you will, of the budget, the direction of this government and the legislative agenda of this government, which Bill 30 is a part of, was one of new directions with local government, cooperation and trying to work out problems before they come into this legislative chamber — which you can recall I have given many speeches on in this House in the last two years, to the point where I'm sure many members don't want to hear it again.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: No, I know, they don't want to hear it again, Mr. Speaker.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

But suffice to say, having come from local government I know how important it is that we have a working relationship and understanding between local government and the provincial government. Mr. Speaker, unless this government is going to stand accused of being hollow and not meaning their fine rhetoric vis-à-vis cooperation and partnership with local government, they really must think about this particular piece of legislation and its implications.

Today we had a fairly fruitful meeting with the trustees and the minister. I suggested a compromise. I put forward a compromise to the minister and to the trustees, because I don't think we're that far apart, unless — and I introduce the theme now — we have in Bill 30 another agenda that the minister and this government are not being candid about with this Legislature and with the people of British Columbia. If that is accurate, and there is another agenda for Bill 30, we would certainly like to hear about it. However, I will take the minister at his word, Mr. Speaker, and say it is housekeeping.

All right, accept the compromise that was offered this morning. You can accommodate your wishes by a very simple amendment, and yet allow the trustees to do their job and retain their staff and the direction of that staff. Unless you do that, unless you see to that, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister, you will run the risk of not being sincere in your scheme of partnership and cooperation with local government.

[ Page 5543 ]

Here you have a fine opportunity to say to me, to the government and to the people of British Columbia: "We wish to cooperate, we wish to compromise, we wish to find the balance between the Islands Trust and the provincial government." If we can achieve that in this debate in the few days ahead, then I think both sides will be well served, and certainly the residents of the Gulf Islands and all British Columbians will be well served.

There is a compromise here which is reasonable and, I think, if it can be accepted, takes the minister at his word when he says that he wants just simple housekeeping. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, we do indeed have a hidden agenda, and this move is far more meaningful than is indicated in the words in Bill 30.

The Islands Trust and the Gulf Islands are far too important an area of British Columbia to take lightly. I really do today ask for some reason, for some intelligent kind of analysis by both sides — and by the minister in particular, because he brought the bill into this House — to have another look. Try to sit down with the trustees, and in particular with the chairman of the Islands Trust, because they have indicated where they think the minister can do what he wants to do, and let's pull it out of this arena, because it's unfortunate that we are even here today. Let's find some sensible compromise that we can all live with, Mr. Speaker.

In my view, the Islands Trust should be enhanced. In my view, their powers should be extended. In my view, we should be looking at the Islands Trust beyond just some sort of appendage of the provincial government, having to depend on the support of the provincial government of the time to ensure their future. I think we have to ensure that the future of the Islands Trust is once and for all removed from political interference by any government. Let them get on with their job and administer that 2,000 square miles of beautiful territory in British Columbia.

If it's a matter of budgets, if it's a matter of the minister's concern about the financial operations, it's my understanding that the Islands Trust is quite prepared to go to our constituents and say: "We will fund 100 percent of the operation of the Islands Trust from the islands. There's no need for municipal support." How about that as a compromise, Mr. Minister? You won't have any financial responsibility then, and you won't need your so-called housekeeping. You won't need the housekeeping measures that are supposedly before us. Let the Islands Trust be responsible for financing themselves in total for their operation. There's a compromise. There's a way out for you. So if I hear the minister somewhere along the line say — and I believe he has said before — that it's a matter of finances and he's concerned, for instance, about the manager's huge salary.... The Islands Trust are prepared to operate this and fund it themselves without any support from the provincial government.

There is an offer you can't refuse, Mr. Minister. Take it. Run with it. Let them do their job. If you don't do that and you don't accept the compromise amendments that I'm going to bring forward, then the hidden agenda that we suspect indeed will be accurate. This bill will be called, in the province of British Columbia, the mondo condo bill for the Gulf Islands. That's what it will all be about.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Then, Mr. Minister, you know the compromise amendments that will satisfy your needs and meet the needs of the Islands Trust. Why don't you support them?

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Unfortunately this is a political arena and unfortunately we have been forced into this arena by an intransigent minister who will not move on this issue, who will not meet with the trustees and find a reasonable compromise. That's why we're in this Legislature today, Mr. Minister. We shouldn't be here right now. You should be meeting with these people to work out a compromise solution in the framework of partnership and cooperation with local government. That's what you should be doing.

However, Mr. Speaker, there must be some other motive, unless the minister will get up and pleasantly surprise us that he is prepared to take up the very useful recommendations from Mr. Humphries and the Islands Trust in terms of accommodating his wishes.

I want to move on to another aspect which I think is extremely useful and one that the minister may indeed wish to respond to sometime. There has been a process going on in the islands for some months now. A fellow called Mr. Campbell — we're all familiar with the name Dan Campbell, Mr. Speaker....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Dan Campbell, the man with all the....

AN HON. MEMBER: Was he the MLA for Comox?

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, that's the man. The man with the big bills, right? He has been doing a job for the minister.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, once again I wish to see how serious the minister is about cooperation, dialogue, communication and partnership.

Mr. Campbell has been charged by the ministe....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Minister of Municipal Affairs will have his opportunity to close debate.

MR. BLENCOE: It's obvious that this bill is very unnerving to the minister, and he cannot refrain from such personal interjections. I take those as normal.

I was about to discuss the Dan Campbell process.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I hope the Islands Trust trustees see the minister who's responsible for their future.

Mr. Campbell was charged by the minister to find out the feelings of islanders about the Islands Trust. I think it was a reasonable process. It's not unusual that a government looks at a particular aspect of government and may indeed make some positive and constructive suggestions for change. Many residents — and I have numerous copies — of the Islands Trust and trustees in good faith responded to Mr.

[ Page 5544 ]

Campbell's call for their views about the Islands Trust and the future of the islands, a useful dialogue and a useful process to go through. When we return to government in approximately one year from now, we will introduce that process of dialogue and communication as a matter of norm, a matter of sincerely believing in that process, and we will listen to the concerns expressed in that kind of process. Mr. Campbell heard lots of responses and got lots of letters, lots of ideas and thoughts about the Islands Trust. I would say that many of those people responded in a non-partisan way. There were letters from well-known Social Credit supporters. One, which I will read into the record today, is from a Mr. John D. Runkle of Denman Island. I will quote what he says about the Islands Trust through the Campbell process.

"Although I have been a loyal supporter of the present government, I must give credit to the NDP for creating the Islands Trust, a vitally important and democratic body. I have serious misgivings about the intention of the present government when the Islands Trust is singled out for investigation."

Mr. Speaker, there are numerous other letters, and if time permits I will read some of those into the record.

The important point is that there was a process of consultation taking place, of acquiring the views of many of those 14,000 residents of the Gulf Islands. But we don't know the results of that process. We haven't heard from Mr. Campbell. The islanders, in good faith, sent in their views hoping for some kind of response or some kind of dialogue or communication about future direction; that they will be able to enter into that process other than just by indicating their initial reactions in a letter. We're still waiting for the end of the Campbell process and that communication system that was supposedly in place. Yet we don't know what the Campbell report, statements or even recognition of these letters will be.

[4:30]

What was the need, then, for that Campbell process? Why put it in place? Why all the rush to bring this piece of legislation into this House if it's just housekeeping? I would suggest that just about every single person — of all political persuasions — who responded to Mr. Campbell was in support of the Islands Trust and the current management and staffing of the Islands Trust. They could not wait for those views to come out, because this government had an agenda that they were set on.

I hope I'm wrong, Mr. Speaker. I'm hoping that the government is being honest and candid about housekeeping. But I have to be somewhat suspicious when I see hundreds and hundreds of letters of support for the Islands Trust from all sorts of people on the islands, all walks of life, all professional areas — doctors, lawyers, concerned citizens, artists, trustees, Social Credit supporters — all indicating that they really don't want any system of tampering with the direction of the islands or the trustees' ability to set the policies and the goals, and to direct their staff.

Why have the Campbell process in effect? Why do Bill 30 now in this chamber when we don't know the results of the Campbell process? Why indicate to the islanders that you were serious about consultation and hearing the views of the islanders? Because Bill 30 makes a mockery of that process; it throws scorn on the islanders and their input, on their democratic views. I again indicate to the minister that if he is serious about cooperation and partnership with local government, he will give serious thought to what I'm saying today. That cooperation and that environment....

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, this happens to be one of the most important pieces of legislation in this session. We are dealing with a very important area, and we have laughing and giggling on the other side of the House. Shame! Let's have some order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, Mr. Member. It is the Chair's position to maintain order, not the member's.

MR. BLENCOE: I know, Mr. Speaker, but I get upset.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: At this point I would mention that the green light has been on for a few moments.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I would indicate to you that I will be continuing past the half hour as the designated speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will appreciate that courtesy among members is a hallmark of members in the House. I would draw to your attention in the standing orders practice recommendation No. 9: "A member who wishes to speak as designated member should advise the Chair as early as possible after the commencement of his or her speech." It would be appreciated if in the future all members could notify the Chair so that other members would have the benefit of that courtesy in timing their own presentations and speeches. Would the member then continue, but in future possibly remember and consider the courtesy of recommendation No. 9.

MR. BLENCOE: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I would also indicate to you and to the other side that we weren't sure whether this piece of legislation was indeed coming forward today. Two or three times we expected it to come forward, and then it was cancelled. So our opportunity to prepare and indicate to the government who was going to do what today has been somewhat limited too by the handling of this piece of legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair is not here to argue with members. Would the member please continue on Bill 30 as designated speaker, and maintain relevant debate.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I indeed will.

What I'm trying to indicate to the government is that if they were serious about the input and the consultation process for the Islands Trust, they would have allowed the Campbell process to run its course, have a reasonable report come forward, and then some dialogue about the results with the Islands Trust. Well, that is not about to happen. The government, for whatever reason, has stepped in and introduced a piece of legislation before that democratic process could come to a normal conclusion, and here today we have a piece of legislation that we think is abhorrent to the aspirations and well-being of the Islands Trust in British Columbia.

The minister asked me to think positively. I've already indicated this morning, and already in the Legislature today, that I can indeed think very positively about this particular piece of legislation if the minister is prepared to indicate that he is prepared to think positively in terms of a compromise and finding a resolution that both sides of the House feel will

[ Page 5545 ]

satisfy both partners in this particular issue. I again refer to the fact that I think we do have partners here: the Islands Trust and the provincial government. I'm prepared to be positive about partnership. I'm prepared to be positive about cooperation in working out the difficult spots with local governments, and the Islands Trust in this instance, and trying to find some resolution to what the government wishes to do. Yet we are once again faced with legislation that has had very little input from those to be dramatically affected by the legislation. The minister can say all he wants that it's housekeeping, but the islanders do not take it as housekeeping. They take it as a very heavy-handed move to once again centralize, through staff, authority over the Islands Trust in the hands of the provincial government.

It's a continuation of what we have seen for the last two years, and beyond that: this government's continuing erosion of local government and of local government's responsibility in matters that are traditionally the responsibility of local government, particularly land use planning, bylaws, community plans and regional planning. This is not the first time we have seen a piece of legislation before us that radically alters the daily operations of local government and regional districts.

If this government is serious about entering into cooperative partnership with local government, it must not continue to bring in pieces of legislation like Bill 30. It can only harm long-term cooperation between the provincial government and local governments. I really urge this government and this minister to think long and hard about what they're saying to British Columbians in their television ads, which are about to run, about compromise and cooperation and partnership and what they're doing in reality. This bill is hypocritical, it's not honest to the people of British Columbia, and it's certainly not honest in terms of trying to achieve partnership and cooperation with local governments. I will continue to emphasize that particular theme.

This government's attitude to local government appears to be: "If we don't like what you do, if we don't like how you run your jurisdictions, even though you were elected to operate those jurisdictions, we'll introduce legislation to take over many of the things that you do as duly elected people." We've seen that over and over again in the last few years. Instead of using dialogue and intelligent and rational discussion, and a compromising kind of decision-making process, this government continues to take an axe to local government. Once again we have an axe on the Islands Trust, in terms of Bill 30 before us today.

I was optimistic in hoping that the process involved in Mr. Campbell's overtures to the islands, in terms of hearing the views and the goals and the aspirations of those trustees and their constituents, was sincere and that the minister was sincere about believing in the Trust and its work. I think that, unless we see some major changes by this minister in this particular piece of legislation, that sincerity has gone out the window.

I want to address a very important aspect of what happens if this piece of legislation goes through intact. What happens to the Islands Trust in the future? What's going to happen to those trustees? What's their mandate going to be? Who are they going to direct to meet the land use, zoning and planning aspirations of the residents of those Gulf Islands? Currently the trustees set the direction and set the policies, and hire staff to work on what the trustees think are the important ingredients of Gulf Islands life. I believe, and all of us on this side believe, that those trustees have done a remarkable job over the last 11 years. They have managed to balance the interests of the development industry and the interests of those who perhaps don't always see development as a positive thing, Through their diligence and their deliberations, and working with all residents, the trustees have managed to achieve a balance between the development interests and those of residents who may totally oppose any kind of development. That's been an important ingredient of Trust life, Mr. Speaker. With their ability to set their staff to work looking at things that are required for the islands, to set the priorities and particularly the planning priorities, the Trust has had a major role to play in the direction of the Gulf Islands. It's the reason those islands are as beautiful as they are today, the reason they haven't been ravaged by the fast-buck merchants that we've seen in other jurisdictions, the reason that many British Columbians — I think every British Columbian — at some time will visit those islands and say: "I wish my home was like this. I wish my community had a board like this. I wish my municipality cared about the environment and the marine environment, and the quality of life." What we're dealing with here is something that today is very special, and that we should be looking at in terms of spreading what the Islands Trust has done and how they approach their communities.

The people of British Columbia owe much to the Islands Trust and the trustees that have served over the years. I happen to believe that if a survey was taken today or tomorrow, and we had a poll of what British Columbians feel about the Gulf Islands, as to whether their directions and philosophy should be in any way hindered or redirected, there would be an overwhelming "no." No, leave the Trust alone; let them do their work. Don't interfere and don't centralize, because everything this government has touched in the last few years has just fallen flat. But I won't go into that. The people of British Columbia are happy with the Trust, and I think if they saw anything that was going to dramatically affect the lifestyle, or the maintenance of that beautiful environment for all British Columbians to enjoy at some time or another in their lives, I think they would categorically say: "No." Let the 26 trustees and the various processes that are in effect with their staff carry on. British Columbians want the Gulf Islands to remain a very special area in British Columbia.

[4:45]

I know, Mr. Speaker, from my discussions with numerous people, and from programs that I have done — despite that the minister says we're trying to stir it up — there is concern out there about this government's attitude towards local government. What we have is a situation that's analogous to any municipality in the province of British Columbia that's duly elected to set the directions, policies and goals of their municipalities through their staff. Those staff work for the municipalities; they are hired and fired by those municipalities. What we have here in Bill 30 is the same as if the minister — maybe he's planning this, I don't know; who knows? — decided that, for whatever reason, he was going to take over the planning staff or the staff of the city of Victoria or the city of Vancouver or the city of Chilliwack or Abbotsford. That's the analogy. Without any word or any consultation or any respect for the trustees, this government has said: "I want control of those staff members. I want to control all the options, and I want to control the direction of the Gulf Islands in perpetuity." That's what this government is saying by this bill, unless...

[ Page 5546 ]

MRS. JOHNSTON: Have you read it?

MR. BLENCOE: I wish that member would get serious someday.

...unless the minister is prepared to enter into dialogue and achieve a compromise on this particular piece of legislation.

Why does the minister feel he has to do this, apart from his saying it's housekeeping? What is driving this government to interfere in one area of British Columbia that is generally well supported and that British Columbians feel is well administered and taken care of? Why does this government feel today, after all the controversy and the heat and the attacks and the scorn and sometimes the hatred of British Columbians...? Why now, Mr. Speaker, take on the islands?

These 26 trustees don't get rich, I can tell you, serving their communities, but every single one of them is deeply concerned about this piece of legislation. Quite frankly I have to say, because of what's happened in the past and some of the statements that have been made by the minister and other members of the government, that there is a degree of mistrust. I'm not quite sure where all that mistrust comes from, but there is mistrust. Let's try to eliminate that mistrust. Here is a great opportunity for the minister to say: "Okay, my bill has been misunderstood. Maybe the views of the residents and the islanders and the trustees and the chairman have some validity, and we can take another look." I know the minister is pouring scorn on the political process. He says that somehow Blencoe and everybody else is stirring up a political hotbed. Well, Mr. Speaker, I've heard that in my years — whenever I take on an issue that I happen to believe in, and that British Columbians believe in. When the other side gets uptight, they accuse you of stirring up politics.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Well, Mr. Speaker, the political process doesn't necessarily have to be controversial, The political process is open for compromise and meaningful dialogue between all interested parties. Let's use that political process. It is the democratic process. It is one that we all hopefully believe in, and it is one that will work, that everybody can feel they are partaking in, they are part of, and we can achieve some sort of reasonable compromise and resolution to this particular issue. Use that political process. Mr. Minister, in this chamber and in this precinct today we have people who represent those islanders. They offered you some ideas today, they offered you a compromise. I was certainly prepared to look at compromise.

Let's use that political process in a positive way rather than a negative way — another call to the minister, if he is listening to this side of the House. What is to happen to the trustees? What's to happen to them?

Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I went kite-flying over the weekend with my young son, and I think I stood in the cold wind too long.

Mr. Speaker, what is going to happen to the trustees? We haven't had an answer. The minister certainly didn't respond to that today in our get-together, because one of the major.... Any organization that is going to have a meaningful impact on the area it represents has to have some degree of control of its staff and be able to set the directions. Under this piece of legislation the minister may now assign employees of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to assist the Trust in carrying out its duties under this act, and the person who was appointed under section 13 of the Islands Trust Act shall be deemed by this section to be an employee of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

With respect to the minister, this cannot really be seen as housekeeping as it stands now, because what it does is neuter the operation of the Islands Trust. They will no longer have a mandate to fulfil, one that they can carry out, because they won't have the staff and they won't control them, and they won't be able to assign their responsibilities and their duties.

Is it the intention, in a very roundabout way, to repeal the Islands Trust? Was it the intention of this government, because they get so much political heat, not to introduce a repeal act on the Islands Trust but to introduce Bill 30, which basically means that the Islands Trust won't be able to carry out their mandate and therefore won't be able to do their job, and they might as well be repealed? Was that the intention of this government? Because as this bill stands today, that is exactly what is going to happen.

People of British Columbia do not want the Islands Trust and its staff to be neutered or to be compromised or have their mandate taken away. People of British Columbia, and certainly the official opposition, believe that the Trust must be enhanced. They must be allowed to grow and their staff must not be taken away from the trustee direction.

The minister has to answer this particular aspect. He has to tell the Trust and the people of British Columbia what the mandate of the Islands Trust is now. The minister said this morning that he has every intention of supporting the Trust down the road, but all the options, all the strings, all the levers of power and decision-making vis-à-vis the Islands Trust will be controlled by the minister. He will have all the options. Once this legislation is passed, if it is passed intact, he will be able to direct those staff to do exactly what he wants. If he has any hidden agenda for some massive redevelopment of the Islands Trust or the Islands Trust area or the Gulf Islands, that option will be totally his, and nothing will be able to stop him, except, of course, the islanders have to go back on the barricades again and fight this government tooth and nail.

But the islanders are tired of fighting. They want to be able to do their job. They want to be able to carry out their mandate in an effective way. But it's true and accurate that if this bill goes through intact, all the options, all the strings, all the levers of power will be in the hands of the minister. God forbid, Mr. Speaker, the direction and the future of the islands, if ever we are talking.... The minister keeps talking about politics, but if ever there is the opportunity for political abuse of one of the most beautiful areas in the world, it will be wide open with Bill 30.

This government's attitude toward pristine areas, toward environmental issues, toward Meares Island and all those kinds of issues.... We know their views. This government's attitude toward land and the land ethic is totally different from that of many people on the islands. What we have here is a clash between a government that nine times out of ten, when it sees vacant land, sees it in a monetary sense. They see it in a development sense. They don't see it as something that is very special that was given to us.... Well, it wasn't given to us by us; it was given to us by someone much bigger than all of us, and we'll all interpret that in our own way.

[ Page 5547 ]

The Trust has been saying for these 11 years that there is something very special in their approach to the land and to the communities in the islands. It's old-fashioned, I suppose, and it's not part of the twenty-first century where you've got to conquer nature and you've got to introduce science and technology to utilize everything that is in front of you including the land, the natural environment, the wildlife, and all those things that go in to make living in these difficult times palatable. They all become a part of the drive to see those aspects of life in a monetary sense. The Islands Trust, as I indicated about half an hour ago, has managed to balance out those interests. The trustees are justifiably concerned about the government's attitude toward land and easing the development process and seeing waterfront areas, or beautiful beach areas, not necessarily as areas that should be preserved for everyone or for all British Columbians for perpetuity, but as something that can be developed for the almightily dollar. The minister will say: "Ah, I'm talking about the future." What I am saying is that those development options will be totally in the hands of the minister. He will set the direction of the staff, and the trustees will have to sit idly by and let political interference in the Gulf Islands, from whatever party is in power, take place.

[5:00]

We should be debating an Islands Trust amendment act that extends the powers and enhances the work of the Islands Trust, instead of stepping back 11 years and once again fighting centralized interference in the aspirations of the Gulf Islanders. These people are duly elected to represent the views of their constituents, and they should be allowed to do that.

One of the interesting components of this issue, and I referred to it briefly when I talked about the Campbell process.... One of the accusations by the government and others is that the islanders and the Islands Trust haven't been particularly interested in economic or any other kind of development; they have thwarted economic development; they're not interested in it. Some time ago the Trust, through the leaders of the Islands Trust, decided that they would indicate to the government that they were prepared to participate in a program of economic recovery that would see the Gulf Islands as a partner in that particular project. The Trust has shown a willingness to establish a framework for development. They've already struck a special committee to take a look at economic development on the Gulf Islands, in keeping with the government's aspirations in terms of looking at economic recovery.

The Islands Trust has directed the manager to take a look at various processes that are in effect in the Islands Trust that might hinder development, to take a look at the bylaws, to take a look at the community plans, and to see how that process could be eased without compromising the overall goals and policies and aspirations of the Islands Trust.

I believe that the Trust was quite prepared, and is still prepared, to enter into a cooperative framework with the government on economic development. Indeed, the accusation that the islanders are not interested in development is totally erroneous, because — and this is not generally known; the minister may not know this — the economic committee of the islands, when hopefully they will get the opportunity to bring forward their recommendations, will have statistics like this in their hands, to say that they are ready to participate with the government in economic recovery, if they are treated as partners, and if they are treated equally and with respect.

I'd like to state that, for instance, in the development area, according to the policy of the Islands Trust, if there were a subdivision to the limits of all community plans — that is, development of existing lots — it would create a total of 28,000 lots, or a potential population on the islands that is estimated at between 60,000 and 70,000.

To answer this minister and this government's frequent attack on the islanders that they just want to protect their self-interest in those islands for themselves, there is in place, through the community plans, the ability to develop to a population of between 60,000 and 70,000. However, there are many other things, of course, that are hindering that particular development. But I have to say that that is not an issue, or shouldn't be an issue. Any red flag that's raised by the minister that these islanders or the Islands Trust just want to hinder development.... Right in their subdivision plans and in their community plans they can develop and build up their population. The Trust is now looking at how economic recovery and economic ideas can be created and extended in the Islands Trust that would actually employ many of these people in the islands.

So the argument that this bill, or any change to the Islands Trust, is one that would expand the population or expand development ideas, or jobs, is fictitious. Already within existing community plans development can go ahead. I think that's an important point that lays to rest that the Islands Trust has not tried to accommodate the development interests. No, it would appear, unless there are some changes in this particular piece of legislation, that we do indeed have some other reasons for Bill 30.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, we've had the compromises. We've suggested ideas to accommodate what you want to do. We had the Campbell process. We have the islands' special committees taking a look at what they can do to accommodate the wishes of the government. We have the trustees prepared to enter into discussion with the government on trying to accommodate their desires of housekeeping, yet we have a government that just laughs and introduces a bill today; when this morning the trustees, in good faith, were saying: "Please give us the opportunity to show you how you can do what you want to do, but don't take away our ability to govern the islands." How seriously can the views that this is just housekeeping be taken?

I would like to.... I think it's useful, because what the Islands Trust has done and their goals and aspirations are extremely important for this particular debate. I would like to go through what the goals of the Islands Trust are, what they have tried to do in the last 11 years to protect this particularly beautiful part of British Columbia. I'm quoting now from "The Policy of the Islands Trust" handbook: "It is the fundamental goal to fulfil the objectives of the Islands Trust Act, to preserve and protect...."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we are dealing with a bill that provides staff assistance to the Islands Trust. Your remarks have been relevant, but I think we are straying to some degree when we begin discussing policy of the Islands Trust, with respect to the bill before us now. It is a specific

[ Page 5548 ]

bill, and the explanatory notes and both sections indicate exactly what the bill is intended to do. I'm sure the member can relate his remarks to Bill 30; anything else would appear to be quite irrelevant.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, if I may, and with respect, the case I have been trying to make is that the staff in this bill are able to meet the goals and aspirations of the Islands Trust. If that is taken away and the Islands Trust are not allowed to set or maintain those staff priorities in terms of enhancing these goals, that is a very important aspect of this particular piece of legislation. Those staff currently work for the trustees. They uphold these objectives and social goals. The point I am trying to make is that now there will be no guarantee that the Trust and its staff will be able to uphold these goals. That is what I think is very important.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: You're being silly.

MRS. JOHNSTON: It's irrelevant.

MR. BLENCOE: It is extremely relevant to this particular debate, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Islands Trust and therefore its staff believe in these goals. If you look at this bill, it's changing the relationship of the staff to the Islands Trust. That's why I think it's very important that you give me the opportunity to go through those goals and objectives of the Islands Trust. Mr. Speaker, the major goal is to:

"'...preserve and protect....the trust area and its unique amenities and environment for the benefit of the residents of the trust area and of the Province generally.' To accomplish these objectives the following goals are accepted: (1) to preserve the unique natural environment of land, water and air and the life it supports...."

I hope the government is listening to this, because these are, I think, incredible objectives that we should all be trying to support. The second is "to preserve the natural beauty of the Trust area and recognize that areas of sensitivity or unique value require special protective measures." The third is "to encourage the removal of existing sources of pollution and discourage activities or projects inside or outside the Trust area which would reduce the natural and aesthetic values of the area." The fourth is "to encourage only the selective and careful use of renewable natural resources in ways consistent with the goals and policies." And the fifth is "to recognize the provincial and national significance of the unique social and physical diversities of the Trust area."

Mr. Speaker, I want to specifically address myself to those five aspects of the environmental goals. They are incredible goals to try and uphold. The Trust does try to maintain them. Everything they do tries to meet these fine goals.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the member quoting from the Islands Trust Act?

MR. BLENCOE: No. I'm quoting from the policy of the Islands Trust, which is being changed by this particular bill today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is only one aspect of the Islands Trust Act that is being changed. It has to do with the ministry and employees. To that principle, please.

MR. BLENCOE: What I'm saying is that the trustees, through the direction of their staff and setting the priorities of that staff, are able to uphold and maintain these particular goals, goals that I think all British Columbians support. If you take away the authority of the Trust to direct the staff to maintain these goals and put it in the hands of the minister 100 percent, these goals become virtually null and void. I think we have to be very careful how we approach the Islands Trust, how we approach these goals and how the Islands Trust is going to be able to ensure that its staff maintains these particular goals that I indicated. I think it's very important that we talk about these goals in this Legislature. "Natural environment," "special protective measures," "sensitivity," "uniqueness" — we don't use those words enough, because we're all so conscious of trying to get development going in any way that we tend to forget that there are indeed special areas like the Gulf Islands and that we have to ensure that they are protected for all British Columbians. That is extremely important.

The point I make is that if the staff are removed from the direction of the trustees, there is going to be no guarantee that those goals are going to be maintained. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I would have to say that given the nature of this government and the things it has said in the past, the goals of the Gulf Islands will change dramatically — and, I think, in a negative way. But the minister would never admit, of course, that he has another agenda in this particular piece of legislation.

[5:15]

I referred earlier to the fact that many people from all walks of life had indicated to this government that they felt the Trust should be supported and enhanced. I think it's very important that we listen to those views from all walks of life, all political persuasions. Unfortunately, we didn't get the opportunity to see the end of that process that was to be put in place by this government by Mr. Campbell's report.

I think it's extremely important that we try to achieve a political compromise that all sides of the House can agree upon. We deplore any further centralization by this government into the realm of local government. We deplore the continuing erosion by this government of mandates that are traditionally carried out by local governments, and we've seen it in many pieces of legislation.

I would remind this House and this government that indeed we do have a very particular, very special area in these Gulf Islands. Seventeen percent is in the agricultural land reserve. There are 200 species of birds, two million waterfowl. There are numerous colonies of nesting birds. There is an incredible foreshore zone that is a rich source of seafood and that the Trust is well aware of. They are able to direct their staff to ensure the very things that I said — those goals. They are able to protect those very things.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

We have 24 provincial parks ranging from 1 acre to 1,200 acres. We have 8 ecological reserves and at least one marine reserve. What I'm trying to say is that what you have here is something that cannot be tampered with in legislation. You have to approach this particular area — this 2,000 square miles — in a very special way. You have to enter into dialogue

[ Page 5549 ]

and communication with those people who are elected to carry out the mandate of those islands.

We have a piece of legislation that for whatever reason was not introduced in good faith with those trustees. This government, for whatever reason, over the last year or two has thwarted in many ways the work of the Islands Trust. They have refused to sign various agreements, certain bylaws — zoning bylaws, community plan revisions, subdivision bylaws. We saw the bare-land strata regulations altered so that various strata developments do not have to conform with the various community plans.

It would appear that this government, through its past actions and now through this bill, does indeed have some long-term objective for the Gulf Islands, an objective that we believe will be abhorrent and not in the interests of Gulf Islanders, the Islands Trust or citizens of British Columbia. There has been a consistent attack on the Islands Trust, a consistent meddling by this minister and others in the work of the Islands Trust — Mr. Vander Zalm's act, which thank God the government of the day decided to put aside. We have seen this minister refuse, for instance, to hire the manager. That manager is now hired for the Islands Trust.

I believe the Trust has the right to know the long-term direction of this government vis-à-vis the Gulf Islands. I have indicated today that we don't want to believe there is a hidden agenda, but when I go through all the opportunities to meet their needs, and yet this government insists on pushing this legislation through this House, then we have to say there is a hidden agenda. There is something else at work here, and down the road are some major redevelopment proposals that are going to dramatically affect the future of the Gulf Islands. It is the only conclusion we can come to — unless this government and this minister decide to take another look and work with the Islands Trust, to support the ideas for simple amendments to the Islands Trust legislation that will allow him to accommodate what he wants; that is, the staff under his jurisdiction, but allows them still to take direction from the Islands Trust. If he is sincere in his belief that the Islands Trust should exist, should stay in place and be enhanced, and he's not going to interfere with that, he will support those compromise positions. If not, then his statements do not ring true, and this whole issue of compromise and working out problems with local government is all one big hoax.

The Gulf Islands and the Islands Trust, as I have said already, are tired of having to react, tired of having to go into the trenches, tired of having to organize to fight the provincial government. It's time that we had meaningful partnership and meaningful dialogue over the aspirations of the provincial government and the Islands Trust. If there ever was a time for cooperation and understanding on both sides, it is now over this issue. As this bill stands now, we categorically state that it is a terrible piece of legislation. But there is room for change and compromise.

I end my part in this debate within that framework of asking for compromise and understanding. In light of the discussions that went on upstairs this morning, I'm asking for serious and meaningful dialogue between the trustees and the provincial government. We on this side of the House are prepared to play a role. We are prepared to see what compromises can be introduced, and we are prepared to find some resolution.

We believe that the Gulf Islands are far too important to be subjected to the more gregarious components of politics. Let's take this legislation out of the light of the Legislature and go quietly and see what we can work out. Otherwise, all it is is a way to axe the Islands Trust and to stop its 11 years of tremendous work, and, I think, destroy the Gulf Islands as we know them today. If that is not true, I am prepared to take those words back, if the minister is prepared to compromise and introduce the ideas and amendments that were put forward to him this morning. Housekeeping, yes; gutting, neutering, axing, no.

We all love those islands; they are very special to all of us. I don't think any political party or any minister should have all the options to set the direction of those islands. That's why the Trust was set up. Trust: think of that word. I hope this government will rethink and enter into some cooperative framework and compromise, so that we can all continue to enjoy the Gulf Islands and work with those trustees.

MS. SANFORD: The minister may have been listening as he was talking to his colleagues, but he has certainly not given any assurance to those people who are concerned about the future development of the islands within the Islands Trust. When we had an election of a new trustee last November, he stated that he was very pleased to be able to take the oath that he would preserve and protect the islands within the Islands Trust. He was pleased that he would be able to play his part in that whole process. But as he said within the last couple of weeks: "I didn't realize that I would have to protect the islands from the minister himself." That's the way the islanders feel about this piece of legislation.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Who said that?

MS. SANFORD: One of the Islands Trust trustees just elected last November said that, and he said that with all sincerity. He is quoted in the local papers as having said that, and he's not ashamed that he said it, because he's concerned about those islands, and he wants to see them protected.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: What's his name?

MS. SANFORD: I'll send you the press clipping that contains his name, Mr. Minister.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: I do know who said it. I just am not prepared.... Mr. Speaker, will you call that minister to order?

The thing is that the minister refuses to give the islanders any guarantees. He introduces this legislation by saying it's merely housekeeping — no problems with it, he says. But who on earth is going to trust this government at this stage, based on such a statement?

All that they're asking, Mr. Minister, is that you include in that legislation an assurance and an insurance that the trustees will have the same authority and the same ability to do the work that they have been doing since the Islands Trust was established. They're worried that the trust is going to be crippled in carrying out its duties of developing and preparing and planning the development.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Not fair.

[ Page 5550 ]

MS. SANFORD: What do you mean, not fair? All we're asking is for you to give that assurance, Mr. Minister, in writing, in legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have faith.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia lost faith in this government some time ago, and there's no way they're going to accept the word of the government any more on any issue. I think that the minister at this stage should recognize that and be prepared to include in legislation the assurance that the people on the islands need.

The islanders considered this an unwarranted interference in their ability to carry out their duties, the duties for which they were democratically elected. But the other thing, Mr. Speaker, is that this is so typical of the actions of this government over the years. They have gone from one power grab to the next. Every opportunity they get, they grab more power and authority unto themselves. They've taken power away from the school boards. They've interfered with municipalities. They have interfered with the Islands Trust all along.

[5:30]

No wonder the islanders are wary and leery about this kind of legislation. They've never felt comfortable with this government. They nearly lost the whole thing a few years ago when Vander Zalm introduced a bill which would have simply eliminated them. No wonder they are concerned and worried. He was very straightforward about it. He said: "Let's get rid of them with one little stroke of the pen. We'll just eliminate that Trust." But it was so politically unpopular that the minister was forced to back off and ended up calling his colleagues gutless because they refused to face the music in terms of the steps that they wanted to take.

MRS. WALLACE: The Minister of Finance got to him.

MS. SANFORD: Probably the Minister of Finance was concerned about being re-elected at that time.

Mr. Speaker, when we express reservations about this legislation and the authority that it gives the minister, then the minister calls across the floor of the House: "Oh, that's silly." The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) calls across the floor, making derogatory comments about the speaker.

MR. KEMPF: Oh, no way.

MS. SANFORD: That member for Omineca, I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, cannot wait to eliminate the agricultural land reserve entirely, and continues making....

AN HON. MEMBER: Really?

MS. SANFORD: That's right. He wants to do away with the agricultural land reserve.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member for Omineca come to order, and would the member for Comox be relevant in her remarks on Bill 30.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, since 1976, when the Socreds assumed power after the Islands Trust was in place, they have been uncomfortable with the concept of the Trust, because they like power. They like authority. They like to be able to lay down the law from Victoria, and to issue directions, tell people how the province should develop and not listen to people like those elected to the Islands Trust. They're not comfortable unless they call the shots. They want complete and total authority. That's what the islanders are afraid of in terms of this bill. They're worried about it. I don't know why the minister didn't tell us when he introduced second reading that he was prepared to introduce amendments to this bill that would ensure that the authority and autonomy of the Trust as it now exists would be preserved. But the authority has to be absolute, as far as he's concerned.

I had the pleasure of serving on the Municipal Affairs Committee when it travelled through the Gulf Islands in order to determine how those islands should best be served by this Legislature and by the other people of the province. When we were in government, we recognized the uniqueness of those islands. We recognized the necessity to preserve them. We recognized that people living on the islands were the ones best able to come up with ideas and suggestions as to how those islands should be developing. They live there. They're concerned about it. They know the problems.

When we established that Islands Trust, we did a service to the islanders and to the people of the entire province. We should all be proud of the unique nature of those islands located in the gulf. But it hasn't been easy for the islanders. It's not an easy process to go through to determine how those islands should best be developed, how they should be planned and to recognize the problems that they have with fire protection, with sources of water, with sewage problems, with garbage problems and with zoning. It's been a very, very difficult process, Mr. Speaker, but it's been democratic. Now the islanders are concerned that that process, through the minister and this piece of legislation, is going to be eliminated.

What the government doesn't recognize, apparently, is that this gives the minister authority to nullify the work of the trustees. They're democratically elected to serve the special, unique needs of the Gulf Islands. I believe — and I'd be very happy to have the minister introduce changes to this bill to prove me wrong — that this government is out to eliminate the Islands Trust, that they are headed in exactly the same direction as Mr. Bill Vander Zalm when he headed up that ministry, and that they're using this legislation as that vehicle. That's what the islanders fear as well.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: I'd like to see your word in writing, Mr. Minister, and I would like to see it as an amendment to this legislation, guaranteeing.... Why didn't the minister consult with the islanders before he brought in this legislation? What was the major problem that he saw that needed this kind of legislation? Why did the minister not, as they have done for years in the province of Saskatchewan, circulate at least a White Paper or a discussion paper or a copy of the legislation itself for all of those islanders, the trustees and the association to look at, to discuss and to meet with the minister before it was introduced in this House? Now they're all worried. Now they're saying things like: "I didn't think, in my job as an islands trustee, I'd have to preserve and protect the islands from the minister himself."

Those employees of the Islands Trust: who are they going to report to? Are they going to report to the minister who employs them, or are they going to report, as they have in the

[ Page 5551 ]

past, to the Trust? Who's going to issue the directions to those Trust employees now? Who's going to do that? Will it be the minister, his deputy? Will it be the Trust? Those are the kinds of questions that the people on the islands....

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you think?

MS. SANFORD: I know what I think. I think that the government is assuming yet more authority unto itself and that it wishes to take over the direction and the development of those islands. It does not want local autonomy. It likes authority, and they've demonstrated that enough. I think, Mr. Member, they want to eliminate the Islands Trust entirely.

It's interesting: the one person who hasn't been here speaking this afternoon is the member for Saanich and the Islands, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). Mr. Speaker, he served on that committee when we travelleded the Islands. People came out in droves telling us how important it was to have some special legislation to protect those islands. Every one of those meetings was well attended. The halls were usually not big enough to accommodate the people on the islands who wanted to tell us that what was happening on their islands with uncontrolled development was intolerable.

It was the member for Saanich and the Islands who proposed in the committee, after we had collected all of the information, after we got back to Victoria, after we met to determine how best to protect those islands.... It was that member who said we should establish an Islands Trust. He wasn't on the government side then, Mr. Speaker. He wasn't on the Socred side: he sat as an Conservative. As the one who proposed the concept of the Islands Trust to our committee, why isn't he up here today demanding the kind of assurances, the guarantees, that the people on the islands — and the people on the islands within his own constituency — are demanding from this minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: He's hiding. Hanging his head in shame.

MS. SANFORD: I think he's hiding. I haven't seen him all afternoon. I'll be very surprised if we hear him speak in this debate. It's exactly the same as if the regional districts were told: "No, you can't hire your employees. We're going to hire your employees, and we'll ensure that they get the right direction in terms of the kind of work they should be doing for you." Maybe that's next on their agenda. Maybe they'll do that for the municipalities as well.

Mr. Speaker, all we're asking is a little bit of assurance in writing that the worries of these islanders are unfounded.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: I'm sorry that the minister thinks I'm silly. All you need to do, Mr. Minister, is to put in writing for everyone to see, to be passed through this House, that there will be no interference with the operation of the trust; that the guarantees will remain in terms of their autonomy and authority as it now exists, which is not all that great. The staff are already in the ministry, so why do you need this legislation?

AN HON. MEMBER: He wants to clean it up.

MS. SANFORD: I think what he wants is to clean up the islands.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The debate should be carried out in an orderly fashion, with one member standing at one time being recognized. It would allow that member to direct comments to the Chair without cross-comments between other members. Would the member for Comox be relevant to Bill 30.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I'm really sorry — no, I'm half sorry — that the minister was not present when the Municipal Affairs Committee travelled to those islands so that he could have heard the genuine concern of the people about those islands. It's justified. Those islands are jewels; they must be protected. I think that the minister, if he had heard the appeals that came to us as a committee travelling to those islands, would have in writing before us today an assurance that the autonomy and the authority that now exists for the trustees would remain and will remain. Why is the minister so reluctant to give us that assurance? He keeps saying: "Trust us. Have faith." But, Mr. Speaker, I am long beyond the point where I have any trust or faith in the expressions of the current government. The other thing is, that applies to most people in the province these days, only the government may not know it.

These are unique; they are precious. All we want is an assurance in writing from the minister that the autonomy and the authority of the Islands Trust to carry out its duty to protect those islands will not be interfered with.

[5:45]

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, the minister sits over there and calls us silly. He says that we are silly because we don't trust him. He says that we are silly because we don't understand the legislation. There are some other silly people as well, if that's the case. A letter from Mike Humphries, the chairman of the Islands Trust, dated March 28, says in part: "It was pointed out that at no time was the Trust consulted about the amendments, and recent attempts to obtain explanations for the move have not been successful." So they don't understand, and they must be silly too, in the opinion of that minister. That's the only answer he has had: we don't understand that it's housekeeping, and we're silly.

Mr. Speaker, we're repealing section 13. We know what the bill says, but do we all know what the original section 13 said? It says:

"(1) Subject to the Public Service Act, the general trustees may appoint employees, including a manager, they consider necessary for the affairs of the trust, and may designate the title, office, and responsibilities of an employee.

"(2) Notwithstanding the Public Service Act, but subject to the approval of the minister, the general trustees may engage and retain persons they consider necessary as consultants, experts or specialists, and may fix their remuneration.

"(3) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may direct that the Public Service Act or the Pension (Public Service) Act, or both of them, applies to a general trustee or a person engaged and retained under subsection (2)."

[ Page 5552 ]

The minister asks who pays. Well, there's a trust and that's contributed to by a great many individuals who recognize the purpose of this act. The objectives are set out very clearly:

"It is the object of the trust to preserve and protect, in cooperation with municipalities and the government of the Province, the trust area and its unique amenities and environment for the benefit of the residents of the trust area and of the Province generally."

Sure, the federal government and the provincial government make contributions to that Trust fund and so do many individuals who support the idea that that is a unique area. That's why the Islands Trust Act was brought in. To do away with section 13 as it is presently written means that the trustees will no longer be able to hire a consultant, if they feel it is necessary. If they are concerned about some conflict between a proposed development or a proposed logging concern or environmental concerns, they will no longer be free to hire a specialist. We recently heard our designated speaker list 200 species of birds, 2 million waterfowl, a foreshore which is a rich source of sea life, 24 provincial parks, 8 ecological reserves, and 1 marine reserve. Those were just some of the things that he mentioned.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: What has that got to do with staffing?

MRS. WALLACE: It has a lot to do with staffing, Mr. Minister.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, I'm silly too now, because I think that staffing has a lot to do with the protection of those resources.

If the hands of the Trust and the trustee members are tied because the Minister of Municipal Affairs says there is no money for a consultant or a specialist or a manager and those kinds of protective measures and studies, those concerns that the trustees hold are not going to be resolved. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and this minister wants to be sure that he calls the tune. He wants to be sure that if he has a developer friend who wants to put in small....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame, shame!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister rises on a point of order?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Finish your statement first.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, Mr. Minister. You rose and sat. Please, if you wish to speak, stand; otherwise.... On a point of order?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would ask that that member withdraw the accusation that she made in respect to my actions here being in favour of developer friends. I'd ask that that accusation be withdrawn.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I wasn't aware that I'd made that statement. I think he doth protest too much.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member made the statement, would the member withdraw the statement?

MRS. WALLACE: But I didn't make that statement, Mr. Speaker. What I started to say was that if the minister had a developer friend, he could. And he jumped to the conclusion, so I suspect he has a guilty conscience. What I was about to say when he jumped up was that if the minister had a developer friend, he could use his powers to ensure that....

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not have any developer friends.

MRS. WALLACE: I wonder if the minister has any friends.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. It sounds as if the day is becoming long. Would the member continue with relevant debate on Bill 30, and direct comments to the Chair and not across the floor.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I was trying to do just that when the minister interrupted. My concern is.... Do I take it that the House Leader would like an adjournment? Do you want adjournment now? Okay.

What this does is remove the powers of the Islands Trust trustees. Whether or not the minister realizes it, that is exactly the result of this. I would like to ask the minister how he would feel if someone other than himself had the power to appoint the employees who work in his office and to designate the numbers of people working there. That's what is happening to the Islands Trust.

This may just be, as other members have said, a first step. I can see the next step being the regional boards, municipalities and school boards. I can see his counterpart, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), suddenly deciding that the opposition caucus no longer has the right to choose its own employees, that the Provincial Secretary will choose the employees for the opposition caucus and say who they shall be, what they shall be paid and what their duties shall be.

The operation of any organization, be it government or otherwise, is extremely dependent upon the loyalty, dedication and abilities of the people who work for that particular organization. The choice of those employees, the decisions about what duties shall be assigned to them, make or break the organization and determine the direction it shall go. In what is called a housekeeping amendment those rights are withdrawn from the trustees; they are taken over completely and in their entirety by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. He may say that he will appoint whoever is needed, that he will not interfere with the direction. If he means that then let him amend the legislation — or better still, withdraw it.

I realize that my colleague from Victoria is taking an open-minded approach. He's very hopeful that that minister doesn't really mean it; that he will change his direction and make those amendments. I'm not so hopeful, Mr. Speaker. I think what we're seeing here is a Vander Zalmism — a Zalmism. There's an old saying that there is more than one way to skin a cat. They found that Zalmism didn't work, so

[ Page 5553 ]

now we're having Ritchieism. If you can't do something directly, you do it indirectly. This is what this bill is all about.

Mr. Speaker, I have some comments to make about Thetis Island, the one Gulf Island that is in my constituency. It is now very close to 6 o'clock, and I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.