[ Page 5555 ]

CONTENTS

An Act To Amend The Medical Practitioners Act (Bill M204). Mr. Cocke.

Introduction and first reading –– 5555

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

Mrs. Wallace –– 5555

Mr. Lea –– 5557

Mr. Skelly –– 5559

On the amendment

Mr. Skelly –– 5561

Mr. Lockstead –– 5561

Mr. Cocke –– 5562

Ms. Brown –– 5564

THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 1985

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MEDICAL
PRACTITIONERS ACT

Mr. Cocke presented Bill M204, An Act to Amend the Medical Practitioners Act.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the intent of this bill is to extend the exceptions to the Medical Practitioners Act. The Medical Practitioners Act now accepts chiropractors and others from their jurisdiction; this bill would amend it further to accept persons practising acupuncture in this province.

The acupuncture people have formed an association, have excellent discipline and are maturing to the extent that they should be recognized at this time. Furthermore, it is a procedure that has been carried on with great success for some 3,000 to 4,000 years, not only in the Orient but in Europe and a great many states in the United States, and in other jurisdictions in this country. I think B.C. has now come to the point where it should also recognize the practice of acupuncture as a legal procedure in this province.

Bill M204 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.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 30.

ISLANDS TRUST AMENDMENT ACT

(continued)

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, when I adjourned debate on Tuesday I indicated that I wanted to talk a bit about what had happened on Thetis Island, an island in my constituency that is under the Islands Trust.

What we had happening there is a perfect example of cooperation, a partnership: local government, the Islands Trust, long-time year-round residents and people who want to have summer homes there sitting down to work out a solution acceptable to all people concerned. They avoided the small acreage, the overpopulation, the desecration of that unique area, and they did it by using consultants, people who are knowledgeable about environmental concerns, water supply and sewage. They came up with a solution that was equitable and satisfactory to the people immediately concerned. Mind you, it wasn't that satisfactory to the people who wanted to desecrate that island; but they were not able to carry that out because of the good statistical documentation that the Islands Trust and the municipality were able to put together to support what they, the people concerned, wanted to have happen on Thetis Island.

There's a great deal of mumbling going on, Mr. Speaker, and I'm having some difficulty in getting the attention of the minister, in fact.

You know, what happened on Thetis Island was that the developers concerned were overridden in their bid to destroy that island. The minister told us yesterday that he had no developer friends. Perhaps times have changed since 1979; I'm not sure. Certainly he appeared to have developer friends at that time.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I rise under standing order 43, irrelevance in debate. This is Bill 30: "The minister may assign employees of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to assist the trust in carrying out its duties under this Act." The member is talking about Meares Island, which has nothing to do with this building. She is not sticking to the bill.

[10:15]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I know that this member, during her debate the other day and today, is hedging around and leaving innuendo, which I take exception to. Mr. Speaker, if this member or any other member on that side of the House wish to make such statements outside of this chamber, then I invite them to do so. Otherwise, clean up your act, get out of the gutter and speak to the bill. But if you have any innuendo, make it out in the corridor, and I'll be there to meet you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. A point of order was raised by the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound regarding relevance. The minister then took exception to some remarks. Unfortunately the Chair was not aware of the entire content of the member's earlier remarks. I would ask the member now to bear in mind the various points of orders that were made. The member may wish now to continue, or do we have a further point or order?

MR. MITCHELL: Yes, on a point of order, my colleague to my left here made a statement that the member for Cowichan-Malahat referred to Meares Island. I'm sitting right beside her, and I know that she never mentioned Meares Island. I would like the member to withdraw that statement, because Meares Island was never mentioned. It is Thetis Island we're talking about,

MR. REID: I heard her.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I'm sure we have all had a chance to review matters which may have taken place. In light of those various observations which have been made, I would ask the member to continue in her address.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, one thing, Mr. Speaker, I obviously have not only your attention but the attention of the House now, which was something I didn't have before.

I agree with my colleague here that I have made no mention of Meares Island. I'm talking about Thetis Island, which is in my constituency and part of the Islands Trust. I was talking about the fact that through cooperation with the local government and the Islands Trust, and with the use of employees of Islands Trust, who were knowledgeable about the issues involved, we have been able to work out a satisfactory and acceptable community plan that suited the needs of all the people involved there. It did not suit the needs of the developers. Without that kind of expertise that was available to us we very likely would not have been able to win that battle. The minister again is very super-sensitive. He didn't hear what I said, and yet he's up saying that I'm making innuendos. The remark I made was that he said the other day he had no developer friends, which may be true, but if it's true

[ Page 5556 ]

the case has changed since 1979. Now that was the only remark I made, and if that's an innuendo, I think the minister is super-sensitive.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I want to very clearly state to that member that indeed she is making an innuendo. She is attempting to go back. I suggest that if she or any other member of the House wishes to do that, I welcome them to do it outside of the protection of this House, and I'll meet them there to do so.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please, hon. member. Hon. members, a point of order must be a point of order, and if a person wishes to reply to a statement by another member in the concluding remarks, he or she may so do at that time. But we cannot interrupt members who are speaking for anything other than a real point of order.

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I really need protection from that member. I've had a lot of dealings with that member. And you know, when you've been the chairman of the Turkey Board, it's pretty hard to fly with the eagles.

The Islands Trust does fly with the eagles. That's what the Islands Trust is all about, and that minister fails to recognize that. That minister is attempting to hamstring the trustees. He's attempting to do that for reasons which shall remain nameless. I don't know what they are. I have my suspicions about what they are, but suspicions are not evidence, and I don't intend to go into that. But there are some strange things that have happened relative to the staff of Islands Trust, while those trustees had the rights and the powers to hire their own staff — without this legislation.

What we had was the case of the Islands Trust requiring a manager. What does a manager do for the Islands Trust? This is an employee who will no longer be hired by the Trust. This manager will be hired by that minister. But they needed a manager, so they went to the minister and said: "We need a manager. We need to institute a search for a manager."

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, the minister assigned one of his staff to help them search out a manager. And they searched out a manager. They had a contest. They went through all the rules and regulations. They hired a manager. The minister indicated that he didn't want them to do this. But at this point they looked at the legislation, and they said: "We have every right to do this. We need a manager. We need an administrative officer. We need someone to liaise with government agencies. We need an advocate — independent, at arm's length from government."

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Do his ministry officials operate without his knowledge? Is he that irresponsible, and incapable of running his own ministry, that he has people out taking part in these kinds of things without his being aware of it? I doubt that, Mr. Speaker. I think that the people who act.... If, as the minister, he doesn't know, he is still responsible. What occurred is that one of his ministry people worked with the Islands Trust to find this manager.

What I'm saying to you is the importance of having this independent, arm's-length manager in position, doing his job. He has to supervise the 13 local trust committees and 13 area planning committees; he has to attend four annual meetings arranged for this. He is the chief executive officer of the Islands Trust council. He has to liaise with clubs and citizens' groups — a two-way exchange, the very thing I talked about occurring at Thetis. Yet when the Islands Trust, which under the legislation had — still has until this bill is passed — the power to appoint those people, and use that power....

Do you know what that minister did, Mr. Speaker? He refused to authorize payment for that manager, until the trust went to the A-G's department and got a legal interpretation which indicated that he was required to do that. That's what this bill is all about. He didn't want that manager there. He didn't want them to appoint someone who would carry out those duties and responsibilities in the best interests of the Islands Trust.

Why not? Exactly for the reasons that I indicated before. He wants to destroy the effectiveness of the Islands Trust. He wants to destroy their ability to regulate and control reasonable and acceptable development in that unique area. He wants to be able to make the decisions. He wants to decide where the logging will take place, where the industry will go, where the housing developments go and how dense they will be. And why? Well, he says he has no developer friends.

This is a most unfortunate bill we are talking about today. I have respect for a minister who stands up for what he believes in, even though I don't agree with him. Certainly if there was one minister in this House whom I differed with on nearly every occasion, it was Mr. Vander Zalm. But at least you knew where you were at with Mr. Vander Zalm. When he was going to get rid of the Islands Trust, he wasn't afraid to say so. He came right up front with it: abolish the Islands Trust. Mind you, he slipped it into a miscellaneous statute. But it was there for all to see — straightforward. Everybody knew what it meant. When you write it down — abolish the Islands Trust — you know what you're going to do: you're going to abolish the Islands Trust. But what this minister is doing is a devious practice; it's a devious route. What it's doing is telling the public that this is a mere housekeeping bill: "We're going to hire the staff." What it's really doing is putting the control of those Gulf Islands in the hands of that minister, who can do as he likes if he controls that staff. It's a powerful tool, and he's doing it under false pretences. He's doing it in a devious way. He thinks that if he can sneak it in this way the people who are concerned will not recognize it for what it is. He'll be able to get it in there, and that's the thin edge of the wedge; then away we go, bit by bit, and that's the end of the Islands Trust. He can decide who will be the employees there. He can decide what they will do and what they won't do.

That is devious. It's typical of this minister's approach to problems. He's not upfront like his predecessor. He's not prepared to stand up and say: "Yes, this is the first step. This is what I want to do. I want to be sure that people who want to chop up those islands into little pieces and sell them...." You know, waterfront property is like gold in this province. That's exactly the direction in which that minister is heading. I don't believe he's changed very much in the years he's been here. If he has changed, it's probably been for the worse and not the better. I believe he is still interested in breaking up not only agricultural land reserves but the Islands Trust.

[10:30]

Interjections.

[ Page 5557 ]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Say it outside where you don't have the protection of the House. I'll sue you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. minister will come to order — now.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'm surely not going to accuse the minister of having friends. I don't want to get sued.

But really, I think we're losing what should be the discussion around this legislation. In second reading, which we are in, we in this Legislature are to discuss the principle of a bill; we're to discuss the philosophy of the bill, if you like. I remember one time having a story told to me about the former premier, W.A.C. Bennett. When he introduced a piece of legislation he stood up and said: "The principle of this bill is, are you for it or are you against it?" That seems to be the kind of legislation that we're looking at here.

The real question that we have to face in this Legislature is the principle of Bill 30. It seems to me that the principle is clear and has been stated in the minister's own words when he introduced the legislation. I quote a small part from the Hansard Blues.

"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 is with this in mind that we wish to bring in and have passed this legislation that will clean up this matter."

So the minister has stated rather clearly that the reason for this legislation is that the ministry wants to have the legal power to appoint staff, dismiss staff, and pay the staff. At the same time the minister insists that he really wants to leave the autonomy of how to deal with staff up to the Islands Trust. Mr. Speaker, that is an impossibility. In my experience, when someone hires me, pays me and has the power to fire me, that's who I answer to — nobody else. To think otherwise would be silly. It wouldn't make sense.

Let's look at how this bill came into being. The minister gets angry with the member for Cowichan-Malahat if she mentions that he may have a developer friend — not that he does; he may have. He denies having any friends who are developers. That's probably true if he denies it. But what he is also saying in that statement is that he had no brief, he had no lobbying from developers to bring this legislation in.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: That's right; I didn't.

MR. LEA: I believe him. He says he did not and I believe him. The Islands Trust say that they didn't ask for the legislation. Does the minister also agree with that? He agrees with that. Will the minister also agree that no one lobbied him to bring in this legislation? The minister says no one. I'd like to have one more indication from the minister: did he have a lobbying or a request from his own staff to bring this legislation in?

Mr. Speaker, if I could get the minister's attention for a moment, did the minister get a request from his own staff that this legislation would be appropriate?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I respond in my closing remarks....

MR. LEA: Just nod your head. Did you have the staff come to you or did you go to the staff?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Question period will come at two o'clock.

MR. LEA: We can't ask questions at two o'clock on this legislation, because it's before the House, but I'd like you to answer it. I suspect maybe he did have a lobbying from his senior staff, either one way or the other. The minister said he had no outside influence; nobody came to him and wanted the bill or wanted the change. So it either had to come from the minister to the staff or from the staff to the minister.

MS. SANFORD: Maybe it was from the Premier to the minister.

MR. LEA: I don't think it was from the Premier to the minister, Madam Member. It could have been, but I doubt it.

I really believe that the principle of this bill is whether you're going to have local decision-making or centralized decision-making. That's the principle. It would be a very simple matter if the minister would take his place in this debate and say: "I am for centralized decision-making. I am not disposed to having consultation with people before I make up my mind, either." That would be the minister's right. He could also stand up and say: "Well, I'm afraid when you leave it in the hands of local people, they might make a mistake." Yes, they might, but isn't that what local autonomy is all about — you make the decisions that are going to affect you immediately and personally, and you take responsibility for them? Isn't that what local autonomy is all about, Mr. Speaker?

Are there going to be mistakes made? Of course there are. If you centralize it there are going to be mistakes made. But what these people are asking for in the Gulf Islands is the right to make their own mistakes, if there are going to be mistakes made. They have to live with the consequence of those decisions. They're the people who live there. They're the people who have the responsibility, because they are the residents of the Gulf Islands. When the whole world is going the other way, when the whole world is saying: "Bureaucracy and centralized decision-making isn't working. We have to take a look at smaller units, whether it's in the economy or in supplying government services...." Everybody I know says: "We've tried the centralized bureaucracy way, and we'd like to have a change. We would like to be participants in the decision-making process."

What happened with this bill coming into the House? There is a litany of lack of consultation with the people who are going to be affected, or their representatives. On March 15 the Islands Trust wrote asking for a meeting with the minister to discuss the legislation. There was no reply. On March 25 they wrote again suggesting some alternatives. Again there was no reply. "On March 26 I wrote again" — this is from the Islands Trust — "outlining in detail three options to amend the existing section 13(l) of the existing act to bring it into line with what the minister may find acceptable." There's no reply yet on record. On March 28 they wrote again asking for a meeting — no reply.

Mr. Speaker, is democracy just every three or four years when we go to the voting booth, or is democracy an ongoing

[ Page 5558 ]

process? Do people and their representatives have the right to consult with their government before decisions are made? Does the government have a duty to consult with citizens before they're going to make decisions that affect the lives of so many people? They do have that duty.

We are faced here with an ongoing problem. It's not just in municipal affairs; it's also in education, where we have the centre of the bureaucracy with the ear of the minister and the ear of government. I'm afraid that within those bureaucracies in Victoria there are a few people.... We have 400 in education or 400 in municipal affairs; probably about 10 percent of them have the ear of the minister — maybe 40. They are people at the very senior levels of the bureaucracy who aren't evil people but who want, after a period of time, to have control of everything that they feel is in their field. They have the ear of the minister.

I've been a minister. They sneak up to you and they say: "You know, Mr. Minister, you're the best minister we ever had." You say: "Gee, williky, are you sure? Thank you very much. What was that request again?" "Let's take away the autonomy of the Islands Trust." "Right." Then when they get the legislation in the House they say: "Well, my pride won't let me change it. I won't listen to the opposition. I won't listen to members of my own caucus in the secrecy of a caucus meeting." I know that there have been members of the Social Credit side of the House who have privately said to the minister: "What are you doing? Why are you doing it? What have you got to gain? Nobody's asked you for it and you're doing it." Probably the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has had his own private little meeting with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and said: "You're killing me on the Gulf Islands. I'm not going to get any votes next time." Nor will somebody else if the Minister of Finance isn't the candidate. "Take it away." But the minister is adamant. He wants this legislation. He wants it because he does not want the people of the Gulf Islands, apparently, to make decisions on those matters that are only going to affect them.

The Islands Trust, elected by the people of the Gulf Islands, is not going to make decisions that affect people on the Queen Charlotte Islands. They're not going to make decisions that will affect people in Victoria, Vancouver, Dawson Creek, or Cranbrook — only decisions that affect their lives and their future. Those are the only decisions that they want to make, and if they're going to carry out those decisions, they have to have the right and the obligation to hire the people who are going to carry out those decisions.

I found out one thing when I was a cabinet minister: if you gave your staff an order that they liked, it was the most efficient organization you could ever find in your life. It was done just like that. Give them an order they didn't like, and you would be in a memo war like you had never seen before in your life. They could stall it, they could write back for clarification 20 times on one point, and decisions that had been taken by government did not get carried out. If the Islands Trust does not have the power to hire, to direct and to fire the staff, then that staff will not be responsive to them. In fact, the staff will be responsive to the people who pay them their cheque, hire them and fire them. It's not very complicated. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that's how you would act. I would suggest that's how any one of us would act: when someone has hired us, they're paying us, and they have the right to fire us; that's where we're going to go and get our instructions. You can't assign somebody to somebody else and say: "Okay, work for them, but they don't have any power. They can't tell you what to do; they can't hire you, fire you or do any of those things." It just doesn't work.

Mr. Speaker, what I would like the minister to do.... When we get into the next stage in this bill, I'm sure some amendments are going to be coming forward. I would like the minister to seriously take a look at the amendments and to consider whether or not the government is big enough to accept amendments that would make this piece of legislation more acceptable to the citizens whom it's going to affect. Once and for all, let this government say publicly, one way or the other: are they for local decision-making or are they against it?

I don't believe, Mr. Speaker, that in their heart of hearts they are against it. I find that hard to believe. I cannot bring myself to believe that any member of this Legislature is really out to take the decision-making away from local people. But in effect that's what this bill does. Is that what the government wants? It is the effect of the bill whether or not that's what the government wants.

One of the things that we don't seem to have in this House.... This should be the time that we exchange ideas. This is the time, in the exchange of those ideas, that all 57 of us who represent the people of this province should try to arrive at a consensus. Not that one side wins and one side loses, but we should always be striving for a consensus. Because if in this House we can reach that consensus, then I think probably the decisions coming out of this House would be decisions that most people in this province could live with, would be glad of. But it doesn't happen. It's one side wins, one side loses. It's not seen as a win-win situation, it's seen as a win-lose situation. Mr. Speaker, the only losers in that situation are the people of this province, and in this case the people who live on the Gulf Islands and the people who have been elected to represent those people and their trustees of the Islands Trust.

[10:45]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

All we can do, the only power we have as private members in this House in dealing with government, is to use arguments of reason, arguments of logic and sometimes arguments of emotion. It is the private member's duty to make such arguments. It is the duty of the government to listen to those arguments. If they hear something that strikes a chord, if they hear an idea or an argument from a private member, it is the duty of the government to make the necessary changes to then bring the legislation in line with their own conscience.

We could take all day, all night, all week, all month or all year, but if the government isn't prepared to listen and to change their minds once in a while, then we on this side of the House — all private members — are speaking for nothing. If that's the case, Mr. Speaker, then I think that the people of this province should know that it's a win-lose situation.

Now it could be just this: there may be more citizens of this province who are for centralization than opposed. That's fine. All the Social Credit government has to do is stand up and say: "It is the policy of our government that wherever possible, for efficiency's sake, we will centralize the decision-making process." That's clear enough. Then the people who believe in that can vote with good conscience for Social Credit. There's nothing wrong with that; there's nothing evil in having that idea. There's nothing wrong in saying to the people: "This is what we believe. Do you? Vote for us if you

[ Page 5559 ]

believe what we believe." That's an idea, and that's what politics is all about. But the people in this province should know what the various political parties have in mind for them, should they become elected.

MRS. JOHNSTON: True.

MR. LEA: "That's what they should know, true," says the member for Surrey. It is true. I ask the member for Surrey whether the people in her constituency voted for a centralized decision-making process or for decentralization? What did that member tell them, previous to election day? What does she still tell them?

MRS. JOHNSTON: Are you on the Municipal Affairs bill?

MR. LEA: Yes, I am on the Municipal Affairs bill, and as private members we are all going to have to vote on it. And the question that we have to face is: are we going to take away autonomy from the Islands Trust? Are we going to take away from the Islands Trust the authority to make some decisions they are making now? It's as simple as that. If you think we should, vote for the bill; if you think we shouldn't, vote against the bill. That's the duty of a private member.

I think everyone in this House — all 57 members — knows the issue, and we're all going to vote according to our conscience, I hope. But if we do — if we all vote in this House according to our own conscience — I'm sure this bill will fail. Which brings us to the biggest problem in this Legislature: people are so trained to vote party, regardless of their own conscience and their own integrity, that it can become a sham. If the private members, including the Social Credit members, in this House were to take courage and were to vote with conscience and integrity, this legislation would not pass; in fact, many of the pieces of legislation that come into this House would not pass if we were to treat Parliament as private members, the way history shows us we should. You vote with conscience and with integrity, and you don't always vote party line.

Mr. Speaker, I find it impossible to believe that there isn't one Social Credit back-bencher who isn't, in their heart and in their conscience, against this bill. It will remain to be seen whether one of them has the courage to vote against the party system and to vote against the government that happens to be of the same political party that they are. But until that starts happening, democracy in this province is a sham, and we will continue to see more centralizing legislation come through. We will continue to see more power taken away — not only from the people in regional, municipal and school governments but from this Legislature — and put in the hands of the cabinet. We will continue to see that, until some of the private members on the government's side find the courage to do what the electors sent them here to do — that is, to represent their own conscience and not vote party all the time.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, may I ask leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, in our gallery today we have 64 grade 9 and 10 students. Mr. Hazelton, the teacher from West Whalley Junior Secondary School in Surrey, is accompanying them. We also have visiting students from Horizon Jeunesse Polyvalente School in Laval, Quebec. I would ask the House to please welcome them.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to take part in second reading debate on this amendment. It's unfortunate, however, that the amendment is on the floor at all, and unfortunate in the way that it came to the Legislature in the first place: without a legitimate process of consultation with the people who are involved and the people who will be affected by this bill. If that process of consultation had taken place, I am sure the minister and the people in the Islands Trust could have reached some kind of solution that would have been acceptable to both sides. Unfortunately, we're again dealing in this House with a piece of legislation that forces a decision, made in the back rooms of government, down the throats of people living on the islands offshore the coast of British Columbia. I think this type of legislation is totally unacceptable.

When we passed the Islands Trust legislation in the first place, virtually every citizen in British Columbia, every citizen who lived in those islands or had an interest in those islands, recognized that those islands are unique and that some special legislation and form of administration should be developed which applies to those islands as a unique asset to the province. It's not the first time such legislation has been passed, as you well know, Mr. Speaker. The province and the national government have in many cases recognized that there is an interest in certain lands, and in land use in those areas, that goes beyond the people living in those areas and beyond the current generation. The national government sets aside national parks, recognizing that there's a national interest in those lands and in the way those lands are used, and also an interest that goes well into the future, beyond the current generation. If you visit Pacific Rim National Park, you'll see at the entrance a sign that says: "This area is a living museum to protect the characteristics of this unique west coast area for citizens living today and for citizens who may live beyond our time."

By establishing a trust in that way, we recognize there's an interest that goes far beyond the people living in that area, far beyond the people in this province, and far beyond the people who are living here and now. We do the same thing with provincial parks and forests. We recognize that certain areas of land are so important for the forest industry, so important to the economy and the people of this province, that jurisdiction is taken away from local citizens, and the interests of the province and the forest industry in those lands become paramount. It's because they are so important to the people of this province for their economic value to the forest industry. For that reason, we set aside things like provincial forests or tree-farm licences so that the interests of the people in the province as a whole are represented in those lands.

We did the same thing with the agricultural land reserve when the New Democratic Party was in government. We recognized that if the jurisdiction over agricultural land was left with local municipalities, or left with the small regions in which those agricultural lands were located, the provincial interest, or the interest of future generations, wasn't adequately represented. So we set up an agricultural land reserve that recognized the importance those lands had for all citizens of the province, and that recognized that all citizens of the province should be involved in decision-making with respect to those lands. Also, the government would be involved in the decision-making with respect to those lands because of

[ Page 5560 ]

the interests of future generations in those critical land areas. The government should be representing all the citizens of British Columbia and the interests of future generations. I'm not sure that this government adequately does that at all.

The Islands Trust, when it was established, was a unique attempt to identify a number of interests in those islands offshore in British Columbia, especially in specific islands that were included in the Islands Trust. We tried to set up a system that recognized the interests of the people in the area: how they wanted to see their communities developed in ways that may be unique from one island to the other. We also wanted to see the interests of all the islands as a whole included in this legislation that set up the Islands Trust, so we established that broader interest in the legislation as well. But one of the things we wanted to see preserved in that administration of the Islands Trust was the provincial interest and the interest of future generations as a whole in this province. So it was a unique piece of legislation.

In order for that legislation to work, it had to be based on trust: trust between the government and the citizens on those islands; trust between the elected representatives of those citizens and the elected representatives who sit in this Legislature. That trust involves a level of consultation, negotiation and compromise if it's going to be successful, if it's going to work at all, if all those interests are going to be represented adequately in the unique way that they were supposed to be when this legislation was drafted and presented and debated in the House in the first place. I think it's unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that we're even dealing with this legislation in the House today. It's essentially a power grab by the government. Instead of leaving in the legislation that unique balance of interests, which can only work if people trust each other and are willing to work and to consult with each other, this government, by this power grab, is again seizing control over those islands that are located in the Islands Trust. All of the power to control development and to administer land use on those Gulf Islands is again centralized in Victoria under the authority of the Minister of Municipal Affairs,

It's a shame that we are dealing with this legislation in the House today. It represents nothing more than a power grab by the Social Credit government of the legitimate interests of the people who live in the Gulf Islands, and it's an insult to those people whose interests are represented in the Islands Trust legislation. That legislation now becomes a mockery, and a mockery of the people on the Gulf Islands.

[11:00]

Mr. Speaker, this government has talked about cooperation. They've talked about partnership, about working together with people in the various communities of the province in order to encourage economic development and to restore the economy of the province, which they're mostly responsible for destroying in the first place. We recognize and endorse the government's change of heart or change of mind, if they really intend to do it. If they really intend to get involved in partnerships and cooperation, if they really intend to reduce the level of confrontation in this province, then we in the official opposition — and people all over British Columbia— accept that. We welcome and endorse that.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation flies in the face of the government's own statements with respect to cooperation. This is a seizure of power from the people in the islands represented in the Islands Trust. It's a blatant seizure by the government of powers that had been delegated by a previous government and enjoyed by the citizens of the Gulf Islands over the last several years. It is a blatant seizure of power, no more and no less.

What happens next? What happens if a school district decides that they don't want to go the way the government is going? What happens if a school district says to the Minister of Education: "Look, can't we sit down together and work out a program whereby the quality of education can be preserved in our school district?" Is the Minister of Education going to do what the Minister of Municipal Affairs is doing with the Islands Trust and say: "I'm going to seize the right to hire and fire your staff. In the future they're going to be working for me rather than for the duly elected representatives in that school district"? Is this the first in a line of power grabs that are going to take place around this province?

HON. MR. HEWITT: You don't even believe what you're talking about.

MR. SKELLY: I certainly don't believe the stuff I hear from you, Mr. Minister.

If the government doesn't like what the duly elected council of a municipality established under legislation in this province is doing, if they don't like the kind of budgets they're proposing or the kind of work they're doing within that municipality, is that Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is setting a precedent under this legislation, going to turn around and say: "I am going to seize from you the power to hire and fire your staff"? That's the kind of precedent that's being set with this legislation. The government is seizing back a power that has been legitimately delegated to the duly elected representatives in the Islands Trust. The staff working for the Islands Trust will no longer be responsible to the duly elected members of the Islands Trust; they're going to be responsible to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who has the right to hire and fire those staff people. Some of them may work for him, in any case, in other capacities.

Mr. Speaker, this is dangerous legislation, for a number of reasons. The first is that it represents a power grab from a duly elected body. The minister, if he were honest and straight up, would simply say to the Islands Trust: "We're getting rid of you entirely." Instead, he's going in the back door, turning the situation around and saying: "I'm not going to get rid of you; I'm going to leave you there as eunuchs, incompetent to do the job you've been assigned to do under the legislation. I'm going to take control of your staff and I will actually be the Islands Trust. You're finished. All you are is figureheads." If the minister were honest he would simply repeal the Islands Trust legislation and set this province back more than a decade.

There is an opportunity here for consultation and compromise. Our understanding is that the Islands Trust representatives have been in touch with the minister. They've attempted to talk with the minister and discuss the situation with respect to staff, land use and economic development. We understand that the Islands Trust representatives recognize their responsibility for the people on the Gulf Islands. They recognize the responsibility that has been granted them under the Islands Trust legislation. They're willing to work with the minister to exercise the responsibilities that they have. They recognize that the government has tremendous control over what the Islands Trust does in any case. That control is granted to the government in the original Islands Trust legislation because, of course, the government must represent the interests of the citizens of the province as a

[ Page 5561 ]

whole, and the interests of future generations. But they are willing to work with the minister, to consult with the minister and to compromise when the minister makes demands of them in the provincial interest.

I think the minister should withdraw this legislation and give the Islands Trust an opportunity to meet with him and work out a solution. We shouldn't be here in the Legislature today attempting to ram the minister's solution, developed without consultation, down the throats of the people who live on those islands, and down the throats of the people who live in this province. There is an opportunity here for the minister to live up to his statements that he believes in cooperation, that he believes in consultation, that he believes in partnership. There is an opportunity here for the minister to affirm those principles, if he really believes in them.

Mr. Speaker, I want to give the minister an opportunity to reconsider this legislation. I want to move a reasoned amendment, that the motion be amended to read from the word "that" to the end: "The government, through its failure to consult with the local representatives, has created a situation respecting the Islands Trust area which is contrary to the principles of cooperation, self-government and local autonomy." I've discussed this amendment with the Clerks and with the Speaker, so I'm sure it would be in order.

On the amendment.

MR. SKELLY: The reason we presented this amendment during debate on the principle of this bill is to indicate what this bill really represents to the citizens of this province, the members of this House and the representatives of the Islands Trust. It represents a power grab by the government over the delegated responsibilities of the Islands Trust. It really represents an end to the Islands Trust's autonomy in those areas where it had autonomy. We would ask the minister to reconsider, to meet with the representatives of the Islands Trust and work out a compromise with respect to the hiring, assignment and appointment of staff. We think that compromise is available. We resent the government's unilateral attempt to grab power from the Islands Trust without any consultation at all. We hope that the minister is prepared to reconsider. We would also hope that the minister is prepared to reconsider in the light of statements made in the throne speech and the budget speech that this government claims to believe in cooperation, consultation and partnership. Now the minister has an opportunity to affirm those claims — either to affirm them or put them to rest forever. We're giving the minister an opportunity to do that in this amendment to the debate.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I fully support this amendment, and will be voting for it in due course — based simply, I guess, on the speech the leader of the opposition has just made. I don't want to repeat that speech. There's a very important principle involved here. That is the principle of duly elected members having the right to make decisions governing their areas of responsibility, whether they be a municipal council, a school board, a regional district, a hospital board or the Islands Trust, or whatever. Duly elected people have the right to make their own decisions. In this case of the Islands Trust, that particular body has directors who have been duly elected, and they have, generally speaking, made excellent decisions on the islands that they govern and control and that fall under their responsibility.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, many islands have been saved by the Islands Trust. Let me give you an example of what can happen. Prior to the Trust coming into being in 1974.... There is an island off Powell River called Savary Island. There are some 22 voters, I believe, on the voters' list for that island. But in the summertime that island has up to approximately 300 residents. Approximately 55 or 60 years ago that island was butchered — cut up — into 50-foot lots, generally; some lots are 100 to 200 feet long. Practically the whole island was ruined, cut up into lots, with uncontrolled development.

There is a great lack of water on the island. Some five or six years ago a group of speculators went to Alberta — to Calgary and Edmonton — and were selling lots, sight unseen, advertised as "waterfront lots on a beautiful Gulf Island," which Savary is. They were selling these lots sight unseen — 50 feet wide, perhaps 100 feet long, waterfront. And they weren't lying; they were waterfront lots. The only problem was that it was 300 feet down to the water — straight down — for starters. Besides which, there was no drinking water.

Well, when the committee that eventually set up the Islands Trust went to Savary, the people on Savary decided at that point not to take part in the Islands Trust, because the damage had been done. There was a totally uncontrollable situation.

The point I'm making, Mr. Speaker, is that this is what could have happened, and started to happen, on many of the other Gulf Islands that we visited during the course.... I was not part of that committee, by the way, but I did travel with the committee while they went through my riding. As a consequence of the commission hearings, two islands, Gambier and Keats, decided to become part of the Trust and have been very happy with the workings of that committee ever since. I think it's worked well.

I might add, as I recall, that there are some 34 voters on the voters' list in my riding. Their population swells on Gambier to some 600 people during the course of the summer, people who have summer homes and enjoy.... But much of that island has been preserved. Some industry still takes place. There are booming and sorting grounds in the Gambier area. But now what the minister is effectively doing is abolishing the Trust. That's what he's doing through this legislation; that's basically what is happening. He's abolishing the Trust.

What we can expect to see in the future on islands like Gambier, Keats, Lasqueti and the other Gulf Islands will be uncontrolled development, possibly by friends of the government — possibly. I'm not saying that will happen. But there certainly will be uncontrolled development, and the orders will be coming straight out of the minister's office. That's what will happen; that's what this means.

What are the Trust people supposed to do after this legislation passes? And it will pass, because the government is very insensitive. It has been for years, but it is particularly insensitive. Many of the government members are not that familiar with the coast and what can happen to the islands on this coast.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, you're not. And they don't care, Mr. Speaker. They don't even care; they're very uncaring. They won't even get up and defend the minister's legislation in this House. They won't even get up on their feet and

[ Page 5562 ]

defend this legislation. They know very well, as a former speaker pointed out, that this is bad legislation. We can expect to see further erosion. It would not surprise me at all if the government decided to abolish or take over almost full control of municipal councils in the future. It wouldn't surprise me at all.

[11:15]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The minister shakes his head, but I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this government has effectively taken away just about all the local jurisdiction of our duly elected school boards. They are now doing the same thing, and worse, to the Islands Trust. We can expect in the future that they will take over even more and more control of municipal councils and regional boards.

It's scary legislation. It's scary, because it's just the tip of the iceberg. I would hope that some members on that side of the House will get to their feet and, for once, show a little spunk and indicate that they are going to vote for this amendment and against this legislation.

MR. COCKE: Speaking on the amendment, which the government.... If they had the sense, after listening to the debate and hearing what the people that are involved in the Islands Trust are saying, the government would accept this amendment.

What a heritage we have in those islands. It is a beautiful heritage that to some extent, particularly in recent years, has been protected — because of the Islands Trust. We stand here in this House today — if we have any conscience at all — with the fate of those islands in our hands. The fate of those islands should be vested largely in the people who inhabit those islands — the islanders.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: It is not, Mr. Member — that member who sits in his seat and makes little remarks, but cannot get up in this debate and defend this piece of legislation with any kind of definitive words that would tell us that he really believes what he's saying from his chair.

Mr. Speaker, let me give you an example of what happens when this Social Credit government gets involved in the workings of a local area. Just take a look at the First Capital City development proposition that's going on in New Westminster. They take away New Westminster's initiative by coming in and taking over the authority of that commission, and nothing happens.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's right. Mr. Almas has moved down the river. The King Neptune restaurant is long dead — floated into the sunset. That's the kind of proposition that this government has to offer when they get their hands into local jurisdictions. What we have here, in this new legislation that the minister contends does not take away the autonomy of the islands, is just that.

Why didn't the minister have guts enough to come into the House and take the Islands Trust legislation off the statute books altogether? He did in effect do that, but he did it in a way that he feels he can defend. What the minister is doing is saying to those elected officials of the Islands Trust: "You no longer have the authority to do what you're charged with doing by the legislation that was in place heretofore."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would think that the speaker is presently talking about the bill instead of the amendment. The amendment is to hoist it for a period of time, and I wish he'd bring his speech back to relevancy.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. In response to the point of order, it is not a hoist amendment that is currently before us.

Does the member for New Westminster wish to rise on the point of order or continue speaking...?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I think you've answered the question. It's a reasoned amendment for that minister with cotton wool in his head instead of his ears.

HON. MR. HEWITT: None of your amendments are reasonable.

MR. COCKE: This is a reasoned amendment. It's in order, Mr. Minister. This is an amendment that should be accepted by this Legislature here and now.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: I'll read it for those illiterates over there.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Temperate language, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'll read the amendment just so that the members understand what it says: "The government, through its failure to consult with local representatives, has created a situation respecting the Islands Trust area which is contrary to the principles of cooperation, self-government and local autonomy." That's the amendment, Mr. Speaker, and it is in order.

In fact, the bill is in no way cooperative, because it takes away local autonomy without even discussing it with the people beforehand. Remember, historically...and we don't have to go back very far, do we? The bill was introduced for second reading earlier this week — Tuesday — and that very morning Islands Trust people were here to discuss the question with the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: They called the meeting.

MR. COCKE: They called the meeting, so the minister has no further responsibility. He went to the meeting and, as he normally does, sat there.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, talk about undue haste. Having met with them only an hour or so beforehand, he comes into the Legislature and puts the bill up for second reading. Now if that doesn't mean that he's serious about going through with an unamended bill, then I would like to know what would give one that feeling.

What was the big hurry? There's all sorts of other legislation before this assembly. Lots of it could be debated without too much of a problem. This one, however, is one they want to hurry through so they can take away the Islands Trust's

[ Page 5563 ]

responsibility for doing their duty to their own particular locality.

Mr. Speaker, he didn't want to show his whole hand; otherwise he would have rescinded the original legislation. He didn't rescind the original legislation, but in fact he has done that very thing.

What we're trying to suggest here is that the amendment indicates what the government has been talking about ever since we've been back in session, since the throne speech. They've been talking about partnership — hand-in-hand we'll go into the future — and cooperation. This bill is in exact contrast to those principles. The exact opposite is being done here today, and it's infamous.

Mr. Speaker, you know, the unfortunate thing is that they're getting away with it. Nobody is listening. I think this particular issue is one of the most important issues facing this House, because it is such an important issue in high principle, but I find it very difficult to hear it being reported, either in the press, in the electronic media or anywhere else. And yet you go out there on your way home, those of you who use the ferries and those cabinet ministers who fly over to the mainland on a regular basis daily, and you look down below you or look out from the ferries and see what a marvellous heritage we have in those islands and think about the kind of development that can occur without the defence of the Islands Trust and the Islands Trust employees.

You see, the Islands Trust are a group of elected people as we are in this assembly, Mr. Speaker — but the people who run, who do the work that is called for by the assembly here, are the employees. I predict that the minister will move into municipalities, as they've moved into New Westminster already, and take away the autonomy of those municipalities. We in this party have been calling over the years for decentralization, and here we're faced with further centralization.

My memory goes back, colleagues, to the day when we were government. Yes, my memory goes back to those three years and four months of enlightened government, the only enlightened government that this province has seen. What did we have in that campaign in 1975? Remember we had seagulls floating in the Social Credit ads, and those seagulls were talking about freedom, local autonomy and decentralization. That's what the Socreds said they would do. Yet we were bringing this province toward decentralization at a speed never before thought of or seen, and they reversed it the minute they were elected. Heaven alone knows why they continued to be re-elected, other than they used the people's money to advertise their wares.

Mr. Speaker, I said this the other day, and after seeing this bill and arguing this bill in this House, I'll say again that there isn't a chance that the Socreds will be elected again in this province. Then when they're not elected, they will dissemble and go back to their original warrants.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the amendment, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what you said in....

MR. COCKE: I've never said it before in this House, but I say it now with confidence.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister will come to order, please.

MR. COCKE: We'll send that minister back to Penticton, where he belongs, so that he can be a private citizen.

Mr. Speaker, this Islands Trust should, if anything, be amended by the kinds of amendments that have been put forward by the people involved in the Islands Trust. But no, they amend the Islands Trust to give all the authority to that poor minister, who has trouble running his own ministry, let alone taking responsibility for the Islands Trust. The Islands Trust can only be protected by those people out there who are involved in decisions around the protection of those islands.

[11:30]

Mr. Speaker, the reason that they're there is because they love those islands. What would the minister say about a referendum on his bill, which some of the Islands Trust people have asked about already? He would say no, because he knows perfectly well that it would carry by three-quarters or more.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is some motive here, other than the motive of authoritarianism. Will one of those members of that cabinet or their back-bench support get up and tell us what it's all about? What they're doing makes absolutely no sense. The minister could have got up in this House and suggested right off the top, when he introduced this bill for second reading, that there was something going wrong on those islands. But, no, he didn't. He didn't suggest that at all. He said: "We want to take over their staff. We want to run things."

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Read the act, dummy. You don't understand it.

MR. COCKE: The minister is so sensitive. He jumps around and calls people unparliamentary names, and that's his only defence.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What's your parliamentary name?

MR. COCKE: Not the name that you would suspect, mister minister of all things possible, the minister from Tokyo — geisha.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What's your parliamentary name?

MR. COCKE: The member for New Westminster, not geisha.

I challenge the members of the Social Credit Party to follow their conscience....

AN HON. MEMBER: Appeal to the back bench.

MR. COCKE: There's only one person left in the back bench, and he's just leaving. We've lost the whole back bench.

MR. MACDONALD: How can you bring the government down if the back bench leaves?

MR. COCKE: That's right. It's very difficult to bring the government down. The Premier has everybody over there enslaved. At a big price.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. To the amendment.

[ Page 5564 ]

MR. COCKE: I do, however, challenge any member of the Social Credit Party who is a member of the Legislature — whether minister, parliamentary secretary or whatever — to take a look at this amendment.

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, isn't the member supposed to be speaking to the amendment, and not on parliamentary secretaries?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: He's been advised of that. Thank you.

MR. COCKE: I'm exactly speaking to the amendment. What I was doing was challenging you to read the amendment, and having read the amendment to search your conscience with respect to what the minister is doing, and then you will find that you have no alternative but to vote for this amendment. It's pure and simple. The wording of the amendment is the same kind of wording as we found in the throne speech and the budget speech. They're all about partnership, cooperation — these marvellous Social Credit ideas. That's precisely what we've put forward. We've put forward an amendment that will make this bill into what it should be: one of cooperation and partnership.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There appear to be some differences of opinion. If there are, all members will be allowed time to get up and state what their particular differences of opinion might be.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I've been here too long.

MR. COCKE: Never was anything better spoken. The minister of industry says that he's been here too long. The people of British Columbia agree. That goes for the whole works of you.

Mr. Speaker, the reason they are becoming so uncontrollable back there is that they are wrestling with their consciences. They know perfectly well that what the Minister of Municipal Affairs has done is wrong. He will destroy the heritage of the islands with this piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, he should either withdraw it or accept this amendment, and so should they all.

MS. BROWN: I am rising to speak in support of the amendment. I think that the real reason the bill was introduced in the first place was because the minister doesn't really understand or know the history of the Islands Trust. So I want to use a little bit of my time to educate the minister, if that's possible.

Prior to 1972, and the NDP becoming government — a number of years prior to that, Mr. Speaker....

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have been here all morning and would ask if I may have permission from the member who now has the floor to leave the room for a few moments. If she'd just nod her head in agreement, I would be very pleased indeed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's an interesting point of order; it doesn't really qualify.

MS. BROWN: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I will be willing to permit the minister to leave the room if he will agree to withdraw the bill.

MR. LAUK: On the same point of order, I think that all the minister has to do is raise his hand if he wants to leave the room and the speaker can nod. While he's gone, could he take the bill with him?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think we're speaking of matters that might happen in a different forum. My responsibility is only to the Legislative Assembly.

MS. BROWN: I was trying to give a little bit of historical information to the minister about the Islands Trust and how it came into being.

Even prior to 1972 and the NDP becoming government, many years prior to that, people living in the Gulf Islands.... Indeed, the Social Credit government of the day recognized that those islands were being threatened by unrestrained development. I don't know if you remember, Mr. Speaker, but the then Social Credit government introduced a ten-acre freeze on those islands as a means of protecting the very special qualities of those islands. When we became government in 1972 the Municipal Affairs Committee, under the leadership of James Lorimer, who was the minister at the time, toured the Gulf Islands. A number of the present members sitting on the government side were a part of that committee: the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). Indeed, I think the Minister of International Trade and Investment (Hon. Mr. Phillips) was also on that committee. We travelled through the islands, visited with the people who resided on those islands and talked to them, and listened to what they had to say about how the islands could best be preserved — not for the residents of those islands or even for the people who used them for vacation purposes, but really for all Canadians and not even just for British Columbians. Mr. Speaker, I was a member of that committee as well.

I think the one thing that came through on that tour we made through the islands was the concern and commitment, and the responsibility which the residents of those islands felt for the Gulf Islands area as a whole — their recognition of its uniqueness and specialness, and their determination that it shouldn't just go the way of all other development but that it should be preserved. It was really as a result of a number of the recommendations which came from the islanders themselves that the committee tabled a report in this House and the Islands Trust was formed.

I want to add that, like a number of people in this Legislature, I have done a bit of travelling and have seen other islands in other parts of the world. Indeed, I was born on an island myself. So I know just how fragile islands can be, how easy it is to destroy them and how impossible it is to restore them once they've been destroyed. I think anyone who, for example, travels to Sweden and sees what's happened to some of the islands which are part of that particular community, and looks at some of the old photographs of what those islands used to look like 50 or 150 years ago, recognizes that it really won't take very much for us to thoroughly destroy the Gulf Islands. Indeed, some of the islands as they presently exist may be on a path, almost irrevocable, from which we will be unable to protect them.

[ Page 5565 ]

The important thing that came out the committee's travels was that no government here in British Columbia, in Ottawa or indeed anywhere else understood and appreciated the fragility of those islands as much as the people who resided on those islands themselves. That is why the decision was made to leave the authority for the planning and protection of those islands in the hands of the people themselves, recognizing that, unlike so many other communities, their goal was not to develop as fast as they could, in a mad chase to have industry and commerce and everything move in and destroy the islands, but to make the islands remain as part of our heritage, as part of what makes British Columbia and Canada beautiful. Anyone who has travelled around the world and seen other islands, including the Greek islands and the islands in the Caribbean and other places.... We often hear their virtues extolled, but they cannot compare with some of the islands in the gulf.

I was particularly struck by the statement earlier by my colleague the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), when he talked about Savary. Really one of the saddest experiences that the committee had was to find that this island, which is probably the jewel of the Gulf Islands, had been so destroyed already that it couldn't benefit from being a part of the Trust. That decision was made. Savary Island is one of the most beautiful islands anywhere in the world. It just cannot be compared to other islands, it is so beautiful. Yet the fact of the matter is that because of the kind of development that the member for Mackenzie talked about, the decision was made that there wasn't any point in their being a part of the Trust. However, a number of other islands opted to be a part of the Trust. They were more unspoilt than Savary was; the feeling was that there was some hope for them.

[11:45]

I want to repeat that the important thing about the recommendations brought down by the committee, and the important thing about the decision made by this Legislature in 1974, was that the islanders themselves were best able to decide in the best interests of those islands. That is what is now being removed from them by the legislation which we are trying to amend through this reasoned amendment.

What we are saying to the minister, and what we are saying to the government, is that situation has not changed. There is absolutely nothing that this government has done today which would lead us to believe that they can preserve and take better care of the Gulf Islands than is being taken by the Trust and by the autonomy which the Trust enjoys in terms of hiring its own staff and administering those islands.

The role of the Trust is an advocacy role. It is a unique role. Once those people become members of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, they can no longer be advocates. They've changed masters and, really, instead of being accountable to the residents of the Gulf Islands and the people who have elected them and been hired by the duly elected people, they now become accountable to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and to the government. Therefore they cease to be advocates on behalf of those islands.

It is not the kind of relationship that one would expect from a government which is talking about partnership, cooperation and local decision-making. You can't have partnerships between unequals. Where power is not shared equally, partnership is not possible. As it now exists under this act, when the minister takes unto himself the power to hire and to fire, when he removes from the duly elected trust members the right to hire and fire their staff, he has created an unequal relationship between himself and the islands, and therefore partnership is not possible. It is not possible for two organizations, groups or whatever to operate as partners when one is more powerful than the other. There is always going to be the lack of trust, the fear of exploitation and the fear of advantage being taken.

That, Mr. Speaker, is why the reasoned amendment is certainly worthy of the minister's consideration. I appreciate the fact that he is sitting through the debate and that he is listening to it, because I know that the members of the Trust who met with him were unsuccessful in changing his mind. But because we live in a democracy, the Gulf Islands have a second chance. We as elected members have an opportunity to speak on their behalf and give the minister an opportunity to reconsider his legislation at this time.

In addition, I want to express my disappointment that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who is the member of the Legislature representing many of those islands, is not here in the House fighting on behalf of those islands.

MS. SANFORD: It was his idea in the first place.

MS. BROWN: There you are. He was a member of the committee, and he travelled through those islands. He listened to what the residents had to say, and the residents weren't always in agreement, but what came out of it was consensus. He listened to the consensus. He was elected by those people to come to this Legislature, to represent them and to fight on their behalf. He has been strangely silent. He has not participated in this debate. I could not allow the debate to go by without expressing my profound disappointment in the quality of representation which the Gulf Islanders, represented by that minister, are receiving. I realize that that was out of order and....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's quite unparliamentary.

MS. BROWN: Of course it was totally out of order, and I had absolutely no business making those comments.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Personal references are out of order. Will the member please withdraw.

MS. BROWN: Sure, and I stand rebuked. There's no question about it, and you are quite right.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Withdraw, please.

MS. BROWN: Yes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Please proceed on the amendment.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your bringing that to my attention, but one is so concerned that the minister should hear from everyone who cares about the islands. That's the only reason why I raise that issue, because I know that as a duly elected representative for a number of those islands his point of view would be important to the minister at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to share with the minister a little bit of history of the policy of the Trust and its mandate. I have before me the 1975 annual report, I guess it is, or a policy statement, which was submitted by the then chairperson, Hilary Brown, to the Legislature on the Trust. In the preamble of it, she stated:

[ Page 5566 ]

"Few areas in Canada offer so many benefits as a place to live, work and play as do these islands. Their quiet beauty and tranquillity, however, is now being eroded by increased traffic and land development, which is often insensitive to the special qualities of the islands landscape. In addition, development is already causing water shortages, sewage disposal problems, increased need for fire protection services, schools, hospitals, ferry transportation and other community services.

"The Islands Trust Act passed by the Legislature in 1974 requires that the Trust preserve and protect the unique amenities and environment of the islands for the benefit of the residents in the Trust area, as well as the province generally. In short, the act formally recognizes the special nature and character of the islands."

And that, Mr. Speaker, is what we are concerned is going to be lost when the Trust becomes just another cog in the machinery of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. That can't be permitted to happen. It's not just another regional district. It's not just another community. It's not just another municipality. The Gulf Islands are very special not just to British Columbia or even just to Canada.

I realize that I am repeating myself, but I think it is worth repeating. We often lose sight, as a wise person once said, of the fact that what we have in our community is not what we've inherited from our ancestors, but really what we are holding in trust for our children.

That's what the Islands Trust is. It's not an inheritance which we have to plunder and do as we will with. It isn't. It really is entrusted to us, and we have to care and nurture it and ensure that it is passed on, if it is at all possible, in a better condition and better situation than when we became aware of its existence.

That is what we're afraid will not happen if the trust becomes just another file in the filing cabinet of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. It cannot lose its uniqueness in terms of how we perceive it. If we cease to perceive it as being unique, and start to see it as just being as ordinary as everywhere else, then we will react to it as though it's as ordinary as everywhere else — and it isn't. It is at that point that we question whether in fact the uniqueness and the specialness of the Gulf Islands are best served and protected by the government of the day or by the residents of that island.

Again, I want to remind us that the uniqueness of those islands was brought to the attention of government by the residents; it wasn't the other way around. Government didn't wake up one day and say: "Aha, the Gulf Islands are unique." The islanders came to the government and said: "We've got something very special here, and it is under attack. It's in jeopardy; it's going to be destroyed unless it's protected." They were the ones who first recognized the threat to those islands and brought it to the attention of the Social Credit government of the day — not this one, the government of the father.

They were the ones who first brought it to the attention of government. They were the ones who devised and designed and came up with the ideas and the recommendations about how those islands could best be preserved and protected. I think they have proven that they operate in the best interests of the islands, and I think that they have proven their ability and their skill to continue to do this job. The government has not done so. As my colleague for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) pointed out in using other examples where the government has moved in and taken control, the situation has not benefited; in fact it has worsened as a result of that. That is the reason why we introduced this reasoned amendment and why we ask the minister to take the Social Credit second look.

That, again, is not an original idea of the NDP. It was the original Social Credit government that used to say: "The time has come to take a second look." So we are asking this new minister, who has so little understanding of the history of the Islands Trust and of the Gulf Islands, to follow in the footsteps of his political ancestors and to take a second look at this piece of legislation. There can be no harm done by taking a second look, but there can be irrevocable harm done by proceeding with this piece of legislation at this time. That is the reason why I speak in support of this amendment and ask the minister to read it, at least. It says very clearly that the failure of the government here is in its failure to consult. The local representatives called a meeting; the minister admitted that. He attended the meeting and listened to their recommendations, but he was not moved. He has decided to proceed with the debate on the floor of the House.

On this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, we are supporting the position of the local representatives. We are suggesting to the government that it call a meeting with the local representatives; that it start to consult with them; that it start to cooperate with them; that it start to treat them as though they are real partners; that it start to recognize their autonomy and their right to make decisions about a community that they have done such a good job of preserving.

[12:00]

You compare the Gulf Islands with other regions of the province in terms of development, and there is not a question that the development in the Gulf Islands has been thoughtful and carefully implemented. You don't find used car lots scattered all over the Gulf Islands. You don't find the kind of irresponsible development that you find in other parts of the province. Do you think that that occurred by accident? It didn't. It occurred by design, by the design of the residents and the locally elected representatives who, very carefully and with a great deal of respect for the islands, ensured that its development should always be in the best interests of those islands.

I notice that the Speaker is beginning to look hungry. Mr. Speaker, as a person of deep compassion for the Speaker's needs, I would like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.