[ Page 5567 ]

CONTENTS

Tabling Documents –– 5567

Oral Questions

Electoral redistribution. Mr. Macdonald –– 5567

Federal-provincial energy agreement. Mr. Lockstead –– 5568

Federal-provincial agreement, Mr. Williams –– 5568

User fees in public schools. Mr. Rose –– 5569

Provincial lottery. Mrs. Wallace –– 5569

Steve Fonyo run. Mr. MacWilliam –– 5569

Commissioner of critical industries. Mr. Stupich –– 5569

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

On the amendment

Ms. Brown –– 5570

Mr. Reynolds –– 5570

Mr. Mitchell –– 5573

Hon. Mr. Ritchie –– 5575

Mr. Stupich –– 5576

Mrs. Dailly –– 5577

Mrs. Wallace –– 5578

Ms. Sanford –– 5580

Mr. D'Arcy –– 5583

Mr. Davis –– 5584

Mr. Rose –– 5585

Mr. Nicolson –– 5587

Mr. Blencoe –– 5589

Appendix –– 5592

THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 1985

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I would like to introduce to the House two delightful individuals from Saanich and the Islands: Miss Cara Dickenson, who is 12 years of age, a grade 7 student at North Saanich Junior Secondary School, and her mother, Mrs. Leslie Dickenson. I'm pleased that her father and her husband, respectively, stayed home.

MR. KEMPF: In the members' gallery this afternoon are four guests. I'd like the House to welcome Mr. Ken Chee, Mr. Phillip Chan and Mr. Bill Thompson, who are accompanied by an old friend of mine, Mr. Jack Kelly.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, you will notice that a number of us are wearing buttons which talk about the peace walk that is going to be held on April 27. They were presented to us today by representatives of the Greater Victoria Disarmament Group. Seated in the gallery, representing that group, are Phil Esmonde and Liz Reimer. I would like the House to make them welcome and to encourage them in their work.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of the Hon. Terry Segarty, Minister of Labour, and British Columbia minister responsible for the status of women. In that capacity I wish to bring to the attention of this House the passing on Tuesday last of a very dedicated and courageous woman and human being, Manitoba's former Minister of Labour and minister responsible for the status of women, Mrs. Mary Beth Dolin. Mrs. Dolin recently resigned her portfolio in her ongoing battle with cancer, but was nevertheless able to offer a warm welcome to British Columbia's Steve Fonyo upon his arrival in Manitoba a few short weeks ago. I'm sure that all members would wish to join me and the minister in extending sympathy to Mrs. Dolin's family and to the Legislature and people of Manitoba.

MR. GABELMANN: On behalf of members of the opposition I would like to, first of all, thank the member for his comments and to say that we on this side of the House were saddened and shocked at Mary Beth's passing the other day. She was a close and dear friend of many of us on this side of the House and, as workers in Manitoba know, a dear friend to them too.

MR. STUPICH: In the galleries today is a group of six from Nanaimo — a school board representative, a teacher and some concerned parents: Jan Parsons, Ian Matthews, Julie Bower, Joy Fagan, Aileen Fletcher and Sandy Scott. They are all here as part of their campaign to express their concern about what's happening to education in the province of British Columbia.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to introduce four guests we have in the gallery from Calgary, Alberta: Mr. and Mrs. Edward Lynn — Sheila and Edward — and their two sons, Derek and Trevor. I would ask the House to give them a warm British Columbian welcome.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, among the delegations of concerned parents and teachers visiting today are, from Langley, Regula Baer, Diane and Lyle Pona, Vivienne Parkes, Karen Bolli, Scott Kerr and Wendy Johnson. Would the House please welcome these people as well.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, visiting with us in the gallery today is Alberta MLA Bob Elliott, representative for the Grande Prairie constituency that borders South Peace River. I hope the House will make him welcome,

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I understand that we have two birthdays coming up this weekend; one is the Leader of the Opposition's and one is the Premier's. I believe they are both on the same day.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Not on the same day?

MR. SKELLY: I tried to change it.

MR. LEA: Because we won't be here on their birthdays, I think we should get together and wish them a happy birthday, and at the same time remind them that that is the anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic. [Laughter.]

MR. SKELLY: The man seems to know a great deal about the Titanic, Mr. Speaker. We call him "Skipper."

Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to join me in wishing Mrs. Alexandra Skelly, whose birthday is today, many happy returns of the day. She is in the gallery with my daughter Susan and my son Robbie.

Hon. Mr. Chabot tabled answers to questions on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented the 1985 report of the auditor-general.

Oral Questions

ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION

MR. MACDONALD: On March 27 I raised the question of the Charter of Rights and the redistribution. I now ask the Attorney-General a different question. In view of the fact that Central Fraser Valley, a government-held riding, will have two members, and Coquitlam-Moody, much larger in size and with more people, will have one, does not the Attorney-General consider this to be a flagrant violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Will he ask for a constitutional opinion, or has he already done so? The subject won't go away, Mr. Attorney-General.

MR. SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order.

HON. MR. SMITH: I sometimes wish the questioner would, not the subject.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did seek a constitutional opinion on the validity of redistribution changes, and they received a clean bill of health.

[2:15]

[ Page 5568 ]

MR. MACDONALD: A brief supplementary. Who gave you this egregious opinion, Mr. Attorney-General?

HON. MR. SMITH: A conscientious public servant in the constitutional administrative law branch of the Ministry of the Attorney-General.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL ENERGY AGREEMENT

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources relating to the new federal-provincial energy agreement. According to the federal Energy ministry, this package is worth $1.3 billion to oil and gas companies this year, escalating to $2.5 billion by the end of 1987. What portion of this windfall of revenues will go to companies in British Columbia, and what guarantees does the minister have that any part of this windfall will be invested to create new jobs in British Columbia?

HON. MR. ROGERS: It's very difficult to say, because you didn't qualify which are British Columbia companies. Most companies involved in oil and gas are Canadian companies, some of which are located in British Columbia and some of which are located in the neighbouring province of Alberta, almost none of which...

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, I won't say it, because we had something about your head the other day, if you want to talk about nits.

...are located in Toronto. We don't know, quite frankly. We'd have to figure out what percentage of each company's assets are in British Columbia to answer the first part of your question. If you'd like that information, I'll try to get it for you.

Secondly, there is a federal government monitoring agency in place which both the federal minister and the three provincial ministers have agreed will be the agency to ensure that the funds that are now going to finally go to their rightful owners will be reinvested in the appropriate areas.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I thank the minister for his answer and his offer of supplying me with information.

On a supplementary. Did the minister seek any assurance from the federal government that it will not attempt to recapture revenues lost through the elimination of the petroleum gas royalty tax through increased taxes on the pump? In other words, are we all going to be hosed at the pump?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, if you would switch your car to natural gas, then you wouldn't have to worry about that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: In your constituency, Mr. Member, very soon.

Mr. Speaker, I did not ask the federal government, nor did I feel it was appropriate to ask the federal Minister of Finance in advance of his budget — nor by the way would I try to do that provincially — to predetermine what taxes, if any, he may choose to levy. However, we have the assurance of the federal government that their taxes on the energy sector will be on profit, not on a royalty basis.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: One more supplementary, Mr. Speaker. It would appear from the minister's answer then and from the speculation, which will likely become a fact, that we could face an increase of eight cents per litre at the pumps within the next two years. When you're next speaking with the federal Minister of Energy, I would like a guarantee from you, from this government and from the federal government that there will be no increase in the price of gas at the pump.

MR. SPEAKER: Future action, hon. member.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I detected a trace of a question in there. I might remind the member that the taxes are not administered or levied by the federal Minister of Energy; it is the federal Minister of Finance who will make those decisions.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AGREEMENT

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. On Tuesday the minister said that he hopes to see a federal-provincial agreement ratified by this summer. Does this, despite the television hype of two months ago and the Premier coming back from the first ministers' conference...? Can the minister assure us that there will be full funding, and that there will be jobs created under this program, in the planting season? Because it's right upon us currently.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMS: The full budget will be in use this year — is that correct?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I have no way of guaranteeing the federal response. But the provincial government has made its commitment very clear in the budget; we have committed our full $325 million over the five-year period. We've made it very clear to the federal government that on the basis of equity with the other agreements signed across Canada, including that signed with Quebec on a per capita basis, the $650 million total funding is no more than equitable with British Columbia. We're not asking the federal government to put out any more than they've done with other provinces. I've said that I have full hopes of having an agreement signed by the end of this spring, and the commitment by the province couldn't be any clearer.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, does that mean that the only commitment we have is for 50 percent action in terms of forest renewal, in view of the fact that they have not been able reach an agreement with the federal government?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We were one of the first of the provinces to sign the general development agreement, and that's for a ten-year period. It's only reasonable that the period after that involves negotiation, first of all by the former minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), and secondly by myself over the last few months. I'm confident that we will reach an agreement.

[ Page 5569 ]

We are very firm on the amount of the agreement and the components which are contained within that, and we have put our commitment forward in the only kind of way that a provincial government can: that is, we have committed it in our budget. We will continue negotiations; in fact, I've sent telexes off to the federal minister today — and to all of the members of the British Columbia Conservative caucus — reiterating the reasons for our $650 million request, and reiterating that we have included in our budget the province's share, which is all we can do. I'll be awaiting a response from the federal minister.

USER FEES IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

MR. ROSE: My question is directed to the Minister of Education. As the minister well knows, the Langley School District has been forced by the government cutbacks to impose user fees on secondary school students ranging from $35 in some instances to $85 per course. I'd like to know whether the minister is aware of the hardship that these fees place on low-income families in the district, and I'd like to ask him if he would advise the House what action he is prepared to take to ensure that public education is fair to all, regardless of ability to pay.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: A delegation from Langley arrived at my office this morning at about twenty to ten. I spent about 15 minutes with them. They left two briefs with me. I have quickly reviewed both of the briefs, and I will be looking in some detail with respect to the brief in which the costs have been set out in some detail covering what appears to be every subject offered in the district. I can make no further comment on that at all. I would like to draw some comparisons with other school districts to see what their policies are as well.

PROVINCIAL LOTTERY

MRS. WALLACE: My question relates to the new lottery, Pacific Express. Can the Provincial Secretary confirm that B.C. industries will be the suppliers of the materials required for that lottery?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Thank you for asking me a question; it's the first question I've had this session. I thought for a moment there was a conspiracy against me from that side of the House. I thought I would never get a question.

The answer is very simple. Yes, in due course the benefits will flow directly to the British Columbia printing industry.

MRS. WALLACE: Will the minister confirm — perhaps he could just nod — whether this includes promotional material?

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's my understanding that all promotional material is now put together in British Columbia.

I want to say how successful Pacific Express has been. I thought you'd never ask that question. I'm sure all the members are very interested. The Speaker is not too interested, so I'd better stop.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a small key ring: "Pacific Express." Can the minister explain why it bears the words "Hong Kong"?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The name of the lottery denotes that it's on the Pacific Rim, so I guess that's why.

STEVE FONYO RUN

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. A resident of my riding, Mr. Steve Fonyo, is expected to arrive in British Columbia very shortly. In view of the non-partisan nature of Mr. Fonyo's fund-raising effort for cancer research, has the government agreed to match private contributions to the Cancer Society in respect to Mr. Fonyo's campaign, as has been done already by the province of Alberta?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, it's an important day for the Provincial Secretary, because that should be his second question. I refer the member to the Provincial Secretary.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, then I redirect my question to the Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I was busy reading correspondence, but it's my assumption that your question was: is British Columbia going to match the funds that are raised through the public, similar to what has taken place in Alberta? If that is the question, my answer is that the issue is under active discussion by cabinet at this time.

COMMISSIONER OF CRITICAL INDUSTRIES

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Finance, the minister responsible for the critical industries commission: will the minister advise what consideration is given to the statement of Mr. Art Phillips to the effect that government should get rid of all tax gimmicks that favour a particular industry and get rid of the outright grants that go to industries that are in trouble. The trouble is that by granting incentives to one particular industry that isn't competing, you are penalizing the industries that are. What consideration was given to these known thoughts from Mr. Phillips when he was appointed?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the member would — after question period — just tell me the approximate time of that statement. Was it last month, last year or a number of years ago? In view of the fact that we have just introduced the bill with respect to the commissioner of critical industries, and it will be before us for debate later, I will take the question as notice until it is called for debate.

[2:30]

HON. MR. SMITH: May I have leave to file a letter which was referred to in my estimates in committee? It's a letter from the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) endorsing the Victoria jetfoil.

Leave granted.

[ Page 5570 ]

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I call public bills and orders. Adjourned debate of second reading on Bill 30.

ISLANDS TRUST AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

(continued)

On the amendment.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could tell me how much time is....

MR. SPEAKER: Seven minutes, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Good. Thanks very much.

In the seven minutes remaining to me, I just want to ask one question of the minister and repeat my support of the amendment, which is that because the government has failed to consult with local representatives, they have created a situation respecting the Gulf Islands Trust which is contrary to the principles of cooperation between governments and local autonomy.

For the last 15 years — 12 years, to be more accurate — the staff of the Islands Trust have been in the employ of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Their salaries have been paid by Municipal Affairs. They received all of their benefits from and as well were members of the government employees' union. Suddenly this has become a problem. I wonder whether the minister could indicate in closing this debate why, after 12 years of the staff being hired by the local representatives of the Trust, assigned their jobs by the local representatives, even though their salaries were paid by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the decision has now been made to put them under the full jurisdiction of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and to deprive the Trust of responsibility for them.

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out earlier in support of this motion, the main function of the Trust is to act as an advocate for the Gulf Islands, and to nurture and protect and develop them in a reasonable and rational and careful manner. I also added that every indication has been and is that the Trust is doing this efficiently and well, and that the residents of the Gulf Island as well as the residents of the rest of the province of British Columbia are satisfied with the job which the Trust is doing. Therefore we are a bit confused and curious about why at this time the government has decided to remove that responsibility from these people who are doing such a good job.

I also want to read into the record a press statement which was made by the chairperson of the Trust, Mr. Humphries, on March 28, when he said that the council considered the proposed amendments to the act — that's Bill 30 — to be an insidious attempt to undermine the autonomy of the Islands Trust. He said that if passed, the proposed legislation would remove the power to appoint and to manage the staff of the Islands Trust from the elected officials and would place these functions in the hands of the provincial government.

It was pointed out also that at no time was the Trust consulted about these amendments. It is this lack of consultation which the motion is addressing itself to, because this lack of consultation gives the lie to the government's commitment to partnership, in that it is not possible to make decisions involving a partner without consulting with that partner. Clearly if the government wants municipalities and regional districts and communities to be in partnership with the government, it has to treat these bodies with at least the minimum of respect which would be their due.

For the government to introduce legislation which would remove the autonomy of an organization such as the Islands Trust from it, without consultation, shows clearly a violation of the government's stated principles of cooperation, selfgovernment and local autonomy.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, when I talk about the special qualities and uniqueness of the Gulf Islands, I do that not simply as a member who is of the committee which established the Trust in the first place, but as someone who has lived on the Gulf Islands myself for a number of years, maintained and retained a residence on those islands and been a part of some of the decision-making involving the development of plans of at least one of the islands.

It's a very unique experiment which the Islands Trust represents. We have I don't know how many people living in this province — I guess at least a couple of million — of which there are 57 of us elected to sit on the floor of this House and make decisions concerning what happens to the rest of us. Despite the fact that I am one of that 57, which makes me a very special person indeed, I have less input into what happens as a direct result of my being a member of this Legislature than I have as a person who retains a residence on one of the Gulf Islands, because the decisions made by the residents of the Gulf Islands are cooperatively made. Everyone has an input into the development of the island plans and into discussing the concerns of the islands. Everyone has an input into deciding what direction development should take, how the islands should be treated and respected and how they should be protected. That's a very special kind of privilege, and it's a very special kind of experiment which has been very successful. When one compares the Gulf Islands with the rest of the province, one is forced to agree that whoever was responsible for the caring and nurturing of those islands has been doing an outstanding job. The people responsible are the duly-elected representatives who are now going to have their autonomy removed from them and placed in the hands of the government.

Every indication has been that when the government has had responsibility for anything to do with the Gulf Islands, it has failed to act. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to your attention that on a number of the islands, in the question of salt water, for example, showing up in wells — calling for action immediately from the government in terms of water development plans which the government has responsibility for — the minister has not signed any of these plans or acted on any of them. On Lasqueti in particular, I know, where there is a request to go to a different kind of system, the government, which is responsible, has refused to do so.

So when one compares the way in which the government discharges its responsibility to these islands with the way in which the Trust discharges its responsibility, one has to conclude that the Trust is superior. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I support this reasoned amendment and ask the minister to reconsider his position on this bill.

MR. REYNOLDS: I rise to speak against this amendment. I plan to speak in favour of the bill, and will when we

[ Page 5571 ]

get rid of this amendment. I found it very interesting listening to the members of the New Democratic Party speaking about the Islands Trust. I would say off the top.... The second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) talked about the trustees being dedicated, hard-working people, and I would agree with him on that. Most of the trustees working in the Islands Trust are like any other politicians: they believe in what they believe in, and they work very hard towards their ends. He also said that the islands are the most beautiful in British Columbia; I would certainly agree with that. In fact, I would agree that they are some of the most beautiful islands in the world. Like many members in this Legislature, I have been on most of them, if not all of them. I will have some things to say about that later.

Mr. Speaker, I find it rather strange listening to the members of the opposition when they talk about consultation. I listened to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Skelly) talk about consultation. Certainly he remembers, because he was in this Legislature when his government brought in the agricultural land reserve in this province. Did that party consult with the people of British Columbia when they brought that legislation in?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No way!

MR. REYNOLDS: People were having meetings all over the province, yelling and screaming about that arbitrary legislation. The minister in charge of bringing that legislation in at the time froze lands that didn't even need to be frozen. He will know, I'm sure, because.... I wouldn't make any accusations, but I can only assume, when I see the sides of hills frozen in Delta, where that minister used to be a planner, that maybe there were some politics involved in how that land was frozen. The NDP talks about consultation. Where was the consultation in that legislation?

MR. SKELLY: In every regional district in the province.

MR. REYNOLDS: Well, there never have been, even when Solidarity was playing their games a couple of years ago, the numbers to equal the numbers of people who filled halls around this province against this NDP government's agricultural land reserve. If there was one simple reason why the NDP were defeated, it was that arbitrary legislation.

Interjections.

MR. REYNOLDS: Don't they get upset when you remind them of those sad things, those unforgettable moments in British Columbia. They like to forget, but we won't let them.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, one of their members says we'd like to get rid of the land reserve. We've refined the land reserve. The land reserve has been refined and is working well in this province. We did that through consultation with citizens of British Columbia.

MR. LAUK: George Spetifore....

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, listen to the member. He gets mad at one of the greatest farming members of British Columbia. The Spetifore family is still farming in various areas of this province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Debate might be relevant to the amendment and to the bill.

MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It's very hard when they're throwing comments at you about things. It's very hard for me not to speak about such great people in this province.

Going back to the Islands Trust, let me quote the bill that this NDP introduced in 1974, to see, for those who are listening.... The NDP is talking about consultation. They're talking about how we're trying to do away with the Trust, how we're tying their hands. You've heard them talk about how we're doing that. You've heard them talk about the manager and how the minister has interfered in that area; and I want to talk more about that. But let me quote just one section of the legislation — not introduced by the Socreds, but introduced by the NDP. Section 9 of the act says, "Notwithstanding the Public Service Act, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may appoint a person as manager of the Trust," and they fixed the remuneration and other expenses to be paid to him for his services as a manager.

It shocks me when I sit here and listen to these New Democrats talk about how this government wants to tie the hands of the Trust. Section 9 of the bill that they introduced laid that rule out: the minister would appoint the manager. Isn't it strange that two years later the New Democrats think that's tying somebody's hands?

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you read the bill?

MR. REYNOLDS: I have not only read the bill, I've read the amendment. The bill is only one paragraph. I'll read it back to you in a few minutes. I'm trying to figure out what this tempest in a teapot that the New Democrats have created is all about.

Let me read another section of the bill that was introduced by the NDP in 1974. Subsection 9(4): "Notwithstanding the Public Service Act, but subject to the approval of the minister, the general trustees may engage and retain such persons as they consider necessary as consultants, experts or specialists and may fix their remuneration." This was the NDP bill on the Islands Trust, 1974.

MR. REID: They haven't read it.

MR. REYNOLDS: They haven't read their own legislation. They're up here on a tempest in a teapot, trying to accuse this government of doing nothing other than what their intent was in the legislation in the first place. I can excuse the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), because he wasn't here then. He has probably been getting the same dumb information from his researchers that they give him for question period, and that's why he doesn't know what was in the bill. I could excuse the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, if he would just get up and say: "We made mistakes in '74. We were wrong then, and we want to fight this bill on those grounds." He will never admit he was wrong or his party was wrong.

Interjections.

[ Page 5572 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. With every member contributing to silence here, the member on his feet would not have to yell.

[2:45]

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to quote, in talking to this amendment, a 1974 article from the Vancouver Sun: "Trust to Control Development of Gulf Islands.":

"The provincial government is putting the Gulf Islands under virtual rule by a trust to control their growth and development. A bill to impose such restrictions was introduced in the Legislature Wednesday by Municipal Affairs Minister James Lorimer, who charged the local governments of the islands with failing to carry out their responsibilities."

Here is this great NDP government, and they say we want to interfere. His reason at that time was that he didn't think the governments of the day were doing a good job for their people. Who was he? Did he consult all the people of the province, and did they say: "Get rid of this type of government and bring in another one"? No, Mr. Speaker. That's the kind of consultation the NDP have.

I listened to the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who talked about this government taking away the autonomy of the Islands Trust. That's not what this bill is all about, and that's why I can't vote for this amendment. This bill is a good bill for the province and a good bill for the islands. The debate in this Legislature is all politics, and I guess that's what it's all about. But I can't understand why they're so serious about it.

I can't remember which one of their members talked about the meeting that was held yesterday in the legislative buildings — a meeting called by some members of the Islands Trust — but I was invited to that meeting. I received my invitation in the mail at quarter to eleven yesterday morning and the meeting was to take place at eleven o'clock. The minister received his at approximately the same time, or maybe a little earlier that morning. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Municipal Affairs received his invitation to that meeting in the mail today.

Isn't this interesting? I phoned the Minister of Municipal Affairs and said: "I got this invitation at quarter to eleven to go to a meeting at eleven o'clock. I think we should go. We're an open government." He said: "Certainly we will." I walked up to his office and we walked down the hall to go to the meeting. My goodness, who is sitting in the chair talking at the meeting but the second member for Victoria. I wonder when he got his invitation to the meeting. I would imagine that he not only was chairing the meeting, but probably organized it and hoped we wouldn't get our invitations until today, as that other member got his, so they'd be able to say we weren't there. It's so interesting because we got there, the minister made a statement, and at the end of his statement the second member for Victoria jumped up because all the media were there and he wanted to get his little talk in the media to let those people there know that he was really concerned. When the minister finished he said he had to leave, which he did. The second member for Victoria also left the meeting, because the media left. I sat there for the next hour and talked to the people from the Islands Trust. I left there at five to twelve — twenty-five minutes late for a meeting that I had with somebody else, because I wanted to listen to their concerns, wanted to listen to their point of view. I also wanted to tell them mine.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: He left when the cameras left.

MR. REYNOLDS: Certainly. Members of the opposition leave when the cameras go. This is a political issue for them. They're trying to make some marks. It's a tempest in a teapot. I get concerned....

The NDP members talk about this bill and how it will hurt. I wonder what they've got against employees in the ministry. The second member for Victoria asked if I'd read the bill. Yes, I have. Let me read it for him. Section 1 says: "The minister may assign employees of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to assist the trust in carrying out its duties under this Act." Mr. Speaker, what have the members of the NDP got against employees in the minister's office? Do they think that these hard-working bureaucrats are members of our party?

Interjections.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, listen to how upset they get. They're attacking employees of this government — citizens of British Columbia — saying that they're partisan. I would be concerned.... The NDP always talks about the plot. What's the plot? If they're so against employees in the ministry, what is their plot? Are they going to fire them all if they ever get to be the government of this province again? That's the plot behind what they're talking about.

They talk about the hiring procedure for this manager, and consultation. The chairman of the Islands Trust met with the minister well before this legislation was introduced.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: February 19.

MR. REYNOLDS: February 19, the minister says somewhere around there, in case we're wrong by a day. He also told him in discussion that he should hold off in the hiring of this manager, because there was going to be legislation introduced in this House.

The chairman of the Trust agreed at that time that that was a good idea, because you don't go and hire someone if there's going to be legislation that is going to affect that person. You don't take them out of a job and put them into another one that is maybe not going to be there. The next day the chairman of the Trust changed his mind. I would suggest that what he probably did was to run down to the office of the second member for Victoria and tell him about the discussion he just had with the minister. And the NDP told him: "No, no, you can't do that. You can't make that agreement. It wouldn't be good for us in the House. We can't fight the bill if you do that." They talk about consultation and cooperation. That's not the kind of cooperation that we should have from two people getting together.

We talk about the islands, and, of course, I have one in my constituency, unlike most of the members who are getting up here in the opposition and talking about islands. They don't have them in their constituencies.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: I said "most of them," not all of them.

I do have an island that is part of the Islands Trust in my constituency — Bowen Island. I won't say it's the greatest

[ Page 5573 ]

one of them all because that would be a little bit partial, but it certainly is a nice place. It has a nice marina on the dock; it has good ferry service; it's got great parks. It's a great place to live. Actually, it's becoming a bedroom community for Vancouver.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do they vote?

MR. REYNOLDS: How do they vote? In the last election they voted right down the middle; it was 50-50, to the vote. The best vote we ever got on Bowen Island was the last vote. In the next election they are going to be a little bit better than that.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that if we.... I'm talking about this amendment. I have to vote against it, because I think this legislation for the ministry is important. But also there are things that we should be looking at in the islands, to make sure that developers can develop if they want without undue restrictions. I look at the marina at Bowen Island. They've expanded the number of slips for boats, but they would like to put a restaurant in there. They would like to have a neighbourhood pub in there, to attract boaters from south of the line that come up, and the boaters from British Columbia who flood down to Roche Harbor and Friday Harbor on long weekends because we don't have those kinds of harbours in British Columbia. Those are the types of things we should be looking at, yet because of the politics that are played with the Islands Trust by some members, those things are not happening.

I might also suggest that we should be looking at the Partners in Enterprise program. The islands, instead of sitting here and wasting all their energy on a bill that is not going to interfere with them at all, should be sitting down with the ministry deciding how they can get all this money from this provincial government to improve the marinas on all these islands and improve the islands for tourism.

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of things more. We're talking about consultation. The NDP and some of their friends only feel consulted if the answer is one that they've proposed, and that's really the problem if you listen to their debate in this Legislature. The Islands Trust does a good job in some areas, but it shouldn't be that difficult for them. I got some figures this morning. I phoned down and said: "How many people live in the Gulf Islands? What are we talking about here that is taking so many days in this Legislature — with a lot of the serious problems that are going on that the NDP could be debating or proposing in this Legislature? How many people are we talking about?" The latest figures they had were about 11,252. They said that they could be out, but that's the latest they could get. Now that's not a lot of people. I said: "Well. how many people do we have on the islands that are elected to positions?" I got the figure, and I couldn't believe it. I phoned them back and I said: "Check this out again. There are 280 elected officials in all those islands." Now that's not all trustees. It includes school board trustees, improvement districts, regional districts and trustees — 280.

MR. BLENCOE: That's 2,000 square miles, John.

MR. REYNOLDS: Talk to the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) if you want to talk about square miles. He sits there all by himself. He's probably got five school trustees and a couple of elected officials for I don't know how many tens of thousands of square miles. For 2,000 square miles and 11,252 people we've got 280 elected officials? We probably spend more on having elections than we do in paying them salaries. Wouldn't we be better with 25 or 30 well-paid ones who worked at it full time?

That's the crazy part of this debate. The people on the islands are well represented; they're still going to have staff — staffed in no different a way than was proposed by the NDP in their original bill. But the second member for Victoria has convinced his party and some of his friends in the Islands Trust have convinced him that he can make a big issue out of this. Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia are smarter than that. They're going to start asking this NDP: "When are you going to get down to debating the real issues in the province? When are you going to start proposing something positive in this province?"

Mr. Speaker, I'll vote against the amendment, and I'll probably speak in favour of the bill when we get rid of this amendment.

MR. MITCHELL: I always like following my colleague from the government who sits on this side of the House, because he really goes on and on about a lot of issues that are not before us in this particular debate. What he brought out is something that we have been stating time after time: there must be consultation with those elected people, those people who are responsible — in this particular case, the Islands Trust.

What happened? He's reading from a draft bill brought into the House that, I take it, was sent out to a parliamentary committee. This parliamentary committee was composed of members from all parties which toured the islands and consulted those who were going to be involved, and the draft legislation was amended to its present state. This is what this side of the House has been advocating for the seven years that I have been in here: that we must utilize parliamentary committees; we must go out and study any changes to any major pieces of legislation; we must be prepared to listen to the people concerned. This is what we have been saying. The last speaker has enforced what we have been saying for at least seven years. It was a policy that was in for the seven years that I've been in this House, and in years before when the NDP was in power they did utilize parliamentary committees. This is all we've been saying.

What we are doing by bringing in this amendment and by having this debate is to save the minister from himself. The minister, when he made his initial speech, assured us all that these amendments didn't mean anything: they were simple housekeeping amendments which were not going to affect the present operation of the Islands Trust in any way. The worst part about that, you know.... I would be one of the first who would like to sit here and when the minister makes a statement, I would be prepared to accept it. But what is happening out in the municipal and regional areas is that the elected officials at the present time are finding that the minister is not even living up to the present legislation. He is taking on powers that have never been taken on by previous ministers of municipalities. He is refusing to honour community plans that were debated within the local areas. They were debated at the regional councils and were adopted at every local level within.... In my particular riding they have been debated at public meetings, at special meetings; they have been part of the election campaign and have gone to the Capital Regional District, and they conform in every way to existing legislation. But the present minister, in his

[ Page 5574 ]

wisdom, has decided that he will not conform and accept them. The amendments that he is bringing in are what have caused our amendment. It's because there is not the trust or belief that what is said is going to happen. I realize that is a very serious statement to make, but it is the record of this minister, and the record of the government in trying to get rid of the Islands Trust.

[3:00]

There's an old saying in the profession that I was in before, when I was a police officer, that a law must not only be right but must also appear to be right. Those in the Islands Trust and in the municipal councils and regional boards, and all the people who for one reason or another have gone into public office, who have got involved in making decisions and taking responsibilities are only asking that the minister and this government take time and sit down to discuss the issues that are of a local nature. As the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) stated, those who have been elected to certain responsibilities should have the right to make a mistake if that mistake is going to be made. The minister should be the last person to encourage that everything be centralized in Victoria. We cannot afford to centralize everything in Victoria if we are going to maintain any sort of democracy. The grass roots of any democracy are going to be at the municipal and the local level.

This is the reason that there has been, would you say, an uprising of the residents of the islands. They have that hidden feeling that the minister is trying to upset their elected officials, that he is going to have the power to appoint his people to do the planning and make the recommendations. When I say that there could have been the intent of the legislation that the minister says it means, when he made his opening speeches.... With some small minor amendments, he could have brought them under the pay of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, or he could have brought them under housekeeping for superannuation or anything else. But the appointment and the direction must remain at the Islands Trust level. Their appointments and the way they are utilized must be left at that level.

That assurance, if that is the intent of the government, could have been arrived at openly; there could have been discussions. We have continually asked that the government take into confidence the local elected people.

I know that the minister said that he did not have any developer friends. I have to confess, Mr. Speaker, that I do have developer friends. I have friends who develop property, and I have friends who in their quest for a quick buck find that some of the rules and regulations and protection that local community advisory planning committees put on their particular development cost them money. I know that they would rather be able to run roughshod over the APCs and over the regional local directors because they could make an extra buck. But the ones I do accept as my friends, who I admit are developers, have a commitment not only to develop land and bring in a new subdivision, but a commitment to the people who are going to buy those lots and build their homes there. They have a commitment to the children who are going to go to school in that area, play in the parks that are provided, and play in the ditches without the fear that they will be polluted with septic sludge. This is what a good developer is concerned with. This is what good local elected people are there to protect.

All we are saying is that we are trying to save the minister from himself. The legislation not only must be right but must appear to be right. With the past record of this minister, the past record of the government, the fear of setting up a parliamentary committee to go out and ask for input from those who are going to be affected — to have it on record what is the hidden agenda and what is the real agenda.... The minister could protect and maybe get some Brownie points by holding back on this particular bill at this time, sending it to a parliamentary committee, to bring in those who are going to be affected — those in the Islands Trust.

I have to accept that there are going to be changes on those islands; there is going to be development. But I think that development should come from the local level. I don't think anyone there is under the illusion that they are going to protect those islands forever without any changes. As the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) said, when they are trying to improve the water supply and bring in different water districts, the minister has taken it upon himself not to sign, not to accept the proposals made by those residents. This is the sort of background record that is in the communities of the Gulf Islands. There is that fear.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

All we're asking is that the minister take a second look and do the consultation that is needed. If we had the appearance from the government, from the back-benchers, that this is not a political issue.... We are the last people to want to make a political issue of something like the Gulf Islands. It is an important issue in British Columbia, and that protection must be maintained. The political issue is the grass roots of our elected municipal governments, our elected school boards, our elected public trustees. I don't care if these are fire district trustees or water district trustees, but to make fun, as the previous speaker did, of some 200 elected people.... This is the grass roots of democracy. Every one of those particular individuals has got involved, has taken a responsibility and has made decisions.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that some of those decisions might not have been decisions I would have supported, but it was a decision that they have a responsibility to make, and they have their people who voted for them. They will have the opportunity to reject them or to re-elect them. This is the important part, and this is the political issue that we're standing on: that decisions must be made locally. British Columbia democracy cannot afford to centralize all the power in Victoria.

The minister is a very jolly chap, but his PR out in the community is not always the best. I have two areas in my riding, as I said, where, when the local people had made all the decisions for certain amendments to certain community plans, the minister refused to accept them. In one — that was Metchosin — he said he wouldn't accept it until they incorporated. They did incorporate, and I guess he had to turn it over to them. The other one is Sooke and he still refuses to sign the particular amendments.

The funny part about it is that it's not.... You know, I don't think he's doing it to help me politically, but I would like to tell the minister that his own Social Credit supporters are absolutely appalled that he would take the power from the people they have elected. They have made a decision and he is denying that particular proposal the go-ahead. It's embarrassing them. They have meetings to study incorporation, and they spend more time saying, why doesn't our good Social Credit minister accept the wishes of the local people? I

[ Page 5575 ]

know I'm getting a lot of good feedback from his bullheadedness. He's a jolly chap, but he's very bull-headed.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: Is that unparliamentary? He's a friendly bull-headed....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The term, hon. member, is unparliamentary. Avoid using it.

MR. MITCHELL: I feel that all we're trying to do is get through to the minister that he sit down and consult with them. When the Islands Trust group, the ones who are going to be affected, have met with the minister, and they come in and recommend a change in the wording, that the assurance is being given.... I can say without any fear of contradiction that if the two groups come in, in the spirit of cooperation — that's this government's new buzzword — that if we have that cooperation, consultation and input, and the minister stands up and says he has met with all of the people concerned and changed it — maybe there was some wrong interpretation of what he meant the particular legislation to mean.... If he publicly says, "This is what we want," then I know this side of the House will support them. If we can get that type of consultation and cooperation, not only in the Islands Trust but in Sooke and all the other unorganized areas in British Columbia.... Where there is local input, local consultation and local direction, things will change. But the principle of consultation will never change. If we practise it, it will only get better, it will only improve.

[3:15]

This legislation, which we may feel is important.... I think every one of us gets snowed under with all the legislative changes that come down. You read an amendment, you go through the particular bill, and you find that an amendment that came in in 1982 hasn't been put in place, and you're wondering what you're amending. Every one of us — if we want to be honest as MLAs — slips up on certain changes that come through this House. But something like this has had the publicity; everyone has read it. The Islands Trust people have expressed their concerns. And I think that when you have the official opposition in the House, who represent 45 percent of the people of British Columbia.... There must be some reason. There must be some fault in the legislation or the interpretation.

I ask, in closing, that the minister seriously consider where he's rushing us to — the intent or the interpretation of the legislation — and that he hold back on it and get it straightened out. We're showing our cooperation. We're happy to see that he does give assurance that if changes are needed in the legislation, they are brought in in a proper and happily consultative manner.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave to bring to the attention of the House that...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MS. BROWN:  ...the eyes of the hard-working mayor of Burnaby are upon them, and ask them to bid him welcome.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I would add my welcome to our hard-working mayor — certainly a very hardworking mayor for his municipality.

I'm going to be very brief. I know that members opposite are speaking to the gallery today, and I thought that since that is the case and I'm speaking on the amendment.... I am compelled to rise very briefly and comment on the remarks of the last speaker.

None of them have displayed any knowledge of the legislation, let alone the legislation that their own government wrote when they were in office — they don't understand it at all. It's all been hypocritical rhetoric. But what I really want to say is that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, who has quite clearly stated that he is a supporter of democracy and that the principle of consultation will improve if practised, and that we should always consult.... Mr. Speaker, I want it known here in this House today, and I want it listed in the records, that that same member came to my office shortly after I became the Minister of Municipal Affairs and suggested....

MS. BROWN: A confidential meeting?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No, not a confidential meeting at all.

He asked me to consider imposing incorporation on the Western Community without a vote. I think it only fair that the public and those in the gallery he has been speaking to know, and that the record shows, that this speaker who just sat down calling for the principle of consultation and the need to practise it for improvement of it is the one who asked me to impose incorporation on the Western Community without a vote.

I oppose this amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew rises, I guess, on a point of order?

MR. MITCHELL: Not a point of order....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have spoken to the amendment, so it must be a point of order.

MR. MITCHELL: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Please proceed.

MR. MITCHELL: The statement that the minister made is false. He knows that at this point I cannot debate what I said, but I never said it the way he is interpreting it, and I say that the statement he made is false. If he wants to debate what I said, it's in Hansard.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, one moment, please. We will leave it at that, but suffice it to say that both points of order have been heard. Latitude was afforded both the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew and the minister with respect to events that obviously occurred outside of the scope of the bill or the amendment regarding the bill. But that latitude having been allowed, I'm sure we can discuss any differences of opinion at another time.

Now back to the amendment to Bill 30.

[ Page 5576 ]

MR. STUPICH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When I rose to my feet earlier it was to try to bring the minister to order and find out whether he was opposing or supporting the amendment. He did say he was opposing the amendment in his conclusion; he left no doubt about that in the conclusion. His remarks would leave some doubt.

The amendment we're debating now.... Perhaps it is good that we should consider it from time to time and refer to it from time to time. I think the minister didn't in his remarks, but then there have been faults made on both sides. The amendment does decry the fact that there have not been evident the principles of cooperation, self-government and local autonomy in the minister's mind or in his actions in bringing in the bill before us. So I think the amendment is quite proper and could even be supported by the minister if he were to read it carefully, because certainly the minister himself knows that he hasn't done this.

Such legislation hasn't always been developed through cooperation and consultation. I first met the Gulf Islands — the islands that are now in the Islands Trust; some of them, at least — when I campaigned in 1949. I won't tell you how long ago that is if you can't figure it out quickly, but it is quite a while ago. That was my first opportunity to travel among the Gulf Islands and to.... I almost said "to get to know them." You can't do that in one lifetime, let alone in the lifetime of one politician. But it did give me an excellent opportunity to get to know some of the islands well and to get to know some of the people who have lived on them, in some cases, for several generations. They are a really delightful place to visit and to live, although it's not a place that I choose to make my home.

At that time there were no controls other than those imposed by the provincial government. So we're going back to square one now, it would appear. In those days all the rural area in the province was under the control, when it came to planning, of the provincial government. That's the way it was. There was no consultation; there was no discussion, no reference to local people as to what should go on or what shouldn't go on. The only representations that were heard would be from local constituents on some of those islands making representations through their MLA or to ministers directly when they wanted certain things. That's the way it was, not just in the Gulf Islands, Mr. Speaker, but in rural areas all over the province.

I was a member in this Legislature when the then Municipal Affairs minister, the Hon. Dan Campbell, brought in the first legislation establishing regional districts. There are a couple of us — two, three or four of us — who are around that were here at the time. I recall some of his remarks to the effect that there had to be more local input, in particular into planning development. The regional districts were going to be allowed, perhaps even encouraged, to pick up one function after another — and to pay for them themselves. But initially they were all to have planning as a function. They were to get some provincial government assistance towards the cost of planning, and some local. But it was an effort on the part of the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, supported by his government, to try to get planning developed at the local level. That was a move in the right direction, I submit.

When the NDP government came into office, the regional districts had been in place; planning was in effect. But there were some of us who felt that there were some parts of the province that needed special attention, that needed some special consideration, at least, if not special attention, from the provincial government. We chose to listen. The NDP government chose to establish a committee — the Select Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs — that was instructed by the Legislature to travel among the Gulf Islands, to listen to them as to what they thought was happening in the Gulf Islands, and to listen to them for advice as to what the government might do to try to protect the uniqueness of the Gulf Islands for future generations.

They travelled among the Gulf Islands, this all-party committee, and listened. They did this for quite some time. They came back, the legislation was developed, and the legislation, when it finally came in, was supported by all members in the House. Certainly the NDP government supported it, but the Social Credit, Liberal and Conservative members in opposition also thought it was good, progressive legislation. They thought it was legislation that had been developed, as in the words of the amendment before us right now, through cooperation and consultation. We were increasing the degree of local autonomy when it came to planning in particular. That was the thing that was most in mind at the time.

Well, Mr. Speaker, it worked. Sure, there were problems. There are always problems. There are problems in planning in municipalities. There are problems in planning in all regional districts and in all areas of the province. There are people who would want things to be approved more easily and more quickly. Sometimes we act in haste and repent at leisure. It is so easy to do something and, a lot of times, to regret it in the event that we make a mistake.

Sometimes the mistakes are so bad that little can be done to correct them. That is the concern of the Gulf Islanders — the people who support the concept of the Islands Trust, the people who take part in the election of Islands Trust members. While some of us may feel that there are too many elected representatives covering all the different kinds of boards and activities that go on in the Gulf Islands, nevertheless there is a great degree of public interest in those elections. When it comes to selecting the members of the Islands Trust, the representatives on all the islands, there is a lot of interest. The voter turnout is very high. Certainly to my knowledge, in my own area at least, on the islands in my constituency that are part of the Islands Trust, there is a very high turnout. To the best of my knowledge there have always been elections required. There have always been more people running than there were positions to be filled.

When I was first elected, I represented most of the islands currently covered by the Islands Trust. The constituency then was Nanaimo and the Islands, which included everything from Gabriola, all of the Gulf Islands that are part of Canada down to Resthaven, which is a little island off the coast of the Saanich Peninsula that had nothing on it except the hospital. Nevertheless, that was one of the islands that was part of the Nanaimo and the Islands constituency. So I had a good opportunity to see many of the islands and to be completely in support of the Islands Trust legislation, not just the legislation but of the process, the way in which it was developed. It was developed by consultation — the word that is mentioned in the amendment before us right now.

To the best of my knowledge, the minister in his opening remarks — certainly when he spoke in opposition to this amendment — never said anything about any consultation with anybody. He did say he met, but it was after the fact, after the bill was introduced. If he has anything at all to tell us about any consultation he had with anyone in the Islands

[ Page 5577 ]

Trust, or anyone among the Gulf Islanders who was expressing concerns to him about the way in which the system was working, then I think we should have that information in debating this legislation.

If the minister can tell us anything about any degree of consultation or cooperation that he showed anyone in developing this legislation, I would invite him to tell us about it when he winds up second reading, when he next speaks on this. I expect the question will be asked again and again when we come to committee stage, if he hasn't dealt with it adequately before we get to that stage. That's one problem. There hasn't been the consultation. There hasn't been the cooperation.

It's been said that the legislation really doesn't do all that much; it's simply housekeeping. From where I sit, in reading the legislation before us right now, it would seem to me that it's making a fundamental change in the Islands Trust authority. Previously they had the right to hire staff, perhaps in some cases subject to Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council approval, and they had the right to instruct staff and to tell staff what they wanted done. Without any consultation or discussion with the Islands Trust people, as far as we know, the legislation before us now says that it will be up to the minister to supply staff. He "may" supply staff. To say that he may supply staff is also saying that he may not supply staff.

[3:30]

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I welcome what the minister is saying from his seat, and I look forward to hearing his remarks in closing second reading, or in discussion of it in committee stage, or whenever. At least we'll have it on the record then. Let's have some real evidence from the minister that he intends to make staff available to the Islands Trust.

The next question is, I suppose, who is going to decide how many staff members there will be from time to time? If the Islands Trust representatives feel that a certain job has to be done...or is it going to wait until people working in the Municipal Affairs ministry somewhere, who are currently overloaded, to the best of my information...? I think almost every office in government is overloaded. Certainly the lineups for different services from government are getting longer and longer. I've had occasion to send memos to different cabinet members asking about such problems.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I haven't written to you yet, but I'll take it up with you privately before I do on the floor; I do that always. When I meet problems like that, I prefer to do it that way. I haven't heard of any yet, although I have heard from Municipal Affairs ministry staff that they feel it's getting beyond the point of being able to cope with the problem, but that's not.... I think I heard the minister say that they are busy; that's fine.

My concern is: will he be able to supply staff members to the Islands Trust to do the job that the Islands Trust representatives feel should be done if his staff members are already going full tilt? They now can; they now have the authority to hire them. They're paying part of the shot, so they have that authority. The minister, from what I see of the legislation, is taking that away from them. Again, I shall be discussing that not with this amendment in mind but rather in the bill itself.

My reference to the bill before us is that this has all been done without any consultation. It's conceivable that there were some problems, although I had never heard of any. But it is quite possible that there were some problems. That being the case, could the minister not have sat down with representatives from the Islands Trust and discussed ways of meeting the problems, dealing with the problems?

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The minister will be able to tell us about that when he winds up second reading — whether he did discuss it with him. We'd be very interested in discussing that information with the people with whom he was telling us he did discuss it with. That's great. He may very well....

His first speech, when he moved second reading, was so brief that he didn't give us all of the answers that might have shortened this debate substantially. I'm not promising that, but it might have. We just don't know, because we don't know what he was going to say. He'll have that opportunity later on. But right now there is little we can do, other than on the basis of the information we have. Our information is that there hasn't been the discussion. There hasn't been the consultation. The amendment before us criticizes the government for having dealt with a problem that was minor, to the best of our knowledge — to the extent that there was a problem at all — in a very strong method by wiping out the authority of the Islands Trust to hire and fire and instruct the staff members working on proposals, or working on jobs assigned to them by Islands Trust representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment.

MRS. DAILLY: The amendment before us, just to refresh our memories, is that the government through its failure to consult with local representatives has created a situation respecting the Gulf Islands Trust area which is contrary to the principles of cooperation, self-government and local autonomy.

Now I am taking part in this debate because although I am not a person, I must admit, who is very knowledgeable in the whole legislation and all the ramifications of the work done through the Islands Trust, I have had personal experience in living and working on an island — but I'm not talking about this one at this time, Mr. Speaker; it was Denman Island, which I am sure the minister has visited. I hope he has.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Isle of Skye.

MRS. DAILLY: The Isle of Skye.

But Denman Island is where I first started my first teaching in a one-room schoolhouse — which is still there, by the way. Anyway, I remember Denman Island with great fondness. I know that when I visit it the odd time now, I am pleased to see that although there have been some changes as far as the extra places that are now built there — compared to the few little farmhouses that were there when I taught there — I feel rather happy that it still primarily has a pastoral atmosphere. Most of the people who go to live on those islands go there for that reason. If they don't want that kind of life, then they return or they stay in the urban areas. I know that it is the concern of everyone, I think, in this Legislature that British Columbia maintain that, so that people who enjoy that kind of life will be able to find those places to reside in.

[ Page 5578 ]

I wish personally that I, many years ago in the forties, had bought a piece of property there, Mr. Speaker, because it would be a wonderful place to retire.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: When I was a teenager, thank you. I think I was, too — my last teenage year.

Anyway, my main concern with the legislation is that not only do we want to maintain this.... And the minister may say: "Well, I do, and I have nothing against that. That's what I'm here for, to maintain the islands as they were and as they should be maintained." Then I have to say to the minister, why bring in a piece of legislation which frightens people? It frightens the people who live on the islands, it frightens the people in the Legislature — in the opposition particularly — and it frightens the people who are working very hard in the Islands Trust.

So I ask the minister — and I do hope he will answer this when he closes — why have you done this? Why can you not give support to the request from the opposition which reflects not only the opposition's viewpoint but the viewpoint of many who live on the islands? Why can you not hold back on this so that the aura of fear and concern which you have created by this amendment — which you claim is very minor, simply a housekeeping amendment — can be removed? That's all we're asking. Is it so important to you and to your government to have this in? If you withdrew it, would it interfere with your plans as minister? Would it really interfere with any particular new policy that you are trying to bring about? Because we cannot see the reason for this.

AN HON. MEMBER: The new policy is cooperation and partnership.

MRS. DAILLY: I am very pleased, yes, that the new policy that the minister of Municipal Affairs has espoused recently through legislation before this House for the municipalities is for partnership and cooperation. No one could disagree with that. But then at the same time as he brings in this kind of legislation for municipalities he comes out with what appears to be a rather heavy hammer on the Islands Trust concept and legislation. So why does he not keep this aura and this policy, as he claims, of cooperation and partnership with the Islands Trust people? That is simply what we're asking.

Now the minister may, in his closing remarks, suggest — and I'm giving you lines for your closing speech — that we are perhaps paranoiac in our concern over what that legislation you presented to us will do to the people in the Islands Trust. We are not, because even though the minister may say, "Trust me; I promise you there will not be any major changes," you are going to create a climate of fear that is not going to bode well for the future of the Islands Trust. I think the minister must know this by now. He's a well-meaning minister. I know his background is concerned with work-sharing and with cooperation. Then why can he not extend this to the Islands Trust concept? You still have not given us on this side any reason to support your legislation. We can't see anything positive about it. I think that it behooves you to be able to express to this House anything positive about this piece of legislation.

But even if you can, to some degree, allay some specific fears, it still gets down to a matter of trust. The Islands Trust people are very concerned that there will be an atmosphere created from this bill which will not bode well for its future. That is why, Mr. Speaker, even though I do not profess, as I said earlier, to be able to debate in detail the whole amendment and what it means — maybe no one else can, actually, because we're not quite sure why he has to do it — I do want to express simply, as a person who knows the beauties and the joys of preserving these islands, to the minister: why are you bringing in this amendment? Please, give second thought to it. Will you please listen to the opposition and give support to the hoisting of this particular amendment. Actually, we'd like to see the whole thing dropped. I think that would certainly create a much better feeling with the people on the islands.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The Social Credit government is in a fair amount of trouble now. I think that that is pretty much understood all over this province. Economically they are in trouble, with their policies. The people of British Columbia are — and have been for a little while now, I would suggest, unfortunately for the members of the Social Credit — beginning to lose their faith in the competency of this government. To bring in an amendment which also destroys a feeling of confidence when it comes to the preservation of our islands, to my mind, is almost a suicidal step that this government is taking, and which they certainly do not need. I would say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs that here you have an opportunity not to move in a heavy-handed manner. Here you have an opportunity to show, as a minister of the Crown, that you do listen to the opposition, that you do listen to the people of the islands who have genuine concerns about this bill.

I do not wish to keep repeating myself on this. I just have this one specific concern to express to the minister: why are you doing this? Is it necessary? If you can't give any valid reasons for it, which you haven't to date, in your introduction, we ask you to give consideration to removing this legislation. I can assure you that you will gain respect from the people of the Islands Trust. The opposition will feel that they have a minister who is able to take a second look, a minister who's flexible and will listen.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to having that minister look at this bill with a much more tolerant, open mind. Hopefully, in his final remarks to the House, he will assure us: "Yes, perhaps I have been hasty. Perhaps this is a bill that can indeed be withdrawn."

[3:45]

MRS. WALLACE: I'd like to have a few words to say about this amendment. Certainly the amendment which has just been read by my colleague from Burnaby North has pointed out that what we're talking about in this amendment is the need for cooperation. I think that if the minister would just review the major piece of legislation under which his ministry operates, the Municipal Act, he would recognize that it is full of clause after clause that specifies the requirements for any change at the municipal level, how a bylaw is brought in, how it is dealt with.... For just the smallest change in a given village or municipality there is a requirement to have public hearings and to go through all this routine, as I'm sure you're aware, Mr. Speaker. This is to ensure that all sides are heard before a change takes place.

[ Page 5579 ]

What apparently has been happening here is that the minister woke up one morning and decided: "Aha! I'm going to fix that Islands Trust. I'm going to decide who works for them. I'm going to decide whether anybody works for them. I'm going to decide what their qualifications are. I'm going to make sure that those people report to me so I'll be able to be sure, in my mind, that what's happening in the Islands Trust is what I want to happen, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs." That's not cooperation, Mr. Speaker. That's not the way it works under the Municipal Act with a village, a city, a town or a regional board. But that's what the minister is proposing to do in this particular piece of legislation. He just suddenly woke up and decided: "That's what I'm going to do. That's a good idea." And he brought in this bill. As somebody said earlier, even his colleagues don't know what it's all about. They're trying to figure out why he's doing this.

What we're proposing in this amendment is that you back up. Just go back to sleep for a minute, Mr. Minister, and wake up again and decide to do it the way it would be done under the Municipal Act. Decide to do it with a degree of consultation. Go and talk to the people in the Islands Trust. Talk to the chairman of the Islands Trust. Talk to the members. Tell them your reasons, if you have any reasons. We haven't heard what those reasons are. Unfortunately he didn't tell us when he introduced the bill. He spoke on our amendment for two.... I'm not sure whether he spoke on our amendment or whether it was a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think he spoke on the amendment, but he certainly didn't tell us what his reasons were. If there are valid reasons for doing what he's doing, then follow some procedure of consultation, cooperation and general discussion with the people involved — the 13 different local island councils and the Islands Trust itself. Do a bit of a review and present some statistics, all the things that you would do in the normal course of a municipal hearing for a change of a bylaw in a municipality or a regional board. Do all those things. I'm talking about cooperation. Do it the way that you would normally approach such a thing; don't just wake up one morning and take a stand.

We have heard outlined in this Legislature, and no one has disputed it.... The minister hasn't spoken, but many people have gotten up and talked about many things. They talked about Meares Island and they talked about the Land Commission or the land reserve. They talk about all kinds of things, but no one has disputed the fact that the Islands Trust on several occasions, which were all detailed with dates and times, wrote to the minister and asked for some consultation. They asked to sit down and discuss suggested alternatives. They did all those things, Mr. Speaker, and we heard it said here very clearly that the minister had never responded. We've heard no rebuttal to that. The minister is up on a point of order on everything else, but he didn't jump up on a point of order there and say: "That's wrong." None of the people who have spoken in support of this bill have indicated that that was wrong.

That's not consultation; that's autocratic rule by an autocratic minister. The minister, for whatever reason, has decided that he's going to do this thing — no explanation, no consultation, no requests, no reasons. He's bringing that control into his own little hands so all those many islands — 13 islands.... It isn't the number of people. It's been said that 11,000 plus people live there. The real crux of the thing is that there are certain interests out there that would like to multiply that number of people by ten to make it 110,000 people, because they can see the profits that they would get by dividing and subdividing again and again. That's what the Islands Trust was all about. That was done in cooperation with those island residents, with the people who live there, with the people who are concerned about retaining that unique, very special, very beautiful area. It was all done with consultation.

Now the minister says: "I'm going to change the way we do it." You suspect, because he's given no explanation, because he hasn't followed the normal procedures, because he hasn't taken those steps that I've outlined that would make it appear much more credible.... If he is credible, and if we give him the benefit of the doubt and say, "Okay, for some obscure reason he has failed to explain, but it's a credible reason," that is not enough. It has to appear to be credible. It has to be known to be credible. That hasn't happened.

The people who are the most closely concerned, the people who are on the Islands Trust and on the local island councils and the people who live on those islands have not seen it as being credible. Would you, Mr. Speaker, think it was a fair deal if suddenly out of the blue you read in the paper about the area which you were attempting to develop along the lines that the people who lived there wanted to see developed, and you had the ability to hire the personnel to do this, and you picked up your morning paper and read that if this bill passed you would no longer have the right to hire anyone, would you think that was a credible way? Would you really feel that the minister had your best interests at heart? Would you really believe that you had been consulted if you read it in the morning paper? I don't think so, Mr. Speaker, and I don't think the people of the Islands Trust council feel that, because that's really where they learned about it. They read it in the morning paper.

Then you took pen in hand and sat down and wrote to the minister, and said: "Dear Mr. Minister, I've just read in the paper that you're going to take away my employees; that I don't have the right to hire. You may, if you feel like it, supply municipal employees to work for us, but we will have nothing to say about what categories, about what their responsibilities are. You'll be directing them because you're going to hire them and fire them and pay their wages." You would say: "I'm sorry to read this in the paper. I really think there must be a mistake. We didn't hear anything about this before. We thought everything was going fine. We've heard no complaints from the people who live on the islands; we've heard no complaints from our employees. Has the press made a mistake? We know the press makes mistakes. If it's true, Mr. Minister, won't you please talk to us about it? We've got some ideas that we think.... If you really have to do this, Mr. Minister," you'd say in that letter, "maybe you could tell us why. And maybe you could consider some suggestions that would make this acceptable to you and to us. If you really believe in the Islands Trust and in what we're doing, maybe you'd answer our letter; maybe you'd see us and talk about these things."

You send that letter off, and your heart is full of hope. You're sure that minister is going to reply. I'm sure you would do that, Mr. Speaker. And you wait and wait and wait, and you get no answer. You think, well, the postal service isn't very good. Maybe that letter got lost. So you sit down and write again. You repeat it all. "I wrote you, Mr. Minister, when I read this in the paper. I'm sure the letter must have gone astray, because otherwise you would have answered by now. So could you please consider these points?" And you'd spell it all out again: that everything seemed to be going fine,

[ Page 5580 ]

you'd heard nothing about this, and then all of a sudden you read it in the paper; that you really wanted to make this thing work, you were sure there was a misunderstanding, you were sure that if you could get together you could work something out. And you send that letter off. You wait and wait and wait, and you get no answer. Would you think that was cooperation?

Maybe you're really a hopeful soul. Those people elected to serve on the Islands Trust are a fine type of person — trusting, responsible. So you try again. You think, maybe the secretary put it on the bottom of the pile of correspondence on his desk; I know he's a busy man, and he hasn't got at it yet. So you sit down and write another letter. "Dear Mr. Minister, I really can't believe that this is what you're going to do, without even talking to us about it. That's not cooperation, Mr. Minister. We don't think you're like that. We'd really like to talk about this, and we've got these suggestions. If for some reason you want to do this thing, then at least let's talk about it." So you send that off, and you still get no reply.

Is that cooperation? That's not cooperation. Only the patience and nature of those people on the Islands Trust have kept this thing as stable as it is. If that were me, I think I would be much more upset and much more annoyed. I'm sure they're upset and annoyed, but I think I would show it in a more volatile manner. They're still trying to cooperate. They're still trying to get the minister's assurance that he will not just say "Trust me," not just say "This is housekeeping." If he really believes that this is just housekeeping, he will introduce an amendment to ensure that their powers will remain inviolate as far as their ability to administer that Islands Trust. So far the minister hasn't done that. So far the minister has given them no assurance. So far he hasn't said that on the floor of this House. All he's said is "Trust me," and those who don't trust him are silly.

That's where we're at with this bill, and that's why we've moved this amendment. We've moved this amendment because the government has failed to consult with the local representatives. The government has created a situation respecting the Islands Trust area that is completely contrary to any principle of cooperation. It's completely contrary to any principle of self-government. Don't we believe in self-government?

[4:00]

The member down here from West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) has indicated that there are 280 representatives from the various Gulf Islands. Well, if there were just three or four you might think that those people really didn't speak for the people of the Gulf Islands. But if they've got 280 of them all together, those people certainly are representing.... They have a good broad base, a much higher per capita base of public input at the elected level than, say, do our constituents, Mr. Speaker, who out of 2.5 million people send only 57 of us here to Victoria. They're well represented. They have that democratic elective process well in hand. It's not a little group — a little clique — that has control and is going contrary to the direction that the people who live on those islands want to go. So why hamstring it? Why has the minister, at this particular time, chosen to do this thing?

I thought that that government was out to try to create the image of being interested and listening to what the public had to say. I'm not sure that they do that, but they're certainly trying to create that image. The minister, through this bill, is destroying the best efforts of the Minister of Finance and the Premier and all these people who are roving around the province with all their great ideas that they want to present to the people, trying to involve the public, trying to show that they're listening and are sensitive to the needs. Here's a minister who's going in exactly the opposite direction.

On one hand he calls in all the municipal people here and has a grand fete over across the street and tells them all about partnership and renewal. Those are elected people representing local constituencies, municipalities, regional boards, villages, cities, towns. He says: "Let's cooperate." Mind you, his idea of cooperation is: "This is it, folks. Take it or leave it." But even that is better than this. It has some little inklings of positive approach. This has none. If he wants to say to the Islands Trust, "This is it; take it or leave it," at least he should say it to them and not just bring in a bill and not talk to them. Eventually he did come and speak to them — yesterday, was it? — but no promises or commitments, and no explanations as to why he was doing this. That's not cooperation. That's not in accord with the principles of self-government and local autonomy. That's not the direction that we should be going in in this province.

This is one area where we really need to ensure that the locally elected people have as much help as possible in protecting a very valuable, fragile resource that could be destroyed very easily — irreparably destroyed — if for even a short period of time there was a bit of laxity. If, for a very short period of time, the Islands Trust council and the local councils found that they were not able to fulfil all their duties, that irreparable damage could well be high-density subdivisions on any or all of the Gulf Islands. That is the thing that would completely destroy the very unique and very special and very precious qualities that those islands have.

This is not an area that can be treated that way. There are water problems; there are sewage disposal problems, and there are just the problems of the ecological and environmental rarities that exist on those Gulf Islands: the wildlife, the fish and the shellfish, the sea, the quality of the water, the air — all of those things. They're all very precious, they're all very fragile, and they're all very easily destroyed. That's why the Islands Trust and the councils on the various islands are so concerned.

They see, in this lack of ability on the part of the minister to cooperate, communicate and demonstrate by action that he does not intend to reduce their ability to function.... That's why they are concerned; that's why we are concerned. We're concerned about the loss of local autonomy and the self-government rights of the people who live on those Gulf Islands, and that's why we have moved this amendment. I think it is self-evident that the reasons, as listed, for moving it.... They are clear-cut. There is no question in my mind that it is a good amendment and should be supported.

MS. SANFORD: You would think at this point that the minister might recognize there is a problem with this bill. The people living on the islands within the Trust are extremely concerned and are mounting a campaign to oppose this piece of legislation, which the minister keeps telling us is housekeeping. I think, Mr. Speaker, that at this stage....

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: I can't hear the minister. Does he wish to speak?

[ Page 5581 ]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Has Blencoe got his rent-a-crowd out there to demonstrate?

MS. SANFORD: I haven't seen any crowd out there, have you?

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: They're mounting opposition and they certainly.... Have you got the pile of letters that I have? I'm sure the minister has far more letters than I have.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member direct her comments to the Chair. And the minister will be allowed to close debate on the bill with respect to second reading.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I think it is an appropriate time to review where we're at in terms of this debate and the amendment that is before us. What we have is one of the most unique, most beautiful and most precious groups of islands in this province, which some years ago was included under what is called the Islands Trust. That did not come about suddenly. That came about as a result of the pressures on those islands and the recognition by the islanders — and, indeed, by the then Social Credit government — that something had to be done to ensure that those islands were not destroyed forever by the unfettered, uncontrolled and unregulated development that was taking place. After all, because they are islands they also have unique problems of transportation, water supply, sewerage, garbage disposal and fire protection. There are innumerable problems that are special and unique to the islands.

Because of this unfettered development that was taking place on the islands, my predecessor in this House, the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, Dan Campbell, placed a freeze on the development of those islands. He applied a straight, across-the-board, ten-acre development freeze. By the way, he had the support of the then Premier, who recognized that those islands were in fact valuable and needed special attention. When the government changed hands in 1972, the Select Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs and Housing was assigned by the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, Hon. James Lorimer, the task of travelling to the islands and of listening to the islanders about the problems that existed on those islands and to suggestions from them about what we could do as a government and as legislators to ensure that some special protection was afforded those islands.

I was overwhelmed by the response of those islanders. They attended those meetings; they spoke their minds; they implored us to take action, to give them some authority to be involved in the planning and direction and the development of their own islands. They were sincere. They were keen to talk to us. All of the members of that committee, Mr. Speaker, including the Socred members who now sit on the government side of the House, were impressed by the representations, by the concerns, and were quite willing to sit down after we got back to Victoria in order to come up with some sort of legislation that would do two things: one, ensure that the islanders themselves had some say; two, that they would be able, through special legislation, to play a part in the future development of those islands, ensuring that those jewels were in fact protected for all of the people of British Columbia. That happened in 1974.

As a matter of fact, the idea of the Islands Trust and the Islands Trust legislation was advanced by a Conservative member of the House, who since then has changed his political stripe and become a Socred and now sits in this Legislature as the Minister of Finance and representative of Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis). It is no wonder that that member is not getting up and speaking on this piece of legislation, because if he were to support the Minister of Municipal Affairs, he would be speaking against what he proposed back in 1974, having travelled with the Select Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs to the Gulf Islands.

[4:15]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

So in 1974 we had put in place the Islands Trust legislation, which enabled the islanders to elect their own representatives, to have their own advisory committees on the islands, to assist them in going to the public on the islands in order to come up with development plans which would suit each and every individual island within the Trust. As I pointed out before, that was hard work. In some cases on some of the islands they had meetings week after week, for up to two years, before they could agree on what was best for that particular island. But it's a valuable process. It protects those islands. The decisions are made and developed, with the help of staff, by the people elected on those islands.

If there were a problem all of these years since 1974 when the act was established.... If there were a problem with section 13, which says that the Trust shall appoint its staff, then why hadn't we heard about it? Why is it that we are suddenly faced with a piece of legislation that eliminates the section saying the trust shall appoint staff, and instead puts in place a section that says that the minister may appoint staff? He's now going to be the employer. He's now going to be the one who calls the tune. The employer nearly always calls the tune. So the Trust, in its attempt to continue its work in preserving and protecting those islands, is going to be hamstrung. No longer will the staff that they depend on be answerable to the Trust; they will instead be answerable to the minister. It's a power grab. It's more of the same kind of thing that we've seen out of this government over the past dozen years — not dozen years; it seems more like two dozen years. Over the past ten years, time and time again the government has assumed more authority, more power, more centralization. It's frightening, Mr. Speaker. It's a trend that I vigorously oppose, and that's why I'm prepared to spend as much time as I can in this Legislature pointing out to the minister and to the members of this House that the direction in which they are embarked at the moment is the wrong one. It's dangerous, and it erodes the ability of people within their communities to make decisions that affect them.

Surely the minister must be recognizing by now — I know it takes a long time — based on the correspondence that he is getting, on the telegrams that are coming into his office and on the phone calls that are made from people within the Trust, that he has a problem. The problem is that there has been no consultation with the islanders, and that's why we have this amendment to his bill which points out that the government has failed to consult with the local representatives. That's why we've moved this amendment, and that's why I'll be supporting this amendment.

[ Page 5582 ]

1 think it's tragic that we in this province are continuing to head in a direction which enables the government to assume more and more authority. If the minister is sincere in saying that this is no more than a housekeeping piece of legislation, then all he has to do — and we have mentioned that many times — is to give that assurance in writing, through legislation. All he has to do is indicate that in no way will the authority of the Trust be eroded through this amendment that he has introduced. The people on the islands don't believe it. We don't believe it. We think it's far more than housekeeping; we think it's yet another power grab and another way in which to erode the authority of locally-elected people.

Why doesn't the minister recognize that he has failed to consult? People wouldn't be writing this volume of letters, nor would they be sending telegrams, nor would they be phoning day after day to the minister's office, if they had been consulted and if they understood exactly, as the minister has tried to indicate, that this is no more than housekeeping. If the minister had consulted, he could have said: "Oh, it's no more than housekeeping, and I certainly will put in a piece of legislation to ensure that this is no more than a piece of housekeeping legislation."

Why does he refuse to do that, Mr. Speaker, when time after time we point out to him the concern of the islanders and raise our own concerns and yet he simply calls us silly — or something else?

Surely those who sat on the committee that travelled those islands cannot support the legislation that the minister has brought in, whether they sit on the cabinet benches or not, because if they vote for this they are in fact voting against what they recommended and voted for initially, which was to establish a system where the local people could make decisions locally about the development of those islands.

What this is going to lead to, Mr. Speaker, is not cooperation from the islanders with this government. It's going to lead to mutual mistrust. It certainly flies in the face of any statements made by the government about its interest in cooperation.

It is so simple for the minister to put in writing the assurance that we need — that I need, as a representative of people who are affected by this legislation, and that my constituents need to be assured that the system that they have worked under for the last 11 years, and which has worked well for them, pleased them, and given them a sense of pride, will continue to be in place. Why is it so difficult for the minister to give us that assurance? I'm afraid, Mr. Speaker, it's because the government and the minister are far more interested in development than in preservation and protection. That's why we're seeing this.

The member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) spoke on this amendment a short time ago, and suggested that this bill was similar to the agricultural land reserve that was introduced. Well, at least he's consistent. He's opposed to both the agricultural land reserve and the Islands Trust, which give people the authority to give some protection to the islands on which they reside. That member is clearly far more interested in development, both in the agricultural land reserve and on the islands, than he is in any sort of vision of the future, or any sort of protection for those very special unique islands. But in order for the Islands Trust to be effective and to carry out the mandate that this Legislature gave to the Trust in 1974, there must be an arm's-length relationship between the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the trustees. That's eliminated when the minister himself appoints staff. I have no doubt that the appointments made by the minister...that those appointees will also be directed by the minister. After all, when you hire someone you usually tell them what it is they're to do, and why it is that you are paying them to do the work you've hired them for. So they will be directed by the minister and not the Trust. There is no longer an arm's-length relationship with this amendment.

Surely the people within this Legislature can see that, can see the mistake that's being made by giving that kind of authority to a Minister of Municipal Affairs. I wonder if next on the list will be the employees who now work for regional districts and municipal councils. Are they too going to be appointed and directed by the minister? After all, municipalities, regional districts and the Islands Trust are all children of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. That's been mentioned by many Ministers of Municipal Affairs over the years. If one child gets treated this way, then surely we can expect that the other children will be treated the same way. But that's consistent too, Mr. Speaker, because it represents even more power grabbing and autocratic authority on the part of the government.

That seems to be the direction we've been headed in over these years, so maybe I shouldn't be so surprised at this. Maybe I shouldn't be so concerned about this, because it is so representative of the kinds of actions that they have taken. But I feel that I have a duty and an obligation on behalf of the people living on Lasqueti Island, Denman Island and Hornby Island, which are within my constituency, to stand up here and join with my colleagues in trying to point out to the minister that he's on the wrong track, that he's failed to consult with the people, and that the people on the islands are reasonable people. All they need is the assurance that the minister does not intend to direct the Trust or in any way influence the decisions that have been made. I'm sure he could come up with some wording for that. In fact, we've prepared some amendments, Mr. Speaker, that would ensure that the Trust maintains its authority and autonomy, but he refuses to consider them. He's been sitting there and sitting there, now and again calling us "silly," or some other term, yet refusing to move, to budge, to give the assurance that we need as representatives in this House of people who are very concerned about what is happening to them at this time through this legislation.

All the mechanisms for local decision-making are being eroded and dismantled by this government, whether it be at Islands Trust level, municipal level or school board level. Mr. Speaker, I think even you should be frightened by the approach that is being taken by the government. It's frightening when at every chance they get they seize power and authority. I have too much respect for our democratic system to be able to sit in my seat and allow the minister to bring in this kind of legislation which represents yet another power grab.

[4:30]

The other day, when I was speaking during second reading of this bill.... I'm really pleased that the member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston) is here, because at that time the member for Surrey and the minister himself wanted to know — they kept shouting across the floor — which of the islands trustees would state that he was pleased to be elected as an island trustee so that he could play his part in preserving and protecting those islands. They kept saying, "Please name him." Well, let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the person who said that he was pleased to be elected and pleased to be serving did not realize that he would have to preserve and

[ Page 5583 ]

protect the islands from the minister himself. That elected trustee said to me: "I was sorry that you didn't name me in the Legislature, because, as a matter of fact, I've written to the minister himself saying exactly that." I would like to read the letter that that newly-elected trustee on Denman Island has written to the minister, expressing his concerns about this piece of legislation and expressing the view that his fight to protect and preserve the islands is with the minister himself through this kind of legislation. This is dated March 24:

"It is with regret and a sense of apprehension that I note you are tabling legislation to absorb the Islands Trust staff into the direct control of your ministry. What possible justification is there in tampering with a system that works well and has done so for many years? One can only conclude that you intend to bend the Trust's mandate to your will, or be perceived as doing so.

"This is particularly unsettling, as we have a relatively new, young and dedicated Trust council from a broad political spectrum, some of whom are setting up a committee to consider a program of sustainable and acceptable development. I emphasize the word 'acceptable.' As a member of this committee, I can assure you that we are not a collection of wide-eyed radicals, but represent the Trust as a whole — a group of intelligent, dedicated men and women.

"Our planners and staff reflect this dedication. Our new manager shows much promise, and his rapid grasp of affairs is extraordinary. Incidentally, you are reported as saying that you do not see the necessity for a manager to oversee six people. I submit this is oversimplification, as the manager has to deal with 26 trustees as well as maintain liaison with other ministries."

Here, Mr. Speaker, is where he makes the comment:

"When I took my oath of office to uphold the mandate of the Trust, a mandate which includes the words 'to preserve and protect,' I did not anticipate having to protect the mandate from its own minister. As the Islands Trust now stands, you have probably the most cost-effective organization in your government. The trustees have neither sought nor received an increase in their very modest honorarium of $1,600 a year.

"Both as a trustee and a citizen I am alarmed and discouraged — a state of mind shared by many. I urge you to leave well enough alone.

Yours truly,
H. N. Tait,
Denman Island, B.C."

If the member for Surrey who so much wanted his name the other day wants the postal code, I would give that to her as well.

The members of the Trust not only want to be able to carry on the work that they have been performing over the last 11 years, but they would like their mandate expanded. Time and time again, they have attempted to consult with the minister. They have attempted to appeal to the minister. They have attempted to cajole the minister, in fact, into proclaiming a section of the Islands Trust Act which would enable the trust fund to be established, so that people could make money, donate properties or donate assistance in terms of preserving and protecting those islands. The legislation is there. It's contained within the act. But it has never been proclaimed. If the government wishes to preserve and protect those islands, not only should they abandon this bill, but they should also take the next step, which is to proclaim that section, which would enable the trustees, with the assistance of people on the islands and people in the province who are interested in ensuring that those islands are not destroyed through overdevelopment.... If he would take that step, proclaim that section, we could begin in this province to build a trust fund which would in fact make the whole objective of preserving and protecting the islands even easier for the trustees. They need that help. My appeal, Mr. Speaker, is for everyone to support this amendment, and then for the minister to say — finally, after listening for two days, recognizing the concern that has been expressed by people on this side of the Legislature, and by people on the islands — that he will withdraw the bill, then finally that he will move to proclaim the section of the Islands Trust Act which will ensure that the trust fund could be established.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, knowing that neither you nor I have very many islands in our constituencies, I'm.... My constituency is a long way away from the Gulf Islands, and I'm not going to spend a lot of time speaking on this motion. But I have some concerns, because the condition of the Gulf Islands and how those islands are developed and enhanced is basically a resource-use issue. That is near and dear to my heart and, I think, to everyone in the province and every member of this House whose riding consists of a lot of different types of countryside — water, lakes, streams, mountains and, indeed, those natural resources.

What we need to be concerned about here is what the people who own property on the islands think about the way the Islands Trust has been operated and about what's going to happen under this particular legislation. We should remember that property owners and residents of the islands are a diverse group of people. Some live there year-round. Many earn their living elsewhere but still think of themselves as islanders. I think many of the government MLAs who live on the mainland side should think about the fact that they have a number of constituents who are full-time residents on the mainland but who like to think of themselves as islanders because they own property on those islands and love to get away every moment that they possibly can. Then, of course, there are the true absentee landowners, whose primary concern with their property on the islands is a commercial one. There's nothing wrong with that; that's a legitimate concern as well.

Of course, the islands themselves have a great many differences, as the all-party committee that studied this question found out. A situation on, say, Cormorant Island in Johnstone Strait is radically different than what you will find on one of the outer Gulf Islands at the south end of the Strait of Georgia, such as Mayne Island, or on one of the almost totally summer-resident islands, such as Savary, or on one of the sparsely populated islands between the two straits, such as the Thurlows.

We have wondered, and I have wondered, if the regular planning authorities and the regular administrative authorities on the islands — the municipal councils, the regional boards — have been unhappy with the Trust and the operations of the Trust. Have those councils and boards asked for these kinds of changes? They may have. It would be interesting to hear from members on the government side who want to comment on the need for this legislation.

[ Page 5584 ]

I remember some of the statements that were made during the 1975 election campaign. The member for Okanagan South (Hon. Mr. Bennett) talked at great length everywhere he went throughout the province about the need for more local autonomy, the need to get decision-making authority decentralized and away from the Victoria political bureaucracy. You know, I agreed with him when he said that, and when many other Social Credit candidates said that. Yet we not only find example after example of the present government in Victoria taking more and more centralized, authoritarian control into Victoria, but we also find them doing it over the objections of property owners, residents and taxpayers in the areas that are losing what little decision-making authority they do have.

It has been suggested in this chamber that developers will get advantages out of this bill. There have been a number of successful real estate developments on the Gulf Islands since the Islands Trust was set up in 1974-75. Many of those developments — in fact most, I would say — were popular with the islanders. But an interesting thing about them is that when there has been commercial development and when there has been subdivision and real estate development on the various islands, the most successful and popular developments and the easiest to get through were the ones set up and controlled by people who knew the islands — people who lived on the islands or people who had a history of knowing something about the islands, even if they were largely based on the mainland. The developments that have had difficulty were those that were attempted to be rammed through by people who really didn't know anything about the neighbourhood, so to speak. They were essentially commercial owners from elsewhere who had a good dream. They had a good dream on the drawing-board but did not know anything about the physical environment or the social environment on which they intended to impose that dream.

Concern has been expressed to me and I think to other members of the House that one of the ways any government can use to strangle a particular function is simply to cut off funds to it. That can happen to a regional district with sharing of funds from the province; certainly various federal governments have done that to the provinces on occasions. One thing that the province could do under this act is starve the Islands Trust by simply cutting off any resources to the operations of the Islands Trust — leave the various elected representatives hung out to dry, so to speak.

One of the concerns that we have is that at least the Islands Trust — the elected members — had some responsibility for taxation; they had some responsibility for the money they spent or did not spend and some responsibility to make the technical operations of the Islands Trust work. It would be very easy to discredit and emasculate the Islands Trust through this act we're discussing here — and that's the reason for the reasoned amendment on it — simply to make it non-functional by the gradual removal of funding support. We have a situation where the phones might ring in the Islands Trust but there'd be nobody there to answer. That would cause individuals who wish to contact the Trust a certain amount of anger and annoyance. That policy has worked well for the government, Mr. Speaker, in removing some services to the people in the last few years, and it certainly is a functional one here.

[4:45]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I want to add my concern that when central government takes over authority for staffing of a nominally autonomous body, that same principle could be applied to other nominally autonomous operations around the province, such as regional districts, hospitals, school districts and municipal government. It's a step in the wrong direction. People who live in an area know their area best and will administer that area best. That was the demand and the request that was supported by all parties in this House back in the early seventies, and that's why we had an Islands Trust.

If there are objections to its existence or to the way it's been operated, I would like to see those discussed in this chamber. I don't think members on this side of the House or members on the other side would object to changes that were the result of being petitioned by the people — the taxpayers — who are affected by the operations of the Islands Trust. But it would appear that the government is moving in exactly the opposite direction. The government is deciding that they know best what changes should be brought in, even though nobody is aware of any popular opinion or even unpopular opinion out there, in asking for those changes.

So I want to add my voice to those who have concerns about the need for this bill, the need to expand the amount of governmental control over a very important area of the province. Could we perhaps have someone on the government side explain why there needs to be some more, say, commercial needs that are not being satisfied on the Gulf Islands? Perhaps the Health minister could tell the chamber that there aren't enough doctors and he's having problems giving billing numbers to doctors who live on the islands.

I'm not aware of any commercial or professional or trade services that are not available on the islands, even on some of the very smaller ones. In fact, if islanders ask for anything, it's readily available ferry services so they can obtain the services they need when those services aren't available on their own island. But I want to repeat: in my experience, most commercial services and most professional services and virtually all trade services are available on all the islands, usually at very reasonable expense.

So, Mr. Speaker, there has been no evidence given to this chamber, either by the minister or by any of the spokesmen on the government side, as to what the reasons are for wanting to take this even greater centralized authoritarian control into the Victoria political bureaucracy. In the absence of any evidence on that, I have to support this motion and hope that the government will take time to have a second or third look at this bill, as they did.... Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House that when a former Minister of Municipal Affairs wanted to bring in an act to simply totally eliminate the Islands Trust, there was enough common sense on the government side to leave that bill to die on the order paper. I would like the members on the government side to exercise the same level of common sense and recognize the fact that in supporting their minister they and he have made a mistake that is not going to serve the best interests of the overwhelming majority of the island property-owners, let alone those who live on the island. Let's remember, as has been pointed out, that these islands, like all other natural resources in B.C., are an asset that really belongs to all British Columbians, whether they have property on the islands or not.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I know that most — probably all — of the members in the House recognize the need for an Islands Trust. They recognize the need to protect a very

[ Page 5585 ]

valuable Canadian as well as British Columbian asset. These fabulous islands in the Strait of Georgia — how can they be best protected, essentially from an environmental point of view?

Now if we look at our national parks, if we look at the Banff national park, if we look at the great parklands of Canada.... They have been protected, well administered, and are run substantially from Ottawa. They are not run by elected residents from within the parks. I really think that any system of protection which relies exclusively on the vested interests of the inhabitants within an area tends to lose sight of the broader need, the broader perspective.

The province of British Columbia has decided to set the Gulf Islands apart as a special...if not park or reserve, certainly an area warranting very careful husbanding. If we were starting at the beginning, indeed I think even now we should be giving careful consideration to the appointment of a Trust of a relatively small number of people, certainly the majority of whom were not residents of the Gulf Islands but were people with an appreciation of environmental issues, an appreciation of the need to preserve the islands. That Trust would not be influenced overwhelmingly by local considerations.

The Islands Trust is made up currently of 26 individuals, admittedly elected. You have a Trust, which in size, at least, is half the size of this Legislature, and it's administering land use planning for these islands, which have a population of the order of 10,000 people and which are also subject to a number of other jurisdictions. Regional districts overlap from all sides. School districts overlap the Gulf Islands. There are numerous local improvement districts. There are some municipalities, with their governments.

It has to be the most overgoverned part of British Columbia. The minister, I think, said there were close to 300 elected people holding various offices with the regional districts, the improvement districts, the school districts and so on, who were resident within the Gulf Islands. It's overgoverned. It's a little bit like Prince Edward Island is in the Canadian federation. Prince Edward Island had everything. It even had a senate as late as the mid-1960s, and it was finally abolished. This doesn't say that Prince Edward Island was better governed than other parts of Canada. In fact, I think it's the opposite.

If you take the Canadian national parks administration as a guide, you would, say, appoint a relatively small number of individuals to act as commissioners for the park area — in this case, the Gulf Islands. Give them a clear mandate, a clear set of directives as to the parameters within which they must administer that area: basically protect it from exploitation, and protect it not only from undue commercial exploitation or population growth — whatever — but also protect its general environment from pollution from outside; but that that board be a board which is not totally local in its outlook and totally elected locally.

I've had some personal experience with the administration on Bowen Island. I don't have any personal experiences which I can use as examples of maladministration or bias. I think the Islands Trust people have done their very best and have been level-headed. But I think that in the broadest context the organization, the setup, is wrong.

Now if we had a parallel administration to the national parks administration in the case of the Gulf Islands, we would have this small and relatively tight board, with stringent guidelines to follow, and they would be relying on public service people — in this case, members of the staff of the ministries of Municipal Affairs, Environment and Lands, Parks and Housing — to support them, give them information, carry out studies and so on. Substantially, the administration would be from on high. It would be from a higher level of government than the purely local level of the Islands itself.

While I'm attracted by the argument of the Leader of the Opposition and a number of the members of the opposition who say we must do the democratic thing, that we should listen to the locally elected officials and so on, I wonder how many locally elected officials we need, how many bodies we need to represent the varying interests of the residents of the Gulf Islands, and where in this case the broader interest, that of the province and that of Canada, really comes to bear. I think it would be better served if there was a small board or a small group of commissioners with definite terms of reference drawing their support from a staff like that of the parks branch of Canada — in this case, from the public service of the province of British Columbia.

So after some thought I've decided that I will vote against the amendment and for the motion.

MR. ROSE: I would like to congratulate the member for North Vancouver–Capilano for his continuing series of thoughtful contributions to debates, and also to disagree with him profoundly on a couple of the things that he had to say.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the Chair may enter into this on a point of order, Mr. Member, it was the member for North Vancouver–Seymour who was speaking.

MR. ROSE: Well, I certainly apologize for congratulating the wrong member. I have had occasions, as well, to disagree with the member for North Vancouver–Capilano, but never when he is sitting in the chair. I don't know whether you've ever noticed, Mr. Speaker, but this place has an almost cathedral-like look. If they turned the pews around the other way.... The Clerks at the table are all dressed as clerics, and you, sir, occupy the high altar, so you're the closest thing to God we have here at the moment. Certainly I wouldn't want to accuse you or compliment you on something that you really didn't deserve....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Praise be to the member.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, the amendment has its attractive features. The government, through its failure to consult with local representatives, has created a situation respecting the Islands Trust that is contrary to the principle of cooperation, self-government and local autonomy. This is not the first time this has happened. I think, as has been pointed out by other members, that this happens sometimes to all governments.

At least we can compliment the minister of municipalities for bringing in legislation that's before us. This didn't happen when we had the order-in-council freezing the salaries and budgets of school districts. That was done almost in the dead of night, rather furtively as a matter of fact. The order-in-council was brought in last Thursday, without any kind of consultation by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), or the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) with the various school districts. As a matter of fact, that very order has not been received by most of those districts, and they have

[ Page 5586 ]

no way of dealing with its implications. So there's an example of cooperation and consultation gone completely awry — completely amok. This at least provides us with a forum. We had no opportunity to debate the other matter, whereas in this case we have an ample opportunity, right here in this chamber, for all of us who have been interested in the matter to get up and make our points on the legislation. Such was not the case when it came to the most recent order-in-council dealing with that vital and important situation in terms of public education in the province of British Columbia. There was every opportunity to do that before we had our adjournment, but it wasn't done. But in this case we've got this opportunity.

[5:00]

Some of us regret that there hasn't been more cooperation. If there's cooperation, self-government and local autonomy, then why are we dealing with a bill which destroys that? As a matter of fact, why are we dealing with the bill at all? That's what bothers me. I haven't heard one sound argument in this debate that deals with the reasons why this is necessary. Why is the minister rushing headlong into a bill which deprives the residents of the powers that they have enjoyed for the past decade? People over on the Gulf Islands are, in the main, well-educated, often highly skilful people who have retired from careers of tremendous responsibility. To suggest that these people, with all their skills, their education and their background, are somehow incapable of managing their own affairs in a democratic way defies imagination, as does the line of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis): "Well, after all, we need a smaller group of people to determine our fate rather than a larger one." It seems to me that we should be extending the principles of democracy, not making them suffer by some sort of diminution.

One of the problems that I think has caused the alienation of our citizens is that they don't feel they have a handle on the decisions that are made for them by some distant body far away from their concerns and perhaps not even very knowledgeable about them. So to suggest that we need a model similar to that of the national parks is not acceptable to me. I'm too diplomatic and gentlemanly to call it a ludicrous suggestion, but it hasn't worked very well in Banff, and it hasn't worked very well in the national parks in the United States. Channel 9 last night had a very revealing one hour on how vulnerable national parks are. In Glacier National Park right now there is a tremendous protest going on because of oil-drilling in that national park. That is supposed to be protected by about three different bodies: the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior, which I think both of the former come under. But that hasn't protected it from clearcut logging, which has caused clogging of streams and the complete decimation of some of the areas inhabited by wildlife. So it's not, I think, accurate to suggest that because you have a small group of people from a distance, not dealing with the people who are residents there and who have a right to determine their own destiny — some obscure bureaucrat from far away making decisions determining the future of these people....

People came over there to retire on the Gulf Islands those who are there to retire, and many are; I would say the bulk of them are — because they liked things the way they were and were attracted by the kind of lifestyle and the kind of governance they had. It's unusual for people who have never participated in politics to contact a member, and to protest and demonstrate. They're uncomfortable with that. They're not used to it. Somehow it seems a bit unseemly. They've never had to do that. They're not used to the rough and tumble of politics. But one timorous retired schoolteacher, not noted for his bellicosity, took the trouble to phone me. He lives on South Pender. "We don't want this," he said. "Mark, try to stop it." Why would a group of people...?

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Hundreds and hundreds, I'm told by the.... I guess I would call him a critic, but I'll call him a spokesperson now because we've changed our jargon here. What would prompt normally tranquil, maybe even compliant, retired individuals to suddenly become politicized and even militant? It's because they are losing control — potentially losing control — over their own lives. They don't want some far-off bureaucrat handling their affairs. They want to run their own affairs, and they have a perfect right to do that. That's the democratic thing to do.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour, whose speeches I always admire because I find them thought-provoking — stimulating even; he has stimulated me already — suggests that somehow there is a wider interest, a provincial interest, a Canadian interest even, and that therefore the Gulf Islands shouldn't be entirely under the jurisdiction of the locals — a monopoly. I ask the former Minister of Fisheries: does the Fisheries Act apply to the Gulf Islands? He nods his head. Does the Canada Shipping Act apply to the Gulf Islands? Does the Criminal Code apply to the Gulf Islands? Does the Canada Water Act apply to the Gulf Islands? There is a federal interest. There is a federal presence in much of the legislation there. So the argument that somehow we've got to pass this bill in order to protect that interest from the locals — we've got to protect the big federal government from these retired local people — is a fraudulent and specious one. There is lots of federal interest there. There is lots of federal control there.

As far as the minister.... Look at the original bill. The minister has got tremendous powers. Now we don't want him to have so many powers that he's going to subjugate the wishes of the local people. But certainly there is a lot of power there that he could use if he needed it.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: I seem to have a little competition here, Mr. Speaker, but I'm accustomed to that.

I'm pleased to welcome the member for the Gulf Islands. I am no expert on the Gulf Islands, but I'm certain that at least once every three years, during an election, the member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis) visits the islands. Some of the young people, if they see him in the supermarkets in those little towns, probably say.... One little child will tug at his mother's coat and say: "Who's that man, Ma?"

MR. BLENCOE: Who's taking our powers?

MR. ROSE: "Who's taking our powers away?" And the mother will say sweetly: "Well, that is the sonorous-voiced Mr. Hugh Curtis, MLA, the Hon. Hugh Curtis, who is here to protect us."

I don't understand the necessity of this at all. But I will say that I think it in effect puts the islands under a much more severe form of trusteeship. I don't think we need that. We've

[ Page 5587 ]

got our school boards now, thanks to the same minister, the Minister of Finance, effectively under a trusteeship. So instead of having a widening of democratic control over a very vital part of peoples' lives, a very vital part of the province, we have here another situation like we have with the school boards — a tendency to control, not to consult but to give orders and to centralize.

This government has a centralize mania. It can't stand dissent. That's why it does things in the middle of the night and does things away from the Legislature. Just take the school boards: if there's good news, and there hasn't been very much of that, the Minister of Education makes the announcement; if there's bad news, well, we leave it either to Dick Melville, the PR flak for that department, or the Minister of Finance as he steps off the plane, pure and pristine, fresh from his invigorating experiences in Toronto. As everybody welcomes him back, except perhaps the teachers, he announces that the teachers and all the school districts, despite the fact that they were elected as autonomous individuals, have been effectively placed under trusteeship.

I will leave a lot of that for another time, but it seems to me that what is happening here, not from deep study of this matter but even just a cursory glance at the legislation, is the trend, and the principle, and it underlies much of the legislation that is coming out of the grinder being ground out by this group of people across the hall that really don't like dissent. They're really anti-democratic.

Cooperation, self-government, local autonomy. Tell that to the school boards. Tell that to the Islands Trust. Tell that to the citizens of B.C. and see if they believe you.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think that the island residents have always had the best PR in the world. They have been accused of all kinds of things. They have been accused of wanting, on the one hand, to keep the islands to themselves and keep out all foreigners, even if they come from the mainland — "We're here now, and therefore we don't want anybody else in." On the other hand, others have been accused of wanting to cut the whole thing up into little plots about the size of funeral plots and sell it to the highest bidder, and therefore pollute the environment even further because of overpopulation. But I don't think either of those two charges is accurate. That doesn't mean that they're not going to be levelled, but I don't believe that they have been fairly treated in this way.

I don't think that there is an objection on the islands to reasonable, cautious, careful kinds of development. There are needs to preserve these islands for people other than those residents, and that, I think, is an aim of those residents as well. I don't think that they're trying to keep people out. I think they are the ones who are as interested in preserving the islands as any group of Canadians, and to suggest otherwise, I think, is a bum rap and a blatant falsehood.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think that the stuff that we're dealing with is really necessary. I don't know why he's doing it. If he wants to, with his overwhelming majority, he can push it through. But I don't want him to do it, and I don't think the people who live on those islands want him to do it either. Therefore I hope he reconsiders his blind rush on this matter. It is incomprehensible to me, and if he can justify it in a way any more successfully than I've heard up to now, then I'd be willing to consider supporting it.

MR. NICOLSON: We've heard two positions from the other side. We've heard the position from the minister, who has said that there's really nothing to this bill, that we're not taking away autonomy and that it's just a different arrangement in terms of hiring. But I think we heard the real agenda when we listened to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis). He drew an analogy. He drew an analogy between the way in which the national parks were administered centrally from Ottawa. He justified it and praised it as efficient. Now whether or not the model that the federal government uses for administering parks, which certainly do have residents and do have some businesses within their boundaries but are certainly different from the diversified communities that one finds on the Gulf Islands, is true or not, it certainly brings to light the fact that we are getting a very mixed signal from the government benches and from the supporters of government benches.

On the one hand we're being told that it's just a little piece of housekeeping, and on the other hand we're being told that this is indeed a centralization of authority and that centralization of authority is a good thing. We're being told that 26 trustees is too many, because it's almost half as many people as we have in the Legislature to look after the affairs of the province, but of course missing the fact that we have a very small bureaucracy to support the Islands Trust. If one were to look at the size of the two bureaucracies, that of the provincial government and that of the Islands Trust, it is indeed very different. The Islands Trust has a very small bureaucracy, indeed I believe many fewer than the number of members in the Trust.

So here we have something which I think is sending out another danger signal to the people of British Columbia and to people who would be investors in British Columbia. It's sending out another danger signal to people who would come and contribute to the prosperity of British Columbia, because this is an unnecessary piece of bad legislation, of bad publicity for British Columbia. It does nothing to enhance the attitude which I thought both sides of this House wanted to foster, and that was a new spirit of cooperation, and that we did believe in decentralizing, that we believed in self-government, in local autonomy, and that locally elected people know how to do things better.

[5:15]

Now, Mr. Speaker, we shouldn't be misled by the coincidence that I suppose the central part of the Gulf Islands is not too far distant from Victoria. We shouldn't be misled, because the kind of legislation that should be operative for the Gulf Islands should not take this geographical proximity into account. Just because we happen to be here in Victoria, fairly close to those Gulf Islands, we are very distant from them in terms of understanding the day-to-day problems of such a group, the similarities that exist on those islands, and the similarities that were found through the public involvement process which led to the formulation of the Islands Trust.

Mr. Speaker, even if this were nothing but housekeeping — we're told two very different things in terms of its relative impact — this is not the time to bring in legislation that centralizes more in terms of employees coming under the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, something that no longer appears to be separate and autonomous, but creating an appearance of something that is centralist. That is not of concern just to people in the Gulf Islands. This is one of the few pieces of legislation out of the 31 bills before the House.... Most of them are finance bills. Of the other bills before the House, this is one of very few to he brought forward at this time. So one of the very few actions being

[ Page 5588 ]

taken by the government is to bring in another piece of legislation that talks in terms of centralism.

Mr. Speaker, to me that is a threat to the people of Nelson-Creston. It's a threat to someone who might want to bring in an industry, someone who might want to invest, someone who might want to create jobs. Once again this does something to heighten the atmosphere of conflict and confrontation which has been the sad record of British Columbia since May 1983. It does nothing to lower that. This is a cure for which there is no disease. We don't need it. Certainly we aren't led to believe that the Islands Trust people have brought this before us.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

But I find that if the government is going to continue to project this kind of an image, if it's going to continue to tell the people of British Columbia that we know best rather than listen to the people, it will never be government when this economy turns around. Because what we need is a government that listens, not tells people. There is so much out there that can be said. In fact, one of the things that the government could do with this legislation in order to turn it around is, to listen to people. Perhaps the minister could indicate either to this motion or in closing on the main motion that we will refer this to a committee and that we will allow witnesses to come in and be heard on this legislation. This would be more of a way to start to set a positive climate in British Columbia. This would be the way in which we could make the people of British Columbia partners in getting on with things. If the government were to listen and to say, "Yes, you're right, this is not the way to proceed; we should have left this alone; we made a mistake," what strength would be found in such an admission. What a positive signal would be given to the people if this government would ever admit that they had done something wrong, if the government would ever indicate to the people that their ears were open. What a new direction we could embark upon in this province if the government had confidence in the people, showed confidence in them, and listened and reacted in terms of some kind of informed debate.

Here we have the new rules of this House. We have a splendid opportunity to put something before a special interest group, for whom I'm sure there are probably many competent spokespersons on both sides of this issue, although so far we haven't heard too many people, other than some government members, defending this particular bill. It does fail to consult. It creates a situation not only in the Gulf Islands, but which I think is just another incremental step towards a hardening of attitudes, towards mistrust of the government — something that tends to paralyze the government and lead us even further towards the day in which the only thing that will really save this province will be a change of government.

There will come a time for this government when, even with the best of intentions and with the best of actions, it will be too late. The people will no longer.... No one will trust it. I don't know if we haven't even passed that day right now. I think that that's sad. It might be fortuitous for members of the New Democratic Party, who might look forward to the government failing. But I would sooner be elected into office on a positive note than from the failure of the current government. I would sooner see this government succeed in turning the economy around in the short term than I would see myself brought in on the government side. In other words, whatever selfish motivations I might have I would have to put secondary to the needs of British Columbia. I would like to see this province turn around as soon as possible.

This kind of message is something that does more to harden attitudes and make people mistrustful of government. It doesn't matter whether the government decides tomorrow to change its attitude toward community colleges. They'll say: "Oh, yeah, sure. They've changed. Sure, see what they've done with the Islands Trust." That's the kind of thing that I think the government has to realize is very, very dangerous about this kind of legislation. If this government were smart, they could have brought in nothing but good, positive stuff for their legislative program. You know, W.A.C. Bennett, when he was government, could have brought in an act giving himself the power to increase the homeowner grant by an order-in-council every year, but he never did. He always required a new act to increase the homeowner grant. Why? Because it was good-news legislation. He didn't want it to just go unnoticed as an order-in-council. He wanted it to be part of a legislative program and something that would get a little bit of debate and attention, and that's what he wanted to spend some time on.

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of legislation we don't want to be spending time on right now. What we should be spending time on is some good-news legislation. This is the kind of thing that the government doesn't need. It's the kind of trouble that the government doesn't need in terms of image. It's the kind of image problem that British Columbia doesn't need. It opens the door wider in terms of mistrust, misapprehension and suspicion of motive.

We have heard two different positions: one from the minister and one from the very eloquent back-bench member of the government. One says it's nothing, just a little housekeeping matter, that it was almost illegal what we've been doing for 12 years, or whatever. I guess it's about nine years this has been legislation. Well, who cares? If it's worked this long, who says we have to fix it? Are we doing all of this to satisfy one or two bureaucrats who blow in the minister's ear, who are trying to show they're on their toes, and that after these nine years they've discovered that something they probably designed in the first place is wrong and it's got to be fixed, it's urgent and so on? Well, I say that we can't afford to do that. We certainly can't afford to fix that up this year, because the climate is not right to fix that kind of thing. And if we're going to fix it, we should listen to people on both sides of the issue — the Gulf Islands people who are affected and let's have it out.

But as I read it, I certainly am more impressed by the arguments from the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis). I think it is a move towards centralization. He was defending centralization as being efficient, as being the way to go. I disagree with that, but I do believe that is more what is contained in this, because it means that from now on it's known what it really means. And it was very nicely written; it was a good cosmetic attempt. I think the legislative counsel should get probably an A for the legislative drafting. It almost succeeded in looking innocuous. But as well as they tried — and I don't think they could have done better — it boils down to the fact that the Islands Trust no longer does the hiring and the firing. It, along with a few other changes in the legislation, means that the Minister of Municipal Affairs really does the hiring and the firing. It means that he has control of the day-to-day operations.

[ Page 5589 ]

[5:30]

Whoever controls that level of bureaucracy is going to wield tremendous power over the Islands Trust. It is therefore something that I think should be reconsidered. It isn't something that has to proceed. As we said when we were on that committee examining rules, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I think I recall one person saying that fairly frequently, Mr. Speaker. So if it isn't broken, I don't think we should attempt to repair this. It might be a small administrative step, but I think that in appearances and in what it says to a very public in British Columbia, to a public that is reading projections of our present economic tailspin continuing until 1993 and getting news like that.... They don't need any more bad news.

What we need is good-news legislation. This should be quietly allowed to die. I won't chortle. I won't claim any part of a victory on my own personal behalf if that happens. We'll all be winners if this legislation dies on the order paper.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak in favour of the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition this morning. The term often used for such an amendment is "reasoned amendment." I think it's meant in those terms, this particular amendment. We're asking the minister and the government to consider a reasonable approach to this particular issue and rethink their position. Over the last few days, and indeed over the last few weeks, there have been consistent outcries from people who are deeply concerned that this kind of legislation may come to fruition, and if it does it will radically impact on the Gulf Islands.

I think the government and the minister have to reconsider. Perhaps this legislation — let's give it the benefit of the doubt — was well-meaning. But all the trustees and the hundreds and hundreds of letters that are coming in, and phone calls.... I know they are coming to the government, to the minister and to the member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis), saying: "Look, we do a good job on these islands. We are reasonable people. All we ask is that we be allowed to do the job that we have done for 11 years, and be allowed to do it effectively, and be allowed to direct our staff, and not have the staff appointed and controlled by the minister."

Trust is also at stake here. I think there is a fine opportunity for this government, tonight or tomorrow morning, to indicate to the Gulf Islanders and to the people of British Columbia that they have heard a message and are indeed prepared to reconsider, within the framework of compromise, cooperation and, if you will, partnership with local government. I know that sometimes the minister — not just the minister.... When you're in this political business, it's very difficult sometimes to back down, lose face, admit something is wrong. It's difficult.

I recognize that the minister is in a particularly difficult situation — again. However, I don't think there's any harm in listening to people and to duly elected representatives from a very special area like the Gulf Islands who are saying: "We think. Look what we've done for 11 years. Look what thousands and thousands of people come to see. Look at the resources on those islands: social resources, human resources, environmental resources." Think about that. Within the parameters of this motion, which is often referred to as a reasoned amendment, let's introduce some reason into this debate and into this issue.

I think the people of the islands and the people of British Columbia would think very well of a minister and of a government that, after two or three days of listening to debate about a different approach, and hearing from hundreds of people involved in the islands — elected and non-elected people; let's put it that way.... Maybe there is another view. Despite what some members have been saying — that it's just a political issue or it's being stirred up — maybe it's not just a political issue. But it's an issue of community, an issue of democracy, an issue of people protecting something they love and believe in and have fought for, and about which they have convinced both sides of this House, at times, of their concerns.

What we're just saying in this amendment, Mr. Speaker, is: let's have some reason, some intelligent reconsideration of our positions. Why do we entrench ourselves in oppositions and refuse to come out of them? We have offered — I have offered on behalf of our side of the House — some compromises. We've even suggested that the minister's desire for some housekeeping is not out of order, that there's nothing particularly wrong with that. He can accommodate his housekeeping desires, but why does he have to take over the direction of the staff and control the staff, and therefore neuter the work of the Islands Trust? Why does he have to do that?

He has said in many meetings, in this Legislature and in a meeting yesterday that he believes in the Islands Trust and what they're doing — that that's not the issue. If that's not the issue, then, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister and to the other members of that government, think about it. Reconsider it, and consider a reasoned approach to this particular issue. Let's not dig ourselves in and fear that we cannot admit that maybe there are other views on positions that we have taken.

Mr. Speaker, I was most interested in the member for.... I always like my colleague from Coquitlam. I always forget where he's from.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: No, Mr. Jack Davis.

AN HON. MEMBER: North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you. The member for North Vancouver–Seymour was talking about greater interests in the Gulf Islands and saying that we shouldn't just be concerned about those who live there administering for themselves their own community and their own environment. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have a letter here from Dr. Philip Dearden, who is chairman of the B.C. chapter of the National and Provincial Parks Association of Canada. I think it's a really.... It's a short letter, but I think, in a succinct way, it really says much about this particular issue and why we on this side of the House are taking some time to point out a number of issues to this government — why we have taken all day on a reasoned amendment.

Let me read this letter to the House from Dr. Philip Dearden:

"Thank you for your recent letter regarding the formation of the economic development committee and your request for our input. We feel that the Gulf Islands must maximize their strengths. The greatest asset is the natural environment. Visitors are drawn to

[ Page 5590 ]

the islands as oases of tranquility in a rapidly urbanizing world. It would seem most unwise to irreversibly jeopardize this unique asset to accommodate short-term economic readjustments. Increased development might mean more jobs, especially in the short run, but over a long time period will continually erode the inherent attraction of the islands. Maximize your strengths. Think long-term sustainable development as opposed to short-term get-rich schemes. Protect your resource base — the natural environment. Create more parks. As the lower mainland and Vancouver Island become increasingly urbanized and crowded, so will the special natural attributes of the Gulf Islands become more valuable."

The white flag is up. Well, maybe we're going to get somewhere yet. The last sentence is very important, Mr. Speaker: "What is needed now is the long-term wisdom and strength to be able to see this and act accordingly."

Mr. Speaker, in about ten lines, Dr. Dearden has really expressed much of what this debate is all about and this issue is all about. I said on Tuesday how very special the islands were and that the Trust had been established to protect those islands for all Canadians and all British Columbians. And here is Dr. Dearden suggesting to us it would be most unwise to irrevocably jeopardize this unique asset to accommodate short-term economic readjustments. The word "asset" is, I think, very important. Again, I ask the minister, if he can at all, to rethink or expand his views or the government's views on the term "asset." Assets are not just dollars but the assets of a community or a province of a country, as measured by other things than just the dollar value.

By the way, I should add, Mr. Speaker, that if anybody would like a copy of Dr. Dearden's letter, I indeed will be glad to provide it.

Much has been said today about the Trust of the Gulf Islands having all these elected people. It's unfortunate that many of those comments were made in rather a derogatory form, because many of those people serve for free. They give their time, and they don't get anything in return except serving their community.

[5:45]

I don't want to go into a long discussion of that particular topic, but I would like to remind the members who did attack those people who give their time to their islands that we do have 2,000 square miles. We have 13 major islands and 450 smaller islands. If you look at the map.... Actually many of the members may not be aware of exactly how extensive this particular area is, and I think it might be very useful, before the attacks are made on people who are serving their community, the majority of them for absolutely no financial reward.... You should just check to see what is involved in serving such a very special and difficult kind of terrain and environment to manage.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

All these islands and areas — the majority of them have people living on them, and have issues and concerns that arise. One of the things that has happened on the islands is a whole network of grassroots democracy — good old-fashioned grassroots democracy. You know, I think it's very telling when this government, and some of the members today, attacks grassroots democracy, because much of the debate and the themes that we've been talking about over the last two years in this Legislature have been attacks by this government on grassroots or local democracy, government or autonomy.

It is very telling that in a derogatory sense these people attacked those 200-odd people who sit on advisory planning commissions, special committees or economic committees — or committees that they struck to work with the Premier on economic recovery; I might tell the minister that. The Islanders have struck special committees to work with this government but so far have been spurned. That is what makes the islands the special place that they are: the people — sure, elected by others on the islands.... And, by jove, those people participate in those elections and are interested in their community. If every community in British Columbia and every part of this province was as interested in their community and in all the various aspects that go to make a community as the people on the islands are, what a marvellous rekindling of grassroots democracy we would see in the province of British Columbia.

How many times do we hear that we only have a 25 percent or 30 percent turnout at municipal elections? There are some real reasons for that. It's not just because people are not interested. I think it's because of how we approach local government and how we don't interest citizens in their local areas and give them a real sense of purpose and a place in shaping that community or that local municipality. Well, Mr. Speaker, in the Gulf Islands, shaping their community, participating in their community and in all the various special and unique things that go into those Gulf Islands, has become a way of life.

That is what we're talking about in this reasoned amendment. That is what we're talking about in this debate. We have a way of life on the islands that is grassroots, that is real. Every British Columbian who visits those islands — and the majority of British Columbians will visit those islands in their lifetime — comes away.... I've heard it many times on the ferries or in town here in Victoria, because we get visitors who have visited there saying: "Boy, we went to the Gulf Islands. We didn't think that sort of thing existed anymore." Dr. Dearden referred to it in his letter. As we urbanize more and as we crowd in more, our society becomes more complex — and, I might add, sicker.... Boy, are we going to need the very things that the Gulf Islanders are working diligently to protect. We're going to need them, Mr. Speaker, if I may say so, to remake our souls. It's healthy there.

What we have here, I guess, is a classic struggle: a government that appears to be unable to see some of the values that we and the trustees and the islanders are talking about. I suppose they're called old values, not worthwhile in the twenty-first century. But I think more and more as we get into this twenty-first century and see the results — what's happening in our cities and our various communities — we're beginning to recognize that some of the values, beliefs, desires and grassroots kinds of ways things are done on this islands.... Boy, we need to preserve them. And you know what? We need to spread them, Mr. Speaker.

We are asking in, this amendment for a reasoned approach. We are asking the government to reconsider their position. Mr. Speaker, I might add that it's not just the official opposition that's doing that, but I would indicate — because again there have been some accusations in this House that it's just the opposition that's opposing this particular piece of legislation — that on March 20.... Just recently — March

[ Page 5591 ]

20 is the release from the Islands Trust — a special emergency session of the Islands Trust council was held and motions such as this were passed unanimously. I want to read this motion into the record:

"Whereas the Premier of British Columbia has publicly stated his government's policy of partnership, cooperation and consultation; therefore be it resolved that the Trust council requests the Premier to instruct his Minister of Municipal Affairs to withhold any further legislation regarding the Islands Trust until this policy of partnership, cooperation and consultation has occurred between the minister and the general Trust in regard to Bill 30."

The Trust is asking, in good faith, for the government to meet its intentions of partnership, cooperation and consultation with local governments in this particular motion. I guess it is asking the government to live up to the fine rhetoric that has been put out in these announcements about the minister believing in partnership and cooperation.

Another very important motion, Mr. Speaker:

"Therefore be it resolved that if the Minister of Municipal Affairs fails to respond to the resolutions so far submitted by the Trust council, the minister should withdraw Bill 30 pending a referendum in the Trust area to be held at the time of the regional district elections in November 1985, or on an alternate date to be decided upon; and that the purpose of the referendum should be to determine whether the residents of the Trust area wish to have the Islands Trust Act retained in its present form; and that the wording of said referendum be agreed to by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the chairman of the Islands Trust."

Mr. Speaker, there's no question that the Islands Trust and the people they represent have categorically stated that they feel the legislation before us is unacceptable. The residents they represent are now daily indicating that position as well. It's been said over and over again....

AN HON. MEMBER: I know. In this debate, too.

MR. REID: It's getting repetitious and tedious.

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, I know, Mr. Speaker, but somehow we have to get through to this government that we on this side of the House will not accept centralization and encroachment into the rights of local government, rights that have been established over many years. We must, in a reasoned amendment, indicate to this government that in this piece of legislation they have failed to consult with the representatives and have created a situation which is contrary to the principles of cooperation, self-government and local autonomy. Those are critical issues in this debate, not only to the Islands Trust but to the whole area of local governments and municipal issues. But what has happened, I suppose, is this issue of centralization and this desire by this government to take over as many things as it can.... What's happened is that the Islands Trust issue has brought this thing to a head. The last two years have seen encroachment, moves by this government to take over the traditional role, the traditional affairs that have been run by local government. Mr. Speaker, it's not just the opposition that's saying that; the UBCM has said that, and even Social Credit supporters have said that they really do not support this government's views in terms of trying to centralize power in Victoria at the expense of local government.

Once again I want to urge the minister and the government to consider the compromises, to consider the reasoned amendment, which is put forward in all sincerity, and to consider their approach, not only in this particular issue today, Bill 30, but in the last two or three years, to local government. If they are to be taken seriously, as the minister travels the province talking about consultation and cooperation....

He's now saying he's going to visit the islands when this bill is through, by the way. He's now going to visit the islands and have consultation. This is a reasoned amendment, and I'm trying to be reasonable in this particular section of the debate. But, you know, when the minister has the audacity to announce: "Well, when the bill is over, and I've jammed it through the House, and I've kicked it down the throats of those islanders, I'll then go and talk to them, and I'll consult with them." I think maybe he should just back off a little bit. Take a couple of weeks off, do a little training program. Go be an alderman or a mayor for a while, and learn some of the ropes a little bit. It might help.

It is true that local government is the child of the provincial government in many respects, but there has to be respect between the parents and the child. Unfortunately, in this piece of legislation there is no respect, there is just....

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm trying to be nice.

There has to be mutual respect between both sides. I'm urging that the minister and his colleagues, perhaps tonight or over the next few days, think about respect, democracy, reason, local control and all the things that have happened in the last 11 years in the Gulf Islands. It is, indeed, a jewel in British Columbia. We have put forward today, through the Leader of the Opposition, a sincere motion that indicates our deep concern at the apparent inability of this government to consider the principles of cooperation, self-government and local autonomy. If there was ever an area in British Columbia where those three words mean so much, it's in the Gulf Islands.

Mr. Speaker, given the time, I 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 6 p.m.

[ Page 5592 ]

Appendix

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

3 The Hon. J. Davis asked the Hon. the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services the following questions:

For each of the fiscal years ended March 31, 1981 through March 31, 1985 —

1. What was the total per diem claim made by Members of the Executive Council?

2. What was the total per diem claim made individually by Members of the Executive Council during each of the five fiscal years?

The Hon. J.R. Chabot, Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services, replied as follows:

"This Ministry has records from August 1983 to date for Ministers' domestic travel. All foreign travel is handled through the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development. Prior to August 1983 each Ministry processed their Minister's travel claims.

"The Ministry of Finance has complete records of all travel; therefore, the question should be redirected to my colleague, the Hon. H.A. Curtis, Minister of Finance."

8 The Hon. J. Davis asked the Hon. the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services the following question:

What are the Provincial Government's Estimates of Gross Provincial Product for the calendar years 1980 through 1984 inclusive or, alternatively, for the fiscal years 1979-80 to 1984-85 inclusive?

The Hon. J.R. Chabot, Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services, replied as follows:

"This question should be redirected to my colleague, the Hon. H.A. Curtis, Minister of Finance."

9 Mr. Hanson asked the Hon. the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services the following questions:

1. Has the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services authorized British Columbia Buildings Corporation to provide space in government buildings for employee operated cafeteria services in the Capital District?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is "yes," what steps has the Minister taken to ensure that such cafeteria services are, in fact, employee operated and that employees are eligible to achieve membership in the association and are able to participate fully in its affairs?

The Hon. J.R. Chabot, Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services, replied as follows:

"1. No."