[ Page 5637 ]

CONTENTS

Ministerial Statement

Islands Trust Amendment Act debate. Hon. Mr. Ritchie –– 5637

Mr. Blencoe

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

On the amendment

Mr. Blencoe –– 5637

Mr. Davis –– 5643

Division –– 5644

Mr. Macdonald –– 5644

Mr. Cocke –– 5645

Mr. MacWilliam –– 5648

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 1985

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We're delighted to have joining us today a number of grade 7 students from Southlands Elementary School. They are: Laura Battye, Susan Shirkoff, Cameron Cronin, Patricia McCormick and Nikki McCloy. They're in company with Mr. David Stephen, their teacher. I'd ask all members to bid them a most hearty and cordial welcome.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I've just been informed that in the legislative precincts today there are a number of students from Quadra Elementary School in Victoria and some of their teachers are accompanying them. I wish the House to make welcome those children and their teachers from Quadra Elementary School.

ISLANDS TRUST AMENDMENT ACT DEBATE

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a brief ministerial statement.

On April 12 the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) issued a press release entitled "Islanders Can Claim Victory in Bill 30 Debate." This would demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of that member of the rules of this House. It offends the order paper of this House, it misleads the press and it certainly misleads the people of the islands. The member should realize that he does not represent all of the residents of the island.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, is there a response?

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, it's well known, even under the new rules, that the government had the option of calling Bill 30 on Friday after statements were concluded and that government in its wisdom did not call Bill 30. Indeed the minister decided to run from this House to go talk about partnership and cooperation, at the same time that he's down in this House with a dirty piece of legislation taking away partnership and cooperation from the islands. He ran from this House...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR.BLENCOE: ...and for two days, Mr. Speaker, we had no discussion of this important piece of legislation.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, order please. The Chair cannot help but pass an observation that inasmuch as we still have an opportunity for debate on a bill before us, it seems almost inappropriate that either the ministerial statement or the response to the ministerial statement was needed, when both those statements could have been made in the full context of the debate presently before the chamber.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 30.

ISLANDS TRUST AMENDMENT ACT, 1985
(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, it would appear that this government is so nervous and anxious about Bill 30 that the minister had to run from this House and couldn't stand to take the heat in this House and the pressure that is coming from the Islands Trust. Now they get their good Social Credit friend, Mr. Jim Hume, to write a good column this morning. Oh, Mr. Speaker, how desperate they are. That objective, marvellous reporter and columnist, Mr. Jim Hume, does his little number in favour of the Social Credit government. Was he fishing? Was he on a little fishing trip with his friends on the government side in the last few days? Or did it happen in a local bar downtown that Mr. Hume and his friends got together and had a little discussion about Bill 30? Is this what happened?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BLENCOE: Well, Mr. Speaker, we all know that Mr. Hume is a very close friend of this government, and today he does his little defence to try to introduce personalities into this debate. But we categorically say that this bill is above personalities. This bill is critical to the future of the Gulf Islands, and the minister couldn't stay in this House on Friday or Monday and couldn't have anybody else on the side of the government talk for this bill except the member over here. No member of that government except the minister and the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) has had the guts to stand up and defend this innocuous, disgusting piece of legislation. That's what it's all about, Mr. Speaker.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like your advice. This member said that people on this side didn't have guts. I think that's an unparliamentary word. I'd like you to rule.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, temperate language in debate is always a hallmark of this hallowed institution. I would commend members to that longstanding tradition.

Hon. member, I see that the regular time for the member's statement has expired. However, for the information of the House, the member has informed the Chair that he is the designated speaker on the amendment. The member continues.

MR. BLENCOE: Perhaps the appropriate term, Mr. Speaker, would be "intestinal fortitude." Maybe that's the correct term for this government. With deference to the Minister of Transportation and Highways, we'll use that term.

We had hoped that this government would listen to reason, would listen to the wishes and desires of the Gulf Islanders and the trustees — all those islanders who are concerned about those beautiful islands — and would seriously consider the reasoned amendment put forward by the

[ Page 5638 ]

Leader of the Opposition. We happen to think it is an appropriate amendment at this time, during the debate on this very important legislation, and I will just remind the government what that amendment states: "that the government, through its failure to consult with the local representatives, has created a situation respecting the Islands Trust area which is contrary to the principles of cooperation, self-government and local autonomy."

[10:15]

I think it was telling of the hypocrisy of this government, and this minister in particular, when the minister ran from this House for two days to talk with locally elected people about the theme of cooperation and partnership with the Social Credit government, about their being serious about working with local government. I understand that he wishes to get all his legislation and estimates through so he can go across the province to try to convince those municipal governments and towns and villages that they are serious about cooperation and partnership in British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: This government relates one message to the people of British Columbia, and to the municipalities and local government, about partnership and cooperation: that they have the interests of local government at heart. At the same time we have on the floor of this House a piece of legislation that clearly violates those expressed intentions of this government.

It is sheer hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker, and you're not going to be able to con local government that you're serious about cooperation when you introduce pieces of legislation like Bill 30, which clearly takes away the autonomy of the Islands Trust. It affects their ability to govern, their ability to direct staff, and all the good work they have done in the last 11 years.

How can the people of British Columbia and local government take this government seriously? All the fine rhetoric, all the fine news releases and reports that they can relay to local government, all the public meetings the minister wishes to hold to say that they are serious about cooperation.... At the same time we have a piece of legislation that is basically a power-grab, taking away the autonomy of local government, and specifically of the Islands Trust.

This government has consistently, over the last few years, centralized power, moving into the area of traditional responsibility held by local government that has been respected and upheld for years and years. And we now have another example in Bill 30 that guts local autonomy in the Gulf Islands. If this minister and this government are to be taken seriously about cooperation and partnership and conferring with local government over common concerns, issues and priorities, then they have to be honest and candid about partnership and cooperation. We cannot emphasize that point enough, Mr. Speaker.

On Friday and yesterday no other member of this House was allowed to speak to this bill, because they pulled it from the agenda, so we had hoped the government was indeed starting to listen to reason and to the views of the Gulf Islanders and many British Columbians. We had hoped that there was a sense of reason here. In a minute I'm going to table hundreds of letters. I have some of them that have been coming in to this government. The phone calls and telegrams from concerned citizens, from people of all political persuasions.... We had hoped all these were having an impact on this government, and that they were prepared for once to consider a reasonable approach to the governing of the Gulf Islands.

I think the people of British Columbia are asking and demanding that we pull back from our entrenched views, that we not necessarily always think about who is right, but what is right for the province of British Columbia and the people living in this province — not who is right, but what is right. Too often, as elected officials who are all guilty of this to some degree, we get involved in defending our own personal views. We get dug in, Mr. Speaker, and we cannot see our way clear to achieving some compromise and some resolution, so that both sides in a particular controversy feel they have been part of the process that resolves problems. I think the people of British Columbia want that kind of positive approach to problems.

We've had the opportunity — and we still have the opportunity, for this government to sit down, for the minister to sit down, and work out a compromise. We have tried to suggest in a reasoned amendment that they are violating the so-called principles of cooperation and partnership that they supposedly are telling the people of British Columbia they hold dear. But now we're saying that this government should take the opportunity — and should have done it in the last few days and over the weekend — to work out, with the Islands Trust trustees and all those people who are duly elected by their constituents on the Gulf Islands, a reasoned approach and a reasonable compromise.

That is not too much to expect, Mr. Speaker, and the people of British Columbia and the Gulf Islands are looking for that problem-solving process. They wish the decision-making process to be, at times where possible, one of resolution of issues and of both parties to a dispute coming together. That's what the art of politics should be all about.

Politics is the art of compromise, the art of what is possible, and it's an honourable component of the political process. All we are asking is that this government reintroduce — and we're prepared to do that — some reason into this process, rather than digging in and both sides saying they're right — one side saying it's right, and then the other side saying it's right. Where is the middle ground? Where is the common ground? Mr. Speaker, Mr. Humphries, chairman of the Islands Trust, and the Islands Trust trustees have indicated to the minister quite clearly that they do wish to meet with him and to achieve some compromises on this particular issue, that both sides can be accommodated in their desires.

I have a number of letters here from many people on the islands. Many of them came during the Campbell process, many have come since the debate on Bill 30, and every day there are more coming. I am getting copies of these letters, and I would like to table these at this time, Mr. Speaker, as part of this call for reason and understanding in trying to find some common solutions. All these letters ask the government to reconsider their position and try and meet with the trustees and the key people in the Trust to find some resolution to this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I want to continue on this theme that the Islands Trust has been reasonable and has wished to find some sensible solution to this issue. There are a number of pieces of correspondence from the Islands Trust, in particular from Mr. Humphries to the minister, going back a few weeks and much longer than that, asking the minister for some

[ Page 5639 ]

meetings, asking the minister to consider some amendments that would allow him to do his housekeeping but allow the Trust to retain the ability to set the direction of their staff. One letter is very interesting, and I'd like to read it into the record. It is a letter from Mr. Humphries to the Premier of the province written back on March 4 this year, when Mr. Humphries and the Islands Trust learned that there were going to be some changes to the Islands Trust Act, and asking, I think in a reasoned approach before the legislation hit this floor, for some problem-solving, for some quiet meetings with the minister or with the Premier to find a way that both sides could be satisfied on this issue. I keep saying that, Mr. Speaker: both sides can be satisfied in this issue. I would like to read this letter:

"Dear Mr. Premier:

"I am writing at this time to request your consideration of a matter essential to the effective administration of the Islands Trust Act. This is done in compliance with the section of the Islands Trust Act that requires me to recommend to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-CounciI on matters pertaining to our mandate.

"On February 13, 1985, I was advised in confidence by your colleague, the Hon. Bill Ritchie, that I should not appoint a manager of the Islands Trust, because legislation was being proposed that would amend the Islands Trust Act. I was led to believe that the intended legislation would amend section 13, thereby removing the authority of the general trustees to appoint employees and designate their title, office and responsibilities.

"In brief, the authority to appoint and manage our staff would be removed from the control of the duly elected officials of the Islands Trust, and our staff would be placed under the direct control of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. As nothing was said about other aspects of our act, I conclude that the Islands Trust is to be continued.

"Since that time, in the best interests of the residents of the Trust area and the administration of our act, a manager has been appointed. This action was taken with the knowledge that the Trust has both the authority and duty to ensure the effective administration of the act, despite the possibility that changes may occur sometime in the future.

"The proposed legislation change would in some unspecified manner amalgamate the staff of Municipal Affairs and the staff of the Islands Trust. Such a step would seriously disrupt the planning and development services now provided to the communities in the Trust area. It would be viewed by our elected officials and the communities they serve as a direct and totally unwarranted interference in the management of Trust affairs. It would have the same effect, one might expect, if the staff of regional districts and municipalities were to be placed under the authority of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Imagine the impact if the minister were to propose a similar decision on the Capital or Greater Vancouver Regional Districts!

"At issue here is whether staff can work effectively while serving two masters. To whom are they responsible, and from whom do they take direction? At present our staff are directed to prepare land use bylaws to accomplish the wishes of duly elected local officials, who are in turn responsible to the communities they serve. The content of such instruments is determined by the communities on each of the 13 designated islands within constraints determined by relevant provincial statutes. Thus are local interests protected. The provincial interests are protected through a process of referral to other government agencies and by a requirement that the Minister of Municipal Affairs approve all such bylaws before they become law.

"At present, like regional districts, we have a workable, arm's-length relationship with all government agencies. Including Municipal Affairs, which ensures that both local and provincial interests are independently protected and administered."

If I may just break from the letter, Mr. Speaker, very briefly, these points are critical to this issue. The one that I remind the government of is that at this point the minister has the power to hold back any decision in terms of bylaws that the Trust comes forward with, and his interests or the governmentos interests are protected. That's a very critical factor. We must clear up the notion that the provincial interest is not protected. It is indeed protected under the rules of the Islands Trust. The minister constantly — and I think sometimes in a negative fashion — does hold back important decisions the Islands Trust has made.

[10:30]

Going back to the letter:

"If the staff of Islands Trust were to be merged with that of Municipal Affairs, not only would the staff be placed in an impossible position, the elected officials and the various island communities they serve would see it as a direct and unjustified interference in the management of island affairs. It would be viewed as a threat to local autonomy, a matter of considerable local concern, as can be seen in the hundreds of responses submitted to Mr. Dan Campbell's inquiry into the Trust."

Many of those letters I tabled this morning, including letters that have also come during the debate on Bill 30.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, on that point I must advise that until leave of the House is obtained, the letters cannot be tabled.

MR. BLENCOE: Okay. At what point do I do that, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: Now.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to have those letters I've referred to be tabled in the House.

Leave granted.

MR. BLENCOE: Back to the letter, Mr. Speaker:

"Should the government's intentions become public knowledge, the affected communities will respond in a most negative fashion. It will be seen as one more attempt to centralize bureaucratic control in Victoria at the expense of small rural communities. Such reactions, if they occur, and I am sure they will, can only have a detrimental effect on a series of development proposals already in stream or about to

[ Page 5640 ]

be initiated. Only by virtue of the diplomatic efforts of trustees operating with the earned respect of the affected communities has it been possible to obtain local support for major developments on Saltspring, South Pender and several other islands. Should the trust be viewed as other than autonomous in serving the needs and interests of these and other communities, I fear that such support and cooperation as has been achieved will evaporate, cooperation and trust will disappear, and these and other development proposals could be at risk."

Mr. Speaker, I'll break from the letter. What the Trust is saying is that they are prepared to cooperate; they are prepared to develop development proposals. They are prepared to look at change, but it's got to be done in a cooperative framework with senior government. What's happening in this legislation, as we've had in the past, is an abuse of that cooperative spirit and framework. I believe that the Trust is indicating.... And I also read certain sections from other letters which show that the Trust is working on economic development issues and on streamlining their bylaws and some of their community plans, and is trying to meet some of the concerns of the minister and of this government; and they're doing that within a cooperative framework. On their part they are prepared to cooperate and to try to take seriously the minister's and this government's intention vis-à-vis partnership. I think that should be honoured and supported. And I think this minister and this government should take up the Islands Trust within that framework of cooperation and partnership, and meet the spirit of those intentions.

I go back to the letter, Mr. Speaker. Remember, this letter is to the Premier.

"Following the recent speech by the Premier announcing his intention to seek cooperation and partnership involving the provincial government and local communities in attempts to provide economic recovery, I spoke to the Islands Trust council, urging that we become part of the process"

I re-emphasize that part: "urging that we become part of that process."

"To that end, a special committee of council was established to investigate ways and means by which island communities can become involved. The committee intends to consult with the relevant ministers and government agencies to determine how the Trust can ensure the cooperation and participation necessary to accomplish the Premier's objectives within the Trust area.

"In my view it would be regrettable indeed should the anticipated positive goals be placed at risk because of a poorly conceived piece of legislation that does absolutely nothing to further the provincial interest."

There's a very important statement there, Mr. Speaker. It's regrettable that the anticipated positive goals of working with the government on trying to develop economic initiatives on the Gulf Islands and being prepared to work in a cooperative framework, Mr. Speaker — in a bond of trust, if you will, with the local Islands Trust and this government — to develop initiatives that would benefit the Gulf Islands and benefit all British Columbians....

What the chairman of the Islands Trust is doing, Mr. Speaker, in a very diplomatic and reasonable approach, is offering an olive branch, if you will; he's offering the hand of partnership. He is offering an approach that I think we all wish to see in the province of British Columbia: that is, a process where we can work out our problems rather than get into contentious legislation that can only hurt the process and, in this particular piece of legislation, in the long term and in the short term hurt the interests of the Gulf Islanders and that particular unique environment that we all wish to protect.

Again, the chairman says that we will be risking the opportunity to enter into that kind of agreement of partnership and cooperation and economic revival on the Gulf Islands. Here is a grand opportunity. Here is perhaps the first opportunity for this government to meet its so-called announced aspirations in terms of partnership and cooperation, of renewal, with local government. Here is an offer that the minister should not turn down. He should grab it, take it. Here is a letter to the Premier of the province of British Columbia which is an olive branch, an offer to work with this government in the interests of all Gulf Islanders and of all British Columbians. It is a fine gesture that should be taken immediately by this government. It is a fine gesture to the Premier of this province and to this government, and it should not be turned aside or spurned. It is serious, it is sincere, and it is my understanding that the offer is still there.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Back to the letter, Mr. Speaker.

"Tinkering with the structure and function of local government can never be in the provincial interest unless it can be clearly demonstrated that it serves some significant economic, social or administrative purpose."

I will break from the letter.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: Where is the cabinet? Where is the back bench?

MR. BLENCOE: Well, Mr. Speaker, there is nobody on the government side who is prepared to defend this bill, except the minister and the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds). The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), the member for Saanich and the Islands — and many of the islands in the Islands Trust are in his constituency — has not been in this House to debate this issue. He's come in once or twice but has quickly left when it came up.

What is happening with this piece of legislation? Whose interest is it serving, as Mr. Humphries indicates? For whom is it put forward? What economic purpose does it serve? What social purpose does it serve? What administrative purpose does it serve? Who is going to benefit from this piece of legislation? The Islands Trust? No. The Gulf Islanders? No. The minister says it's only housekeeping, so technically it's not going to benefit him in any of these ways. Who's calling for it? Particularly when we consider that it really is not necessary.... By pursuing the legislation as it stands now, and not being prepared to compromise, you are risking an opportunity to work with the Islands Trust. Those 13,000 to 14,000 Gulf Islanders were prepared to participate with this government in economic revival and economic reconstruction in the province of British Columbia, and particularly in the Gulf Islands. In whose interests is this bill being put forward? We have yet to have an explanation of that. There

[ Page 5641 ]

are certainly very few government members able to describe why it's being put forward. Mr. Humphries clearly asks: "Why is this legislation being put forward?" The minister has all the ability now to review anything that comes forward from the Islands Trust. We don't disagree with that.

Unless this minister is prepared to accept some changes to this legislation which, in the interests of partnership and cooperation, meet his housekeeping requirements yet allow the Islands Trust to flourish and direct its staff, it can only be seen as a blatant power grab and the start to radically changing the Gulf Islands and changing that whole environment. That's the only thing we can see. But we ask to be proven wrong. We ask the government to show us that they don't want to do that. We sincerely ask the government to indicate to us that they don't want to do that. We have the amendments put forward by the Islands Trust, and an amendment that I have prepared for committee stage on this bill which will clearly meet both sides in this issue and put to rest the idea that this government isn't serious about the Islands Trust. If that doesn't happen, then we have a gross hidden agenda for the Gulf Islands — centralization, power grab — and we are going to see, I suspect, a massive redevelopment of those islands. That would not be in the interests of either British Columbia or those islanders. Unless the government can prove that that is not accurate by changing or by withdrawing this legislation, they stand accused of sheer hypocrisy regarding partnership and cooperation with local government, and we know that the statement that this is a hidden agenda for major changes to the islands is indeed accurate.

I'll carry on with the letter:

"As I pointed out in a letter to Mr. Ritchie, if his concerns relate to the cost of providing development service to the islands, consideration might be given to an amendment to the present financing formula. While no taxpayer welcomes an increase in taxes, I feel certain that most taxpayers in the Trust area would prefer to carry a slightly higher tax burden if that were to be the price of retaining local autonomy."

Here is another offer from the chairman of the Islands Trust, saying that he is prepared to recommend to his taxpayers and trustees that, to preserve their precious autonomy, they take a far greater financial load.

I would think this government would be interested in such an offer. I would think the minister would jump at this. Well, Mr. Speaker, they are not, it would appear, and again I have to ask why. Why not take up the offer by the Islands Trust? If they don't, then we have to come back to the fact that the government has a hidden agenda for the islands and they want to control the development; they want to centralize the power and the decision-making process in the hands of the provincial government. That can be the only conclusion. We have compromise, we have amendments, we have an offer by the Islands Trust to take over the financial control and meet the tax requirements. We have offers by the Trust to participate in recovery, to participate in streamlining the processes on the islands to accommodate this government's wishes vis-à-vis development concepts. Everything they are doing in terms of trying to cooperate with this government is being spurned, turned aside.

[10:45]

Why is it being turned aside? That's the question that's got to be answered. The Gulf Islanders and the Islands Trust have a right to those answers. So do the people of British Columbia, because they recognize that these islands are a jewel.

They're filmed, they're written about by visitors from all over the world. As I've said before, every British Columbian who goes there raves about what has been done in the islands. I go back to the letter, Mr. Speaker:

"It should be pointed out that the Minister of Municipal Affairs has the authority to determine how much of the Islands Trust budget can be raised from local taxes and how much will be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund.

"For these reasons, Mr. Premier, I respectfully request your serious consideration of the wisdom and effectiveness of the legislation being passed by your colleague, the Hon. Bill Ritchie. In my view, this is a time when we must all cooperate and work together to achieve common goals. It is not a time to irritate or alienate even small communities in British Columbia. In various ways the Islands Trust has attempted to cooperate with the provincial government, while at the same time fairly and honestly to represent the concerns of the communities we represent. We sincerely intend to continue in this fashion, but we will need your help to convince our island communities that a spirit of goodwill and cooperation is reciprocated by the government you represent."

It's signed by Dr. Mike Humphries, Chairman of the Islands Trust.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I challenge the quorum.

MR. SPEAKER: The quorum has been challenged. It would appear that we do not have the requisite number of members in the House pursuant to our standing orders. I will summon members by ringing the division bells.

The quorum has been satisfied. Please continue, hon. member.

MR. BLENCOE: It's nice to get some members from the government side back again.

AN HON. MEMBER: If you make it interesting we may stay.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's not only an interesting issue but a very important issue, and critical to the future of the Gulf Islands. We do not take that issue lightly. As a matter of fact, that is one of the most important areas in the province, and we are here to speak for it and to defend it; to look for some answers and alternatives, to find some solutions to what the government is putting forward. That's our job. In a constructive fashion we have indicated how that can be accommodated. We will continue to be positive, continue to pursue alternatives to the point where this government's credibility on this issue will be totally negated. We will have had all the ways that these things can be achieved.

I have read this morning a very important piece of correspondence to the Premier of the province of British Columbia. This piece of correspondence, I think, indicates quite clearly that the Islands Trust is willing and able and prepared to sit down, in a framework of cooperation and consultation, and achieve some answers to these important problems. This particular bill, and the reason why I've introduced the amendment, does indeed risk the very things that Mr. Humphries refers to in his letter.

[ Page 5642 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Who cares?

MR. BLENCOE: That's the unfortunate position of this government on this particular bill, Mr. Speaker: who cares? Many people do indeed care. We certainly care, and the islanders care. If you did a study or a poll you would find that most British Columbians do indeed care about those islands and become deeply concerned when any government makes moves to take over and control their destiny, without telling us what they want to do with that control.

MR. R. FRASER: We've done more for the islands than you'll ever know.

MR. BLENCOE: You haven't done it. The member says they have done everything for those islands. This government hasn't done it; this side of the House here hasn't done it. It's the Trust and those islanders dedicated to the preservation and enhancement of the islands who have achieved what has been done in the Gulf Islands today. They have done it, and let's give them credit.

The government may be interested.... There have been a number of editorials all castigating the government's action on this particular piece of legislation. The Times-Colonist clearly said: "Hands off." Yesterday in the Vancouver Sun there was a very important editorial. The headline read: "Betraying a Trust." Let me just read it, Mr. Speaker.

"The provincial government can't keep its hands off one of the most beautiful treasures nature has bestowed on British Columbia. It seems bent on destroying the Islands Trust, a body that has proved an embarrassing obstacle in the past and which it foresees as a future pest.

"Even the government's friends on the Trust are complaining about the undermining of their role, which was intended as guardian of that precious string of jewels strung across the Pacific between the mainland and Vancouver Island.

"The objectives of the government — mining on Gambier Island, an airstrip on Mayne island, and so on — do not always coincide with those of the Trust. The government has consistently threatened the Trust: a previous minister wanted to abolish it, and others have encouraged development by special interests and circumvented the planning process.

"The latest move is legislation sired by Municipal Affairs minister Bill Ritchie that would transfer the Trust's employees to his own Victoria bureaucracy, thus diminishing its autonomy and independence.

"Leave the islands alone, Mr. Ritchie. Don't meddle any more with this priceless asset."

That's the message that's been coming over and over to this government and this minister through letters and telegrams, editorials and articles. Only one particular member of the media is trying to turn this issue into a personality clash.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Only one, Mr. Speaker, who is the defender of this government over and over again, who uses his pen to defend his friends....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the amendment before us deals with consultation, the principles of cooperation and self-government, and local autonomy. It does not deal with what the member is addressing now, Will the member speak to the amendment or take his place.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I believe I heard that member make reference to my acting on behalf of my friends. Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia are my friends. I am acting on behalf of the people of British Columbia in this position, and I resent.... I ask that member to withdraw that remark.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair heard nothing offensive, hon. member; further, that doesn't appear to be a point of order. But I will once again remind the second member for Victoria that we have a specific amendment before us, and debate must relate specifically to that amendment. Otherwise, the member will be asked to take his place.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm sorry that every time I use the word "friends" the minister gets a little uptight and upset. I think every British Columbian wishes to be a friend, Mr. Speaker, to all of us in this Legislature. On this particular legislation I think the people of British Columbia wish us to befriend the Trust and all they stand for; that's a great part of the issue.

What I was saying, Mr. Speaker, is that editorial writers and media people, who are a measure of public opinion, are stating quite categorically.... And despite what we might think about the media, they are indeed still a credible measure of public opinion in British Columbia. Here we have in the learned daily journal, the Vancouver Sun, the headline "Betraying a Trust." We have had other editorial headlines and other stories saying virtually the same thing. This government is indeed betraying a trust — a trust that was established for 11 years.

"Mr. Ritchie, leave the islands alone. Don't meddle any more with this priceless asset." Mr. Speaker, we only have one person in the media, as we all know, who doesn't see the islands as a priceless asset, and we all saw that this morning.

Mr. Speaker, I have other pieces of correspondence that I will table not today but during the committee estimates, indicating a willingness on the part of the Islands Trust to cooperate and be reasonable on this particular issue.

I wish to conclude on this reasoned amendment this morning that indeed it is a reasoned amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Time.

MR. BLENCOE: I haven't quite finished yet, Mr. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were finished a long time ago.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. To the amendment, please.

MR. BLENCOE: I would hope that maybe those cabinet ministers would get up and speak to this particular piece of legislation. It would be useful to see how they can defend this bill.

I would ask the government, Mr. Speaker, to consider the views of the Islands Trust chairman and the general trustees, to consider the amendment as a reasoned approach; that we

[ Page 5643 ]

can achieve some compromise and find resolution. We are concerned that this government is betraying a trust. They have not proved to this House or to anybody on the islands or anybody in British Columbia the rationale for this apparent power-grab. There seems to be absolutely no reason for this, because the minister's wishes can be accommodated in a very normal housekeeping method, allowing the House to proceed as usual. We want some reason, or otherwise this issue is going to become hotter, more critical and more embittered. You're going to put those trustees up against the wall in terms of defending their islands. They've done it before, and they'll continue to do it unless there is some reason and rational thought introduced into this debate.

Either pull the bill or consider our amendment, consider the suggestions of the islands trustees and the amendments that we'll be putting forward later unless the bill is called back. Let's have a real solution to this issue, not one where both sides dig in and the trustees have to defend their homes against centralized power of this government. Let the Trust get on with the job that it's done for 11 years.

I conclude our debate on the reasoned amendment.

[11:00]

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the amendment before the Legislature now is really one of censure. It says there has not been sufficient consultation between the Islands Trust directors on the one hand and the Minister of Municipal Affairs on the other. It includes a plea for not only greater consultation but cooperation.

First, as to discussion, I read from a letter addressed to the Hon. Bill Ritchie, February 20, 1985, and signed by the chairman of the Islands Trust. Obviously on February 20 the chairman of the Islands Trust knew what the substance of the present bill was, because in the second paragraph he says: "From our conversation on February 13, 1985, I infer that there is an intention to amend section 13 of the Islands Trust Act, removing the power of the general trustees to appoint employees and a manager." So the essentials of this tiny bill were known and had been conveyed orally at least by the minister to the chairman and through the chairman to the other directors of the Trust as early as the middle of February. I can't fault the minister for not showing the precise wording of the bill to the members of the Islands Trust in the ensuing weeks, because that would offend the conventions of this House. Indeed, the members of this Legislature should see the bill before anyone else. So I don't agree with the censure aspect of this amendment. The more serious part of the amendment relates to cooperation in general terms between the government in Victoria and the members, the chairman and directors of the Islands Trust.

Now the opposition obviously takes the view that the Islands Trust legislation sets up yet another level of government, that the Islands Trust membership is democratically elected and should be viewed as having many of the powers, prerogatives and responsibilities of a municipality or, perhaps more appropriately, regional district. Certainly the structure of the Trust, the legislation, points in that direction.

I think it's really unfortunate that we should be looking at the Islands Trust as another level of government. I really think that as all the laws of Canada and British Columbia and the administrative dictates of the various ministries apply throughout the Gulf Islands, we don't need another planning authority. We don't need another level of government which has the power to tax and so on.

What we do need is a unique Trust, a Trust limited in its membership but very forward-looking, imaginative and sensitive in its views. Its job is to look after a unique part of the world, a unique part of this province, and its principal concern has to be environmental. It has to be the protection of the environment in which these islands continue to exist and the protection of the islands, their amenities and their unique and natural features from ravages of various kinds, including those which may be imposed on them by the people who live in the Gulf Islands or who have property in the Gulf Islands.

Indeed I think one could well argue that those who would take that broad, imaginative view aren't necessarily residents of the Gulf Islands at all. They are people with a very broad view, certainly with technical competence among other things, and their main job, as I said in earlier remarks, would be to preserve the Gulf Islands as a unique park area — admittedly with residents, admittedly with some commercial activities — and to preserve the essentials, the unique ecology, of these different islands with their different features.

So I would think that the best kind of Trust would be a Trust which was perhaps appointed by several levels of government, primarily the province, with this overview of the Gulf Islands very much in mind. That would not be, Mr. Speaker, another level of government. It wouldn't necessarily be elected — at least all of its members would not be. Indeed, I would argue that a minority only of its members should be elected locally, if elected at all.

The legislation before us, which this amendment condemns, really relates to the nature of the Trust, and the Trust is the entity with which cooperation is requested. I have some difficulty with the bill itself, because it appears to reverse legislation which was proposed by the present government and passed in 1977. Just to refresh our memories, back in 1969 the former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, brought in a ten-acre freeze on the Gulf Islands. This freeze was to continue until an Islands Trust or some similar body with an overview of things was set up and could ensure that development of the islands proceeded in a way that was compatible with the basic ecology of those islands.

From 1972 through 1974 an all-party committee toured the Gulf Islands and came up with recommendations. Basically these recommendations were as follows. Firstly, that an Islands Trust Act be passed by the Legislature and that that act provide for two locally elected trustees for each of 13 major islands. Secondly, that the cabinet appoint three general trustees to oversee the 13 major islands and 450 smaller islands, and to appoint staff. Incidentally, it was the government who was going to appoint staff in that case. And thirdly, technical planning through the seven regional districts with trustees holding the power of veto. So technical planning would be through the regional districts.

In 1977, with most of the community plans and regulatory bylaws in place, the then Municipal Affairs minister, the Hon. Hugh Curtis, led in the amendment of the Trust Act to have all trustees elected, to transfer land use planning from regional districts to the Islands Trust and give the general trustees authority to appoint and direct their staff. So Bill 30, the bill which the opposition now wishes to amend, goes in the opposite direction to the legislation of 1977. Tersely, it's to enable the Minister of Municipal Affairs to provide exclusive staff support for the Trust. In other words, the Trust will no longer have its own staff but will rely on the ministry.

What is the basic reason for this? Is it to control expenditure? Perhaps that's the reason. Is it to control the nature of

[ Page 5644 ]

the appointments? I think an Islands Trust suitably set up either needs a small staff with a budget to appoint or retain consultants. But again, I would see it taking the broad environmental point of view and not duplicating any of the powers, any of the authorities, of existing levels of government, particularly the regional districts and so on.

Or is the concern that of land use planning? Is the government really concerned about the nature of developments, which with the present administration — with the present Islands Trust directors, anyway — might occur? I notice in the correspondence between the directors of the Islands Trust and the minister, which has now been tabled by one of the members opposite, that the Islands Trust even suggests not only some local taxation, if necessary, to meet the budgetary problem but a willingness to get on with some kinds of commercial, even industrial, development. I think this is beside the point. I think that an Islands Trust should be concerned with the ecology and not with development that's covered in other ways and by other levels of government.

I don't see any sinister purpose in Bill 30. I think if one wanted to stretch his imagination, he could read this morning's Vancouver Province and see where British Petroleum is drilling for natural gas on Vancouver Island, and that the sedimentary basin in which they're drilling extends through some or several of the Gulf Islands and into the Georgia strait. Well, that's an old debate, and I doubt very much whether there's any likelihood of any drilling taking place in the Strait of Georgia. Certainly when I was a federal minister we made sure that that didn't happen. You can count on the federal side, if not the province, to ensure that that kind of development won't take place.

But again, I see an Islands Trust as something which doesn't duplicate present levels of government. It is not another level of government that has to have many powers — like the power to tax or to decide land use in great detail. But I still would like to hear from the minister precisely why his ministry should supply all the staff. I think that staff or consultants supplying support to an Islands Trust properly set up would be drawn, if they're drawn from government, from Lands, Parks and Housing, from Environment, even from Highways and certainly from Health. So I would like to hear from the minister whether money is the problem, and how he is going to cover the environmental, health and other aspects of staff support for the future Islands Trust.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that Bill 30 in second reading be amended by a reasoned amendment which states: "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" — standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

NAYS — 27

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

MR. SPEAKER: On the main motion, the first member for Vancouver East. [Applause.]

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to have the applause after they have heard what I am about to say.

I don't know what this minister is up to, and I've listened with care to the debate. I haven't got a personal interest in the Gulf Islands, apart from a small cottage with its adjoining outhouse. I should declare that interest before I speak.

What we're really embarked upon here in the Legislature is embracing a very pernicious principle. I'm going to talk a little bit about the Gulf Islands, but I'm also going to talk about your board of school trustees, Mr. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich). If this principle is in order as it is applied to the 26 elected representatives of the Islands Trust, in the sense that the government can switch and pull their employees, would it apply to school boards? Will that be the next extension? If the principle is sound....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, would it? Because that is the principle we're debating, if you can call it a principle in this bill. If the Islands Trust can have its manager appointed and then moved by this government, would you think it proper, then, that the federal government, which after all has an interest in many of the joint programs in education and in many other fields, should have the power in areas of provincial jurisdiction to remove the staff and to assign the staff to administer the programs? Do you think it's proper in the field of municipal affairs? Here is the minister who does not give us a proper explanation of why this particular change is necessary — who refuses to sit back, consult with the people of the Gulf Islands and see whether there is some other plan.

I've been listening carefully to the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), who has put up a magnificent and reasoned defence against this bill. You know, Mr. Minister of Municipal Affairs, if you do this here, would you perhaps think of doing it to the Greater Vancouver Regional District? Their planning department has been kind of gutted by this government already, but they still have their own staff. Would you stop at this bill? Will you give the House your assurance that this is the end insofar as this principle goes, that it will never be applied by this government to other bodies such as municipal councils, regional districts and boards of school trustees? There are other examples.

So you ask yourself: are we accepting a principle here that is inherently dangerous to democratic government? You

[ Page 5645 ]

ask yourself: what are the reasons for it? And the minister says, I suppose — but he hasn't spelled it out.... He might say that they're spending too much money on staff. Well, you can look after that by consulting with them to begin with, and then this government can look after that, if necessary, by other means. They've done it in other cases. They've done it with the school districts. They may say that they are appointing the wrong people, but elected government at the local level is entitled to some autonomy and self-respect in this province of British Columbia, and we see that being eroded.

What the minister is doing, Mr. Speaker, is taking on the very principle of local autonomy, not only with the Gulf Islands but throughout the whole length and breadth of the province of British Columbia. The principle in this bill is a bad one. The trustees meet, and they say: "Well, we need a manager." I think there are 26 major islands involved, and I suppose they do need a manager.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: There are 13 major islands and 26 representatives from the islands — and some smaller islands too, I believe. They meet and they say, "We need a manager if we're to preserve these islands with the kind of planning that will make them the sort of place we want to live in, " and this government says: "We will provide your manager, and if the manager makes a misstep, let it always be remembered that we have the right in this bill to pull the rug out from under him." Now that has definitely eroded the powers of the trustees in a very significant way.

I agree entirely with the second member for Victoria. I don't want to repeat what he said, Mr. Speaker, but that is a pernicious principle. It's not a principle that's confined to the Gulf Islands. It's a case of Big Brother government extending its reaches from Victoria into areas where it has no right to be whatsoever in terms of interfering with local autonomy. I think every school board, every board of school trustees, every regional district and all of the municipal councils should look at this bill and say: "What is the philosophy of this Social Credit government of Victoria?" They are power grabbing. They are destroying local autonomy. They are eroding the right of people to decide local affairs at the local level. It's a pernicious principle, very well exposed by my friend the second member for Victoria.

I wonder why the minister would not at least stand down this bill. He says that he's consulting, he's open, he listens; that was part of his opening remarks. Who told you to bring in this bill, Mr. Minister? You didn't tell us that. You've listened? Who did you listen to? Is there some plan behind this bill, for some kind of an industrial park somewhere? If so, come up front and talk about it. Or are there some major sewer connections that may or may not be wanted by somebody on a particular island? What's really the answer?

The minister is not being upfront with the Legislature. His brief remarks introducing this bill did not explain why it was necessary to thus drastically interfere with the local autonomy of the Islands Trust.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: You have a suspicious mind.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I've got every reason to have a suspicious mind in a case like this. When you apply a principle that is manifestly wrong in one area in terms of local government, you ask yourself: can that be extended, and why is it being done? You have to ask that second question.

So, Mr. Minister of Municipal Affairs, all you have to do — the Legislature is not going home tomorrow morning — is go back and listen. You say you're willing to listen. Tell us what groups or interests really want this change. Who wants to adopt the principle that Victoria appoints staff on locally elected boards that have their own jurisdiction? What's the interest? What's the real reason behind the bill? The principle is bad. When this Legislature adopts a bad principle, time after time we have seen that principle extended into other areas. Let's stop it before it starts.

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

[11:30]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, naturally I oppose the bill. One can think no other way if one thinks the question through. I was interested — and I wish he were still here — in the remarks from the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis). The member accurately went through the history of the islands and the Islands Trust, indicating exactly what happened chronologically. It strikes me that he favoured what occurred in 1977: setting up the Trust as we know it now, with the authority to have their own planning staff. He went back to the W.A.C. Bennett days in 1969 when a ten-acre limit on development was established. Then he also talked about the NDP Municipal Affairs Committee that visited all those islands and finally came up with the Trust idea, and then the amendments that followed in 1977.

Now the author of those amendments, Mr. Speaker, hasn't been in the House during the debate. I recognize that he's off on a flight from here to London to wherever else they can find money, and then finally Japan and back.

MR. MACDONALD: He's going to Tokyo via Paris.

MR. COCKE: Whatever.

But the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), then Minister of Municipal Affairs, I would think was trying to look after the interests of those islands by recognizing that there were conflicts between the various regional districts involved which couldn't be reconciled. We rather thought that they could be, when we were government. But what history taught us was that they could not be reconciled. Some of the regional districts were for one thing and some for another, because the islands include various regional districts. So the whole idea here was to set them up as an autonomous body with their own region, so to speak, and exclude them from the regional district planning situation.

Now I believe that that will ensure that the future of those islands will be protected. Suddenly a minister of the Crown, recently appointed, has come along and was trying desperately to follow in the footsteps of another minister from his general region in the Fraser Valley. That was Wild Bill Vander Zalm. This minister will never be able to emulate the particular abilities — and sometimes disabilities, I guess — of the former member for Surrey, but he's trying, and I think he's making a terrible mistake. He's making a terrible mistake in Bill 30, because there has not been one word from the government side that has indicated any good reason for it. There has not been one word from the government side in real support of the minister's direction in this matter.

[ Page 5646 ]

Now the member for North Vancouver–Seymour hasn't spoken on second reading. But if he speaks on second reading the way he spoke on the amendment, I fail to see how he could vote for this bill, because what he supports and what I support — and what every thinking person should support — is the direction that was taken in 1977, which is an autonomous staff.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I have heard from the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds). I read every word he had to say in the Blues again, after hearing him in the House, and I don't really think that if I were a government member I would want the kind of support that he offered, because it was totally hollow. He spent most of his time railing against the opposition, and then he talked about governance on the islands and indicated that there were 280 representatives elected from the Islands, and so on and so forth. Of course he was talking about everybody from school board people to, you know, everything he could find — everything he could dredge up. The fact of the matter is that he was telling us that 11,500 people are governed by 280. It has nothing to do with this bill whatsoever, absolutely nothing. The Islands Trust is composed of 26 elected people. He indicated that they were receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars for all this over-governance, when the truth of the matter is that $60,000 is what the total proceeds are that are paid out to those 26 people who work their butts off on behalf of the islands — $60,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: A little misleading, isn't it?

MR. COCKE: Just a trifle misleading, because we are talking here about the future plans for those islands. Incidentally, anybody who is working as a trustee in the Islands Trust is doing so out of the goodness of his heart and his concern — or her concern — for the future of those islands. It certainly is not in any way a pecuniary motivation that's pushing people into that particular responsibility. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we have a minister who comes along and says: "We're going to take away your ability to get things done the way they should be done, according to your direction."

MR. MACDONALD: If you ask the manager to do something, he thumbs his nose at you.

MR. COCKE: That's right.

Once this bill is passed, the Islands Trust trustees go to their manager or staff and say: "This is what we would like to do. We would like to pursue this particular objective." And the staff say: "We'll have to go to find out what the minister has to say about that." Then they can't possibly go to....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The mumbling Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) says: "Not true." He hasn't been in this debate, Mr. Speaker. He hasn't been up to defend his colleague. It is true. It's absolutely true that this is the direction of this new amendment to the Islands Trust Act, Bill 30. It is to take away their ability to operate as responsible elected officials on behalf of the area.

Another thing that the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound was talking about was the limited population — 11,500 or whatever. Well, there is no question that there is a need for limitation of population on those islands. There are many islands now that are drawing salt in their drinking water. You can't overtax vulnerable environments. Either one way or the other, you cannot draw too much water, nor can you produce too much sewage. We don't know specifically what's planned. I threw a remark across the floor that maybe they planned to build a highrise hotel on Bowen Island. You just don't know.

MR. REYNOLDS: They should build a hotel there.

MR. COCKE: What kind of study has that member done?

The reason that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), the member for Saanich and the Islands, put through the original amendment in 1977 was the fact that he recognizes some of the damage that's being done. But even his recognition of that hasn't given him enough motivation to try to stem the tide on Saltspring vis-à-vis that sewer that's going in on that particular island, which stands a very good chance as a matter of fact, I think it's absolutely a certainty of polluting that harbour.

Mr. Speaker, what this bill would do — what this bill does, in fact — is to endeavour to make an advisory board out of the Islands Trust trustees. There cannot be this kind of situation that develops in this province and that goes unheeded by the opposition. I am pleased that not only are the opposition stating their concerns on this matter but that the islands' residents are up in arms. They are absolutely up in arms about this question. They recognize the vulnerability of the islands upon which they live. They recognize the great responsibility that has been accepted by the trustees, and they recognize that the trustees are the ones to best defend the interests of those islands.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard not only from people who reside on the islands but from people all over the province who have concerns for those islands. I would like to see those islands not deteriorate. I would like them to be a place where my grandchildren can go someday, and not just another plastic America. We must conserve the beauty, and in so doing we must conserve the entire environment. There's no greed among the people who want to conserve these islands. It's largess, because they're saying the generations to come should have access to such beauty.

When W.A.C. Bennett set up the ten-acre minimum for development in 1969, he did so because he knew something about it. He spent many of the months and years he was here on Saltspring Island. As a matter of fact, often when I would leave the Legislature for Vancouver I would see the Premier in the row at the ferry going to the islands — him heading his way and me heading back to the mainland. He had a love for those islands, and he showed that love for those islands by trying to protect them from overdevelopment.

[11:45]

That was just the first halting step, and then the progression was made to date, as the member for North Vancouver-Seymour outlined. Now suddenly, after that progression, we see a minister come along, without adequate.... The member for North Vancouver–Seymour said something about there having been some consultation; it doesn't sound like very much consultation to me, even the evidence that he gave. But let's say that the minister had told the chairman of the Islands Trust that this was the direction that we planned to take. Is that consultation — telling somebody that this is the

[ Page 5647 ]

direction you're going to take? It doesn't sound like consultation to me.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, it sounds more like the minister doing his normal thing — that is, indicating: "I'm the boss. You'll take it or leave it, because I have a bunch of puppets around me who are prepared to vote for the legislation that I bring into this assembly."

Mr. Speaker, that isn't consultation. Consultation after the fact is never consultation. If I were to say to anybody that I'd made my mind up, that this is what I'd made it up about, and then come back to this Legislature and say that I had consulted, I would expect to be looked upon as somewhat of a person not to be terribly trusted.

If there were any good parts to this legislation, then those good parts would by now have been brought out by residents of the islands. I ask all the government members to tell me about any piece of correspondence or any phone call from an ordinary resident of the islands who supports Bill 30. If you got any, they were so few and far between it's unbelievable. Judging from our correspondence, telephone calls and the like, there is no support among those 11,500 people for this legislation.

But we're not just talking about 11,500 people. We're talking about thousands and thousands of acres of the most beautiful part of this province. The reason we're concerned is the vulnerability of those islands. We see islands for sale. We see situations in which the government has not shown any interest in protecting not only those islands but many other beautiful places in the province.

We see arguments that the productive way to handle the islands, rather than having them in the area of the 26 elected representatives, is to establish all direction in the minister's office. That is absolutely arbitrary and undemocratic, and in the long run it's stupid. The minister has shown no feeling whatsoever for those islands. He's insensitive to the wishes of the people on those islands. And he comes into our Legislature, this assembly, with the arrogance of a person whose newly found authority has gone to his head. But the thing that bothers me the most about it is the fact that he's getting support from the muppets and the puppets...

MR. REID: Everyone likes him. Everyone.

MR. COCKE: ...like the member for Surrey, poor fellow, who obviously hasn't thought this question out either. But you will notice one thing, Mr. Speaker, about the member for Surrey and the other members of that particular party. Are they up here defending the minister? Not on your life.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. To the bill, hon. members. There are many more speakers left to speak, and I'll ask the member to speak to the bill or take his place. J

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I rather thought I was speaking to the bill when I suggested that there obviously is not the kind of support that the minister wishes. Otherwise he would have some debate in his favour going on from that side of the House, other than catcalls and the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) — who I believe really is very much opposed to the bill.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: He really did. He indicated that the 1977 amendment was where his heart lay. He very clearly made that statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where does his vote lie?

MR. COCKE: We'll see. Maybe it will be among the muppets and the puppets. Hopefully not; hopefully for once the only free member on the Social Credit side, the only one without a portfolio or a secretaryship....

MR. WILLIAMS: Less expensive, not free.

MR. COCKE: Yes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. To the bill.

MR. COCKE: The only one who is free to vote his heart of hearts — let’s see what he will do.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Wouldn't you like me to! I would just like to say that I haven't visited every island, as the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) seems to have, but those islands that I have visited — and it's many — have really raised my imagination about the way they should be preserved for the future.

I only wish that, rather than do something like we're doing here, this government would see their way clear to doing as we did in 1973: that is, on such an important matter as this, by moving a committee of the House around those islands to talk to the people and get some inkling at the source, at the point, of the possibilities that those islands could provide for this province. Instead of that, instead of moving committees of this Legislature around, we have ministers arbitrarily making decisions about the future of our islands that are not in the best interests of this province. It's not the first time that they've done that sort of thing; nor, I'm sure, will it be the last. But I think these islands are far too precious to turn them over to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who can't even handle the job that he's got right now.

If this bill passes, the Minister of Municipal Affairs has done a tremendous disservice to his colleague the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who is out globetrotting at the moment. What he's actually done is to ensure the defeat of the Minister of Finance.

MR. HOWARD: It's worth it, then. I think I'll vote for the bill, if that's the effect.

MR. COCKE: The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) just lost his marbles for a second. Nothing, even the defeat of that minister, is worth turning over those islands to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who has absolutely no sensitivity or feeling towards the future of those islands. It strikes me that maybe what he should do is just sit on this bill for a short while, leave it languishing on the order paper until such time as the Minister of Finance is back. Then it may have a few hours of discussion, because while I'm not totally satisfied by any means by what the Minister of Finance has done with

[ Page 5648 ]

respect to those islands, he has, in my opinion, shown more sensitivity than the present Minister of Municipal Affairs.

I would hope that before this debate is over and before this bill can get to committee, where it can be thoroughly gone over again, the minister is going to see reason and think about the whole democratic process. He was elected — that minister — not as a minister but as a politician and as a representative of a political party. If he thinks in terms of that election process and what he's doing to it in another arena, then maybe he will rethink this bill and take it back.

It should never have been introduced, but having been introduced now.... The minister's ego must not stand in the way of its being withdrawn. It's the thin edge of the wedge for the death of the entire Islands Trust concept, a concept that everybody's been comfortable with because that Trust has been defending those islands and will continue to defend those islands.

Mr. Speaker, I see my red light is on, so I'll just wind up by indicating that you must not take away the administrative aspect of the Islands Trust. If you do you've ruined the whole thing.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, I have a few things that I'd like to say about this bill, but in light of the time, I would at this point move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12 noon.