1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 1992

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 4, Number 4

[ Page 2201 ]

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

D. Jarvis: I'd like the members of the House to welcome two guests of mine: Mr. Rod Helyar, who was active in my organization during the last election and did a fine job; and Mlle. France Gingras from Montreal.

G. Brewin: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce to the Legislature two constituents of mine and a guest of theirs: Mr. Wright Smith and Mrs. Monica Smith, and visiting them from Bolton, Lancashire, is their sister-in-law, Mavis McNanus. Would the Legislature please make them welcome.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'd like the House to give a warm welcome to a longstanding public servant who taught the member for Vancouver-Burrard and me -- when we were sharing an office -- and members before that, all that we know about serving the public: my executive assistant, Thelma Pankiw. She is here with Carolyn Jerome, who is a member of the executive of Vancouver-Mount Pleasant. Would you welcome the two sitting up in the gallery.

P. Dueck: It is my pleasure to introduce to the House Pastor Lennox of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church from our area. On behalf of my colleague from Abbotsford and me, I'd like the House to wish him welcome.

F. Gingell: In the members' gallery today are two old friends from Great Britain, David and Olive Holloway. They are here in Canada to attend the reunion of the Empire Air Training Scheme, where many people from all over the world will be coming, to be held later this month in Winnipeg.

Hon. T. Perry: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to those hon. members who don't already know him Prof. Paul Tennant of the University of British Columbia, who not only runs the internship program here but has been the instructor for many of us. I suppose he looks down with some sadness at how little he achieved in teaching us, but he did his best, and we did our best.

D. Mitchell: I'd like to ask all of my fellow members today to welcome a constituent of mine to the House from West Vancouver, Mr. Richard Wright.

Introduction of Bills

VANCOUVER CHARTER

AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. R. Blencoe presented a message a from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 1992.

Hon. R. Blencoe: This legislation contains several provisions relating to the Vancouver Charter. Individually the amendments are minor; however, collectively the provisions represent a significant modernization of the provincial legislation affecting the city of Vancouver.

These amendments will eliminate or amend many petty annoyances and outdated provisions of the Vancouver Charter that have been frustrating Vancouver's elected officials for many years. The changes address such areas as gender-neutral language in the Charter and the setting of fees and charges for subdivision approvals and for work on unsafe buildings. Many of these provisions are similar to the modernization amendments to the Municipal Act, which I introduced in the House recently and the Legislature passed last night.

This legislation also provides additional powers for Vancouver to deal with the issues that are particularly important to the city, such as enabling it to actively promote bicycle transportation in conjunction with the development and redevelopment of buildings in the city of Vancouver. The amendments will result in more efficient and effective local government for the people of Vancouver.

Bill 51 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

NANAIMO NDP FINANCES

G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. The official opposition has uncovered financial statements of the Nanaimo NDP which clearly show the presence of bingo money in the debenture holdings of the NDP. In light of the fact that the minister is currently in charge of the Ernst and Young review of these matters of bingo, will the minister agree that the financial records of the Nanaimo NDP association be included in the Ernst and Young review?

Hon. L. Boone: As the opposition leader should know by now, the Ernst and Young review of the bingo operation is not under this minister's control but under the Attorney General's. This minister has indicated that we will be making an appointment of a separate investigator and will be bringing that name forward to the Legislature soon. At that point in time, that person or company will be responsible for bringing forth all that information to the Legislature.

G. Wilson: Supplementary, Madam Speaker, to the Attorney General.

The official opposition is extremely concerned with the presence of charitable moneys in the financial records of a political party. In light of this fact, will the minister increase the scope of the Gaming Commission audit to include the activities of the B.C. Tomorrow committee, which was admitted by Mr. Dave Stupich to be an arm of the NDP from 1970 to 1988, as it held bingo licences in the province of British Columbia?

[ Page 2202 ]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, members should know that following the Vancouver Sun's stories on this issue ten or 11 days ago, the Gaming Commission, which is an independent commission -- not a branch or arm of government, but an independent commission -- ordered, of its own volition, an audit through an accounting firm. That was done independent of government. The terms of reference are established by the Gaming Commission, and I do not direct independent commissions as to how they should conduct their inquiries.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

G. Wilson: A final supplementary, then, to the Premier. Does the Premier share my concern that charitable moneys are showing up in the records of a political party? And would the Premier not agree that he should use whatever powers are available to him in his office to make sure that the widest scope in this investigation be undertaken, so that the complete records of both the Nanaimo NDP and the B.C. Tomorrow committee will be thoroughly and completely reviewed, and will be available for public review and consideration at the conclusion of that investigation?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think the members of the House would agree that there are three substantive investigations taking place now. One is being conducted by the conflict-of-interest commissioner, Mr. Hughes, on the issue of constituency allowances. Another is being conducted independently by the Gaming Commission. There is an audit taking place of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Society by an internationally recognized accounting firm, Ernst and Young. As well, an investigator has been appointed under the Society Act to look at the society. So there are three substantive processes under way that will get at the truth of this matter, and I think the member should let those processes take place now.

GAMBLING MACHINES

L. Fox: My question today, hon. Speaker, goes to the minister responsible for lotteries. I have in my possession a copy of a letter to the Lottery Corporation from the Cluculz Lake Community Recreation Association. This society, like many others, is concerned about the amount of time it's taken for the Lottery Corporation to pay back that society for the pull-tab machines and the money they have invested. Can the minister advise us what the policy is with regards to the buy-back of these machines and whether the societies affected will recover their money as promised a few months ago?

[2:15]

Hon. L. Boone: I thank the member for that question. The Lottery Corporation is currently dealing with all these issues, including giving back to the many societies that had pull-tabs the six-month portion of the income they would have had if that program had been maintained. And we still have some that we are processing there. With regard to the machines, I know that many societies have contacted the corporation and have made arrangements to have those machines purchased from them. I'm not aware of the details of the society that you're talking about.

But if you would like to hand that information over to me, I'd be more than happy to look into it and see what we can do to expedite matters for that group.

L. Fox: The February 15 issue of Gaming and Wagering Business quotes the president of the B.C. Lottery Corporation as saying: "The electronic bingos, VLTs, will likely be expanded as a source of revenue for governments. This decision would be extremely harmful to many societies that depend on gaming proceeds and would expand electronic gaming throughout B.C. considerably." Will the minister tell us how many VLT machines the Lottery Corporation has either purchased or ordered?

Hon. L. Boone: We have purchased no VLTs. In fact, that issue has not even been brought to cabinet yet. As I've stated previously, the Attorney General's and my ministry are looking into this issue. We will be bringing a report to cabinet in the near future, and a decision will be made on VLTs at that time. At this point in time, no decision by this government has been made with regard to VLTs.

GAMING POLICY

L. Fox: This question is to the minister responsible for the Gaming Commission. I have in my hand a briefing note of April 27 from the Gaming Commission, which recommends that an independent review of gambling should be initiated through a two-phase plan that would involve wide consultation. Can the minister tell us whether these recommendations have been accepted, and whether they will be implemented before any legislation on gaming regulations is introduced?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, I don't believe it's my job to remind the Chair that the question is out of order. But even though it's future policy, I would be prepared to indicate to the House that from the first day we were sworn in, we have been concerned about many of the gambling issues. I've certainly been concerned about many of the issues in and around gambling in this province. We need to do a lot of work in respect to developing policy. We have, for example, no legislation in this province governing casino and bingo gambling.

An Hon. Member: Yes, we've noted that.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's right. And we need to get on with those issues. As the Minister of Government Services has indicated, we are in the process of putting together a comprehensive approach to this issue. It will include public consultation -- if that was the member's question. We're determined to ensure that gambling and all of the elements around it are governed appropriately and properly, and in the public interest, in this province.

[ Page 2203 ]

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH

HOLDING SOCIETY

V. Anderson: My question is to the Premier. Having a real interest in the importance of charities in B.C. maintaining their credibility and realizing that questions about the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society have challenged this credibility, if any of the current investigations show that charities have lost money, will the Premier use all avenues available to him to ensure that these moneys are paid back?

The Speaker: Hon. member, the Chair notes that that is a hypothetical question. If he chooses, he could form another question that would be in order.

NEGOTIATIONS WITH DOCTORS

L. Reid: My question is to the Minister of Health. If the minister is really interested in negotiating with doctors, why did she introduce Bills 13 and 14 without any consultation?

Hon. E. Cull: Bills 13 and 14 were introduced by the Minister of Finance. They were budget bills.

L. Reid: Is the minister's last-minute turnaround on these bills simply a public relations exercise designed to give the appearance that she's willing to negotiate with doctors, despite the fact that she intends to ram the same changes through under the guise of a new Medical Service Act?

Hon. E. Cull: I thank the member for the opportunity to speak on this question. I met with the B.C. Medical Association executive on March 27, the day after the bills were introduced in this House by the Minister of Finance. At that point I said to them that we were insistent on the global budget, but all else was negotiable. Since March 27, all else has been negotiable.

I have met with the BCMA executive on five separate occasions and have spent many hours talking to them about alternatives. I have received correspondence, I have talked to physicians, and have now put forward a number of, I think, very innovative and creative solutions to achieve our needs. These solutions, which I think will be watched all over Canada as really in the forefront of changing the way we manage health care, do not contain the provisions that were in Bill 13. They contain comanagement of the health care system by a three-party commission composed of doctors, government and the public.

The Speaker: Final supplemental.

L. Reid: The Minister of Health knew there would be political fallout from these bills. Now she's saying that the taxpayer will have to foot the bill for a media campaign to cover her tracks. How can she justify this type of spending on the back of the taxpayer?

Hon. E. Cull: I made it very clear yesterday, when I spoke in the press conference, that we have no intention of launching a campaign along the lines of what the BCMA has been putting out in the last couple of weeks -- $3 million of doctors' money spent on their advertising.

However, it's clear from the statements that have been made by the BCMA in their advertising campaign that they have not been willing to tell the public, or their members, that we have been discussing alternatives, we have offered them a fair cost-shared pension plan, and we are willing to comanage almost $1.3 billion of taxpayers' money with doctors. If the BCMA leadership will not tell their members and the public that, then it is my responsibility to do so.

HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES' SETTLEMENT

L. Hanson: I have a question for the Minister of Health. It was recently announced that the HEU had agreed to accept the proposed settlement that was recommended. Can the minister tell the House what the total dollar cost of that settlement is, as well as the percentage increase that would apply to the wages that already exist?

Hon. E. Cull: I think that question would be better put to the Minister of Labour. I don't have those figures in my head, but promise to get those back to you as soon as I can get them.

The Speaker: Are you taking that question on notice, hon. minister?

Hon. E. Cull: Yes, I am, hon. Speaker.

NEGOTIATIONS WITH DOCTORS

L. Hanson: It was reported in the media today that the minister had suggested that, because of the dispute and the process the doctors are going through in their advertising campaign, it may be necessary for the government to embark on its own media campaign. Can the minister advise the House what sort of budget she has set aside for that purpose?

Hon. E. Cull: As I just said to the previous questioner, there is no campaign. But I will be taking the opportunity -- surely, hon. member, you don't believe everything you read in the newspapers -- to set the record straight for the public through an advertisement that will be appearing in newspapers over the next couple of days. The budget will be less than $100,000, which is 3 percent of what the BCMA has spent on their advertising.

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH

HOLDING SOCIETY

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I apologize to the House for inadvertently answering questions yesterday which I thought I had taken on notice but hadn't. Today I'm going to answer some questions that I did take on notice.

On Tuesday I took on notice the following question from the member for Surrey-White Rock. Referring to a 1990 letter from the MLA for Nanaimo to the Gaming

[ Page 2204 ]

Commission supporting a bingo licence application by the NCHS, the member asked if I was aware of any other members of the NDP caucus or the executive council who have written letters supporting the restoration of the bingo licence for the NCHS. I can now advise the member for Surrey-White Rock that, after having my staff check the records of my office and asking Mr. Macintosh of the Gaming Commission to review his records, the answer is no.

A second question was also taken on notice, which was: "Can he confirm that the member for Nanaimo is a past director of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society?" The answer is yes, the member for Nanaimo was a director of NCHS between 1980 and 1982.

L. Fox tabled documents asked for by the Minister of Government Services.

D. Streifel: Hon. Speaker, I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

D. Streifel: In the galleries today are classes visiting from Kent Elementary School. There are 80 students altogether in the precincts today. We have 40 in the gallery now, and there will be about 40 more around 3 p.m. They're accompanied by Mr. Dumas and Mr. Gallamore. I feel it is very important that students from the constituency I represent come to speak with me and bring me their concerns. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Ministerial Statement

ENVIRONMENT WEEK

Hon. J. Cashore: It is my pleasure to remind the members of the House that this is Environment Week in British Columbia and in Canada. Tomorrow, June 5, is recognized by people around the world as Environment Day. While Environment Week and Environment Day are by no means the only days of the year when our people work for environmental improvement, they present unique opportunities for people of all ages to work together to become aware of global concerns, and to participate in environmental projects within their communities.

It is particularly appropriate that the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, which also commemorates the twentieth anniversary of the Stockholm conference, begins this week.

Many of today's global environmental problems were first given public profile at that event. These issues were urgent then, and they are even more urgent today. Delegates from around the world, both from government and non-government organizations, are converging in Rio to discuss the problems that threaten our planet. Their task is to try to reach a consensus on a multitude of environmental, social and economic issues that can be translated into a workable plan for sustainable development.

As our government's representative, and as a member of the Canadian delegation, I will be representing British Columbia's commitment to a proactive role in resolving global and regional environmental problems and achieving sustainability. Our government also believes that by participating in this way we can build awareness within the province of the summit's importance as it relates to B.C.'s unique ecological diversity and economic potential.

I also hope to bring home a better understanding of the relationship between global and regional sustainability, and of the link among environmental issues, urbanization and international equity. We also believe that we can make a positive contribution to the dialogue taking place at the conference. B.C. is playing an active role in the research and development of products and methods that address environmental problems. We have valuable information to contribute.

[2:30]

Universal awareness and a hopeful attitude are vital to the resolution of environmental problems, and, judging by the level of activity across B.C. this week, it is clear that the people of our province are concerned about the future of our planet. Sharing this concern, the government is involved in events throughout the province. Actions and initiatives that contribute to environmental improvement are being highlighted this week.

The week began with a joint federal-provincial announcement on the protection of the unique habitat for orcas in Johnstone Strait. The bottom line is that we protect the orcas -- through measures that include a five-year moratorium on logging in the lower Tsitika and the Schmidt Creek drainage.

On Tuesday we announced that $200,000 in solid waste grants have been issued so far this year to help municipalities develop and implement local recycling programs.

On Wednesday, Clean Air Day, we honoured the winners of the minister's environmental awards, once again highlighting the enduring dedication and accomplishments of individuals, organizations and companies throughout British Columbia.

This morning, as you know, it was announced that the Khutzeymateen will be protected. I'm extremely happy about this announcement, and have some personal background, having been in the Khutzeymateen on more than one occasion in the early 1960s when I lived in that area. We believe this is good news, not only for the grizzly bear, Ursus horribilis, but also for the many people who have advocated the protection of this valley as an area of outstanding ecological significance.

Announcements and activities will continue from now through June 7. Schools, organizations and communities across the province are hosting a myriad of fascinating events. I encourage all members to participate in Environment Week activities at home, in their constituencies, this day, this week and throughout the year.

J. Tyabji: I'd like to start my reply by congratulating the minister on his decisions with regard to the Tsitika and the Khutzeymateen. I think they were very good decisions, and I would like to urge him to reconsider

[ Page 2205 ]

the Blue Lead Creek area as an area that he might want to extend some consideration to.

As we stand here in Environment Week, it's very fitting that we've spent the week on Environment estimates, with regard to the budget. I've addressed many things with the minister during the Environment estimates. One thing that I would really urge the minister to consider is an environmental bill of rights that would entrench the rights of B.C.'ers to clean air and water. That would be the founding principle on which we build all our resulting legislation and regulations with regard to the environment.

When the minister is in Rio dealing with global issues, I would encourage him to deal with them with an eye to some of the changes that need to be made with regard to our provincial legislation and the infrastructure we've set up in the province.

I canvassed the minister at great length about sustainable cities and about the need to develop them in British Columbia so we have a system whereby cities are developed in a way that is environmentally friendly. The minister could work with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Transportation to make sure that we cut down on the need for the massive use of automobiles. While we still have a fossil-fuel-burning system -- the day will come when we will no longer rely on fossil fuels -- we should lessen the need for some roadways by building village nodes and sustainable cities.

We should make sure that we move away from some of the infrastructure that we have for dealing with sewage waste, to some of the advanced technology that we have in that area for the treatment of waste; and that we try to keep our water clean by not outletting all our waste into waters. Even with treatment, this is not a logical method for dealing with things, when the technology is not only available but less expensive.

I have canvassed many issues with the minister during the Environment estimates. At this time I would really like to encourage the minister, seeing as it is Environment Week and he has indicated he doesn't have an isolated budget for research and development, to take some time to build on the already very valuable research that's out there and to really look at some of the important issues, at how they can be solved with the technology that we have and at how we can put money into these things and really build for the future.

With that, I hope that this Environment Week, with this new government, will see us starting on a path that will lead in a new direction with regard to the environment in British Columbia.

R. Neufeld: It's a pleasure for me to respond on behalf of the Social Credit caucus to the ministerial statement by the Environment minister. It is a fitting reminder to all of us that it is Environment Week and that tomorrow, June 5, is being recognized around the world as World Environment Day.

As all of us realize, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development commenced in Rio de Janeiro this week -- a conference at which British Columbia will be well represented by the Environment minister and his staff. We wish him well in his endeavours on behalf of all British Columbians.

The environment as we know it today is constantly changing, changing in some ways that will forever affect each one of us now and certainly our children and their children in the future. The care of our environment is something that all of us, regardless of political stripe, must take seriously. Awareness of the environment must go hand in hand with our awareness of industry and its ability to cope with new regulations. Industry must be able to continue to supply the wealth and jobs needed to sustain our economy and permit us to continue receiving the benefits we enjoy.

We ask the minister to reiterate to the conference delegates that British Columbia silviculture, forest practices and environmental record establish some of the best standards in all of North America. We will, however, always endeavour to improve in any way possible the respect for the environment by our resource industries. Government, industry, technology and citizens can hopefully work together to come to the best possible solutions for everyone involved.

The conference in Rio de Janeiro and the continuing increasing awareness of the citizens in British Columbia and the Environment ministry are all significant steps in the right direction towards the betterment of our environment. We must all remember that we are only stewards of this land. Therefore it is incumbent upon us to pass to our children a planet that is fit to live on, and an environment which is fit to live in.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I am delighted this afternoon to call Bill Pr401,

An Act to Incorporate the Coquitlam Foundation, standing in the name of the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

AN ACT TO INCORPORATE

THE COQUITLAM FOUNDATION

B. Copping: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

I was very pleased to introduce this bill to the House. It's a very straightforward bill, so I don't think I will belabour it. It was referred, as all private bills are, to the appropriate select standing committee, an all-party committee, where it has now been passed, and it's back in the House.

As I had said earlier, the petitioners are well known to the community. This is a grass-roots bill, so it's nice to see. It is basically comprised, as I say, of people representing groups and organizations, as well as elected people in the district: the Chamber of Commerce president, the mayor of Coquitlam and the chairperson of the school board. I think that we all recognize the good work that the Vancouver Foundation has done, and subsequently the Mission and Chilliwack Foundations after which this bill was fashioned.

This bill basically does two things. It creates a perpetual trust fund for purposes of charities for many good things, whether they be for medical research,

[ Page 2206 ]

scientific research, educational value, to help the needy and the underprivileged. It also serves as a vehicle for people within the community to provide something tangible to the community, whether in the form of a donation or a legacy. I would find it very difficult for anybody to find opposition to this bill.

Bill Pr401, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

AN ACT TO INCORPORATE

THE COQUITLAM FOUNDATION

The House in committee on Bill Pr401; D. Streifel in the chair.

Sections 1 to 32 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Preamble approved.

B. Copping: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill Pr401,

an Act to Incorporate the Coquitlam Foundation, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Clark: I call Bill Pr402, standing in the name of the member for Port Coquitlam.

VANCOUVER SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY ACT

M. Farnworth: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

Hon. Speaker, this bill, the Vancouver School of Theology Act, is in itself a parable of our times. This act sets out a reform of an institution that had become outdated in terms of its mode of governance. You had a school of 250 students that was governed by an unelected body of 60 senators -- one senator for every four students.

This original act covered the Vancouver School of Theology, which was formed in 1971 when two separate founding religions came together to try and form a more perfect confederation. The original act that was granted to them by the Crown created a bicameral system of a senate and a board of governors. It functioned very well for the first ten years or so. But as I stated, it became vastly out of date. It didn't keep up with the times and needed to be reformed. All that's required to change this senate is the unanimity of this House.

[2:45]

The Vancouver School of Theology has consulted with both distinctive groups, the Anglican Church and the Union College. It's held countless committee meetings. There were 193 committee meetings last year to make sure that the members affected by the change in the status governing them were fully consulted at all levels. There was great participation by, as I said, the two governing bodies, the students, the faculty and the senators themselves. At the end of this process, which has taken some three years and countless committee meetings, they have agreed to create a new act: Vancouver School of Theology Act.

It will eliminate the senate. It will no longer require 16 meetings a year by the board of governors; they'll only be required to meet three times a year. No longer will the school principal be writing the agenda for next month's meeting at the same time he's typing up the minutes of last month's meeting. No longer will the school have to hold an extraordinary general meeting that has no powers to do anything.

This act shows what happens when men and women consult with each other and come up with a new system of governance that somehow manages to keep all the different and distinctive parts of their society happy. So it's with great pleasure that I sponsor this bill.

D. Mitchell: I'm pleased to rise to speak on this bill. Just for the benefit of members of the House and for those observing this process on private bills, I would like to note that both this bill and the previous private bill, which has of course been approved in the House, have already gone through a process of review by a select standing committee of this Legislature. That's a process that works well. The select standing committee that I refer to is the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

These two private bills have gone through that process, and all members of the House, I believe, support this bill, as we did the previous bill.

Hon. Speaker, I might note just out of passing interest that these are the only two items that have been referred to that standing committee in this session, although we do hope to have other matters referred. The name of the committee is Parliamentary Reform. There are issues of parliamentary reform, of course, that we look forward to having referred to the committee. Ethical conducts....

The Speaker: On second reading of the bill, hon. member.

D. Mitchell: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I was just referring to the fact that bills have gone through this committee. One of the matters that the committee deals with is ethical conduct. We hope to review the ethical conduct of members as well.

With those few words, I'd like to indicate that we wholly support this bill in second reading.

V. Anderson: I rise to support the bill. I have to comment that the previous speaker was commenting on the number of meetings. Being on the faculty, I sat in on the meetings when the Vancouver School of Theology came into being, with the union of the Anglican Theological College and Union College. I know what he means by the number of meetings that brought what he called a very inoperative, out-of-date place into being.

[ Page 2207 ]

However, it did the job, and it moved us ahead. We're very delighted that the denominations of not only Anglican and United but Presbyterian and others have joined together in this way to undertake this extension of the Vancouver School of Theology in our communities.

Motion approved.

Bill Pr402, Vancouver School of Theology Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

VANCOUVER SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY ACT

The House in committee on Bill Pr402; D. Streifel in the chair.

Sections 1 to 34 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

M. Farnworth: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill Pr402, Vancouver School of Theology Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply, both sections. In

section A, Ministry of Agriculture; in

section B, Ministry of Environment.

The House in Committee of Supply B; M. Lord in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS

On vote 33: ministry operations, $223,985,021 (continued)

Hon. W. Hurd: I am pleased to rise this afternoon on the Environment estimates, particularly the Lands and Parks

section of our discussion.

Hon. J. Cashore: I want to thank the hon. member for deferring, at least for a moment. We were going to be advised when the official opposition was ready to go into the Lands and Parks section, and I was going to make an opening statement, which I held over from my opening statement at the beginning of the estimates. Perhaps the hon. member could advise if their caucus wishes to get into the Lands part of that process now.

Hon. W. Hurd: It was my understanding, in discussions with the Environment critic, that after covering earth, air, water, food and energy, we would finally get to Lands and Parks this afternoon. I stand ready to debate those particular estimates in the minister's budget, and I would certainly be happy to yield the floor to the minister for a statement on Lands and Parks.

Hon. J. Cashore: I would assume from the comments just made by the hon. member that you would prefer that we do both Lands and Parks at the same time now. Is that correct? So we could have officials come in for both the Lands and Parks sections.

I would like to make some comments about what I believe to be one of the most important programs in this government: management of Crown lands and land-related information. We are indeed fortunate that most of the land base of British Columbia is owned by the public. In fact, better than 90 percent of the land base of our great province is Crown land. B.C. Lands consists of eight regional offices located across the province, as well as a headquarters group that includes lands policy, real estate services, surveyor general, and surveys and resource mapping.

B.C. Lands of my ministry serves the people of B.C by managing and allocating public land to ensure access for conservation, settlement, recreation, and development, in a manner sensitive to environmental needs and sustainability. I am proud to say that B.C. Lands is a leader in developing programs to fit the needs of British Columbia for the 1990s. It consists of a team of 450 individuals dedicated to serving the public as stewards of the land base, and managers of land information. B.C. Lands maintains the Crown land registry, which is the record of all Crown land surface rights in the province.

It also maintains standards for topographic and cadastral mapping throughout the province -- and just so that there's no confusion, that's not a Gracie Fields song, when we talk about cadastral mapping.

One of the major achievements of the Lands program is the terrain resource information management program, or TRIM, which, coupled with cadastre, forms the basis for all natural resource inventory data management in the province. The TRIM program has been very successful in meeting government requirements for high-quality resource management data. In addition, it has created jobs within the province and stimulated the creation of exportable technology.

Development of the land information infrastructure system is continuing and will, when completed, provide a compatible governmentwide directory of land-related information. This new system will allow government to respond more effectively to land use issues, aboriginal land claims and environmental emergencies. This system is one of the most important steps to a more integrated and responsible style of resource management.

Satellite imagery mapping is another leading-edge activity with B.C. Lands, which will lead to better information about the province we live in by combining existing topographical maps with satellite images.

[ Page 2208 ]

Currently being tested on Vancouver Island, this process will provide much more sophisticated information about land-covering and usage across the province.

The B.C. Lands program is also responsible for the Crown lands special account, whose major purpose includes stimulation of regional growth through preparation, marketing and sale or lease of Crown lands and to acquire lands to meet various government needs including conservation. The account will generate a net of about $41 million in 1992-93.

The Crown land account plays a vital role in promoting sustainable development of this province. I am pleased to report that it has received authority to spend an additional $300,000 this year to upgrade the Crown land registry system in order to ensure that it continues to support efficient collection of revenue from Crown land sales and leases throughout the province.

Since we are going to be covering parks at this time, I will continue with that. I would like to indicate while I'm still on the Crown land

section that we have present assistant deputy minister, Mr. Frank Edgell, and Mr. Jack Hall, senior staff in the Lands branch.

With regard to parks, last fall I was very fortunate to be assigned a program area that, in its tradition in achievement, has become the envy of its counterpart programs across the nation. Of course, I speak of B.C. Parks. The system is one that many of us use for recreation and enjoyment throughout the year. We also look to the Parks professionals to guide us in our decisions about the protection of many B.C. landscapes and other sensitive protected areas.

B.C. Parks consists of three regional offices located in Vancouver, Prince George and Kamloops and a headquarters program management

section that includes planning and conservation services and visitor services. The Parks division works very closely with many agencies, including the B.C. fish and wildlife department, in identifying and protecting the natural values that are important to us today and will continue to be important for all future generations.

[3:00]

As you have seen from our discussions, we care deeply about the environment, and we are working very hard to ensure that the natural diversity is protected. We have set a clear goal and announced a timetable to double our protected areas by the year 2000. This is an ambitious goal and will involve all British Columbians. The B.C. Parks division will spend the next fiscal year beginning to translate that goal into action. Currently we protect 6.5 percent of the province, so we have set ourselves a difficult challenge.

But in accordance with our commitment to be proactive and manage our future, we have created a plan to look at all issues and arrive at a fair and balanced set of solutions. Accordingly, as I have previously mentioned, as an important first step we created the Commission on Resources and Environment to set the framework for comprehensive land use decisions. Then we announced the development of the protected area strategy. This strategy will coordinate all protected area planning so it is dealt with through the land use process, which will be overseen by the Commission on Resources and Environment.

The initial component of this strategy is Parks and Wilderness for the 90s. We have now listed 184 important areas which will be considered for possible designation by the year 2000. This will be the major planning task for B.C. Parks this year, but we should not overlook the fact that there were over 20 million day visitors and 2.4 million overnight campers, all of whom were attended to in the professional service-oriented style that B.C. Parks are famous for.

Their total commitment to a quality park system is something I am very proud to be a part of, and I know this House will join me in thanking them for their commitment to maintaining, protecting and further developing the very best park system in the world.

I am pleased to report that even in these difficult fiscal times, Treasury Board maintains a $3 million budget for the purchase of important fish and wildlife habitat. In addition, we were provided with $750,000 and three full-time employees to ensure the protection of newly designated high-use parks such as Dianisio Point, Botanical Beach, Raft Cove Park and a number of others.

I am also pleased to report that in accordance with our commitment to Parks and Wilderness for the 90s, we have received $1.25 million and 12 full-time employees to ensure that a careful, fully considered, properly resourced, and therefore successful consultative process is implemented with the maximum possible public input.

We have assistant deputy minister Mr. Jake Masselink with us, who is ADM in charge of Parks, and I now look forward to questions from the hon. critic from across the House.

W. Hurd: I want to express appreciation to the minister for those remarks on Lands and Parks. As he has said, there is quite a large component of public ownership of the land base in British Columbia, which does afford this province unique opportunities to manage those lands for the benefit of all British Columbians.

He certainly has identified some critical issues -- the land use disputes, which will continue to affect decisions by his ministry to double the land base for parks in British Columbia. Certainly that's a goal that the Liberal opposition is fully supportive of, and it recognizes that this budget is an important first step in realizing that important goal. We are also encouraged to see the move on Crown lands for an integrated approach, integrated land use and integrating resource values, and we feel it is an important step as well. As the minister has indicated, given the budget limitations, being able to maintain a good budget for Lands and Parks is of great encouragement to the opposition.

Just to kick off the questions on the park issue, the minister has announced doubling of parklands in British Columbia by the year 2000, but if our reading of the budget is correct, has allocated approximately $3 million for acquisition this year. The opposition is somewhat concerned that we may lose out on some opportunities to secure parkland with this type of

[ Page 2209 ]

acquisition budget. The loss of Parksville Flats on Vancouver Island was certainly a critical blow to people in that area; one of the most important bird sanctuaries on Vancouver Island.

Perhaps the minister could explain to the committee what percentage of the proposed park areas he's identified for study are already owned by the Crown; which of them will require acquisition costs; and given what appears to be a somewhat meagre allocation for that in this fiscal year, how he intends to achieve the doubling in the next few fiscal years.

Hon. J. Cashore: I appreciate the support of the hon. member for having financial resources for acquisition of park and wilderness areas. I would make it very clear that the commitment to double the area is the commitment to double park and wilderness areas; we're not only looking at parks in that scenario.

In answer to the question about the percentage of the study areas that are Crown land, the answer is over 95 percent. It could be as high as 98 or 99 percent, but we know it's over 95 percent. That's a good question, because it gives me an opportunity to make it very, very clear that we're looking at land that is already within the provincial resource base. It's also part of a heritage that the people of the province own.

As I said before, we have $3 million for acquisition. Of course, I would like it to be more. And I do take the member's point that as we address this ambitious goal, there will be -- yes, in some areas -- some financial needs. The money that is there now is money that we see as being available for those areas that we look at in consultation with the habitat conservation fund, for instance. There are so many lands that we would like to acquire that are important habitat, we have to set them in order of priority in order to be able to address that -- Parksville Flats is a good example.

While we were unsuccessful in our efforts working with the public to secure the Flats, and while we continue to be in discussion with the people of that area with regard to some continuing possibilities, it would be much better if some of these important land use decisions could be made at a time involving the province, municipalities and regional districts so that zoning is such that it doesn't end up resulting in really valuable land for habitat purposes being affected by an increase in price that becomes prohibitive in terms of acquisition. The main point being, yes, it is an ambitious plan.

The good news is that well over 95 percent of the land area being studied already belongs to the province.

W. Hurd: It's encouraging to hear that so much of the study area is within the public purview or ownership.

My next question would logically lead to the existence of resource claims in some of the wilderness areas. As the minister is aware, while logging is not allowed in wilderness areas, mineral extraction is. We're just wondering if he has built into his budget any assumption that there may be compensation required. Or would that be the responsibility of another ministry? Is it within his purview to identify the costs associated with doubling parklands in connection with extinguishing claims on minerals in wilderness areas?

Hon. J. Cashore: That is being reviewed by Mr. Schwindt under the auspices of a different ministry. The answer to the question is no. We don't have money budgeted for compensation.

With regard to the matter we were canvassing earlier, I should add that any land that we purchase for fish and wildlife usually involves other partners. Sometimes those partners will be the lead agency in negotiating for what I think are obvious reasons. These could include Ducks Unlimited, the Nature Trust, the Wildlife Habitat fund and so forth.

W. Hurd: As the Minister is aware, a number of environmental groups in the province have expressed some concerns about the study areas that have been identified for preservation, particularly whether they represent a broad scope of biodiversity or a broad enough reflection of the various wilderness values in the province. Can the minister outline what types of steps may be taken during this fiscal year in terms of building on these study areas to address the concerns of some of the representatives of the environmental movement, who have suggested that there is too high a reflection of mountaintops in these wilderness proposals and not enough in valley bottoms and other areas of the province?

Perhaps he can explain to the committee how the additional study areas beyond the Parks Plan 90 were arrived at, and whether he's confident that the concerns of the environmental movement are groundless, and that these wilderness areas represent the broad spectrum of biodiverse regions in the province that deserve to be protected by a public policy.

Hon. J. Cashore: We've made it clear right from the beginning that we believe that the work that the Valhalla Wilderness Society did in helping to set the parameters for this consultation process has been invaluable. We're very pleased that within the ministry we have participated fully, through Provincial Parks and Wilderness for the 90s, in an excellent review process.

In the present study areas that we are looking at, over 75 percent of those areas are also on the other maps that have been put forward.

With regard to the question about rocks and ice, let's remember that the goal is to try to save representative ecosystems. In order to deal with the question of rock and ice, it would be helpful if a specific area could be identified. I think, hon. member, when you review the map we've put forward with the study areas outlined, you'd be hard pressed to say: "No, that area shouldn't be on there." It is true that there's bound to be some controversy around some areas where there's a multiplicity of expectations coming from the body politic.

But we're very pleased that we have put forward a land base there, a forest study that's driven by time in terms of having made a commitment to make certain decisions by certain dates.

[3:15]

[ Page 2210 ]

This will enable us to achieve the goal and the commitment that we have made. So unless I can hear something more specific about an area that shouldn't be on there, I would just have to say that the vast majority of the proposals that came forward from the Valhalla Society are on there, plus a great many more.

W. Hurd: I think the part of the concern being expressed as well in connection with the study area is that in some cases logging is continuing in the areas immediately surrounding these parks. In connection with the areas that have been identified as study areas or wilderness areas, has the ministry identified any areas that particularly require buffer zones for logging activity right up to the boundaries of the study area?

Or is the ministry convinced that the concerns of such organizations as the Western Canada Wilderness Committee on this particular issue are groundless, and that there's no need to examine the current logging activities, which in some cases are within a few kilometres of these wilderness boundary areas? Has there been any plan by the minister to identify the types of logging occurring around the immediate study areas, particularly in the areas identified as fairly ecologically sensitive?

Hon. J. Cashore: The issue of buffers is included within the study area process, and so the process we have designed incorporates the consideration of buffer areas. It is an inter-agency process. I'm sure the hon. member can appreciate, given his critic roles, which include both forestry and parks and lands, that there's a real need to address the issues of balance on the multiplicity of expectations that people often have for a particular area.

When we look at the list attendant to the protected-area strategy map, we should remember that it's not a definitive list and is an initial step. It's a dynamic process. So those are nominated areas, and because of that dynamic process, some of those areas could come off. Other areas that aren't on the map now could be added on. The fact that decisions are going to be made does not mean in every case that there will be a decision that that particular area will become a park or an ecological reserve. It might actually come off the map.

It's a study process for protected areas that enables people with expertise from both government and environmental groups, as well as those who have concerns from other interests, to have input into that process. Again, I think it's a process that's working, and it's going to serve us well.

Hon. J. Cashore: The fact is that that is an absolutely fundamental issue in the study area process. It's an issue that has to be fundamental, along with other fundamental issues. For instance, there's the issue of public access, as the member said. But there are also those situations that have to be pillars of this process where the wilderness would be protected from people. In other words, the intent would be that there not be access. I guess it raises a bit of a philosophical question, and that is: do we see it as important that wilderness be preserved for wilderness's sake in some cases?

That's a vital question that we have to address in a meaningful way. Certainly the issue about access is important. That's why I said this morning that we need to be doing good work with regional districts and municipal governments.

There are those who point out that surrounding the lower mainland, for instance, are some outstanding wilderness areas where we could have some of the greatest considerations about access. Tweedsmuir Park, for instance, is a beautiful area, but how many British Columbians will ever be able to afford to go up there and enjoy that beautiful part of our province? A lot of people could have access to some pocket wilderness areas. We should also be looking at that in proximity to our urban areas. We need a wide variety of values nurturing this process so that we come up with the best possible solutions.

That's why there are provisions in the designation of an ecological reserve that would actually help to protect an area from people.

One of the considerations around the announcement this morning about the Khutzymateen is: would it be an ecological reserve or a wildlife management area; just what would the designation be? In reviewing that and coming to that conclusion, we have to recognize the extent to which the grizzlies need to be protected from people. The other is also true: people need to be protected from the grizzlies.

W. Hurd: I'd just like to further explore this aspect of wilderness areas in the province. As the minister well knows, sometimes the only visitors to these areas are prospectors and geological surveyors working on behalf of the mining industry. As the minister also well knows, the ore bodies in the province are created by God, not by planting or any other means. I just wonder if the minister has any advice to those individuals who are expending their resources to look at mineral claims in wilderness areas in light of the fact that they are now or may be designated for study areas.

Would he recommend that they cease for the duration of the study period because the funds that they may expend will not be returned to them in any way? Is that an issue that he's talked about with the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources? Just to give some

[ Page 2211 ]

direction to the prospectors and mining interests in the province.

Hon. J. Cashore: The study team reviews those values. That's part of the process built into the protected area strategy, so that's how that is covered. Have I discussed this with the Minister of Mines? The answer is yes. We have had very thorough discussion on this, both one to one and also in cabinet, in CCSD.

The hon. member has referred to back-country activities, and I think he's aware that there has been a major study going on and a public consultation with regard to access connected with back-country recreation -- commercial back-country recreation activities -- and that's an important component of all of this as well. We expect to be moving to a further phase of that process before very long.

W. Hurd: Just in connection with the overlapping responsibilities between ministries, we're particularly interested in the impact of the protected areas with respect to aboriginal land claims in British Columbia. Has the minister any figures on what impact his plan has on the Indian land claims? How much would the proposed park areas conflict with the existing land claims in the province?

Hon. J. Cashore: It's without prejudice to land claims.

W. Hurd: Just with respect to the wilderness recreation proposals -- which I understand are becoming a major issue in the province -- how many wilderness recreation proposals would be currently on the books with these study areas, and would they be in the same general category or the same situation as the mining interests in the province in terms of developing plans for their activities on areas that were designated for study?

Hon. J. Cashore: The study process will determine whether it's going to be a forest recreation area, a park, a wildlife management area, an ecological reserve, or whether it may come off the list. That process will also be informative in terms of what might be added to the list.

D. Mitchell: I have a question for the minister with respect to Cypress Provincial Park, most of which lies in my constituency. The question here really relates to the current plans for possible further development in this provincial park. The minister, I am sure, is aware that this park has a very interesting history, going back some 20 years. This is one of the provincial parks that is extremely well used because of its proximity to a major urban area in southwestern British Columbia. So this park has a tremendous number of visitors every year.

Of course, my concern for the minister is really: who's in charge with the development of Cypress Provincial Park? Is it the ministry? Is the ministry in charge of developing a master plan? Is Cypress Bowl Recreations Ltd., which has developed a master concept plan -- quite an interesting plan, and they've had some public consultation on it -- and is the developer that is running the recreation facilities in the park, in charge of this process?

Certainly there are many people in the area who are very concerned, including groups like the Friends of Cypress and other groups who have made representation, I know, to the minister, and certainly to myself and other MLAs, and certainly the MLAs on the North Shore in particular. But there is a concern about who's in charge of the process, who is driving it. Is the ministry in charge? Is the private developer in charge? Is anyone in charge? I'd like to put that question to the minister.

Hon. J. Cashore: It's the responsibility of the provincial government to draft the master plan. We're driving the process. Cypress Bowl Recreations Ltd. has input into that in the recreation area, but it's subject to the master plan, which we are driving.

D. Mitchell: On this question of Cypress Provincial Park, I'm pleased to hear the minister indicate that there is someone in charge, and it is the ministry. I believe it is the ministry's responsibility. There is some concern, however, about further development in this park. We've heard that concern expressed with respect to so many provincial parks in the province. This is a particularly sensitive one because of where it's situated.

Many residents in the whole lower mainland area would love to have further access to the park, but there are many who are concerned about preserving its wilderness qualities for hiking and exploring the trails and keeping it pristine rather than having further development. On the other hand, the developers come up with some plans that are worthy of consideration. I'm wondering if the minister can tell this committee at this time whether he as minister has a particular view as to whether or not further development in Cypress Provincial Park is desirable at this time.

Hon. J. Cashore: That will be determined by a public process, which I know the hon. member will want to participate in.

[3:30]

D. Mitchell: I'm going to move on to another issue that also affects my constituency. That's with respect to a proposal that was recently turned down by the ministry. I'm referring to the Garibaldi Alpen Resorts proposal at Brohm Ridge. This is a very interesting proposal that would have had tremendous benefits for the community of Squamish and residents of the Sea to Sky corridor. A very ambitious project was proposed by some developers, the Garibaldi Alpen group, to develop a ski resort, an alpine village and residential developments for perhaps thousands of people.

The community of Squamish and people in the regional district of the area were certainly excited about the prospect of that kind of development taking place. It was turned down by the minister of Crown lands earlier this spring. I'm wondering if the minister, for the record, could inform this committee as to the specific reasons that the proposal was turned down, and also if

[ Page 2212 ]

there is any possibility of an appeal in the process, of looking at the developer coming back with another proposal.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, we've been joined by Mr. Derek Thompson, our director of planning and conservation. He had a major role in the planning of Parks Plan '90. I'm glad that he's joined us here in the House.

With regard to Garibaldi Alpen, as the member knows -- we've discussed this privately -- I've tried as much as possible to reassure him with regard to the process that was underway. This process has gone on for quite some time. The lands branch reviewed this project on the basis of very valid criteria. Given that the goal of the project was to establish a four-seasons destination resort, it became very clear that there was a great discrepancy between the figures that the proponent put forward to state the case for the viability of the project and the figures that our ministry came to realize were more valid, based on a consultant's report -- actually two consultants' reports.

I know that this is of concern to the people of the area who thought that this was going to be bringing in a great deal more development. But, hon. member, we have a responsibility with regard to the stewardship of land. Therefore it's incumbent on us not to be approving the use of Crown land for projects that we don't believe can work. I know it has been said that further financial arrangements could have been made to ensure that the taxpayer wouldn't be left having to pay for it, but that was not in the material that we looked at.

Also, even if that were the case, as a matter of policy you would still have to manage the stewardship of the land based on what's right and appropriate, not based on how much money a proponent has -- even if they did have that amount of money.

I have handled this in a very open manner. I've met with Mr. Richter and his proponents. I released a copy of the report upon which we based our decision. That has not been done before. I've met with the mayor and representatives of Squamish. Present at the meeting were representatives of the Ministry of Economic Development, the Ministry of Tourism and my own ministry. We assured Mayor Tobus that we were willing to work with them with regard to how we could mutually partner in economic development and tourism initiatives. We gave him the answer that I'm again giving you now: no, there's not an appeal for that project.

D. Mitchell: I appreciate the minister's comments. He referred to two studies that had been conducted. Certainly I'm familiar with the Sno-e consultants' report that was done on this project, and I'd appreciate knowing if he could provide for members of the committee the name of the other study that was conducted. I don't know if that one was ever made public.

Further to that, just for clarification.... The minister has indicated that he is certainly open to proposals and that he has a responsibility with respect to the stewardship of Crown lands. Certainly I would respect that. I believe that is his responsibility, and I would urge him to follow and preserve that responsibility. But he said that this particular proposal was unacceptable for reasons that had been made public, and that there has been consultation. Accepting that, can the minister indicate whether or not he is averse to any further proposals for development in the Brohm Ridge area?

Is there a possibility that another proposal might be successful? If this one was rejected, does that open up or at least keep alive the possibility that another proposal for development in the Brohm Ridge area could be successful at some point? If there is no appeal process, could another proposal at least be entertained?

Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the last question, the answer is yes. Circumstances could change in time, or there could be a different concept. Those are possibilities.

The other thing I'd like to point out is that D.R. Matthews was the name of the firm that did the other report. It worked like this: the ministry had a report and the proponent had a report; those two reports did not agree; therefore we went to a third study as a second opinion.

D. Mitchell: For clarification, was the third study the Sno-e consultants' report? Is that right, or have I got the chronology mixed up here?

Hon. J. Cashore: The Sno-e report was commissioned when there was disagreement between the ministry and the proponent.

D. Mitchell: With respect to the Sno-e engineering consultants' report, one aspect about the release of that report disturbed me. It was a comment that the minister made, which was referred to in news media reports, in response to questions from some residents in Squamish as to whether or not there was a conflict with a consultant associated with Whistler -- which is also in my constituency -- passing judgment on a project proposed for Squamish. There was a suggestion that perhaps there was some conflict there because of potential competition between Squamish and Whistler. The minister responded to that in the news media. I quote from a Vancouver Sun

article on April 4, 1992, when he said: "It's certainly the kind of question I would have asked in opposition."

That's an interesting quote, but it's not a constructive one, because it pits one community against another. That's certainly not what we want to achieve in British Columbia. It's certainly not what I want to achieve, as a member of this Legislative Assembly, for an area where communities are trying to work together to find areas of cooperation and mutual synergy for development -- not to pit communities against each other.

I would ask the minister if he could simply comment as to whether or not, in his view, there was any potential conflict between Squamish and Whistler and clear the air on this whole issue with respect to the Sno-e engineering consultants' report.

[ Page 2213 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: Absolutely not. As the member well knows, in this business you often have your statements taken out of context. I have no apology for being open and saying that's the type of question I would have asked in opposition. It was a legitimate question. It was certainly not germane to the important part of the story. I was saying to the reporter that I thought it was a good question, and I then responded to it.

The fact is that there was nothing in that interview that could possibly be construed as setting those two communities in conflict. The point that I did make was that the consultant, who happened to be seen as being connected with Whistler, was a professional, and as such, it behooved him to behave in a professional manner, because the livelihood of that company would depend on it. That was the point. As you well know, that was also the point that I made in clarification in a letter to the editor to clear that matter up. Now it's on record here.

D. Mitchell: I thank the minister for that. The purpose for raising the question in this committee is to get it on the record, because I think it's important. If one lesson comes out of it for me -- and I hope the minister learns the same lesson -- it's that one must be careful with comments one makes to the media, because they can be misinterpreted. That comment was certainly perceived in the communities that I represent as being quite inflammatory, in the sense that it was encouraging people to pit communities against each other in a very destructive manner.

The minister should choose his words more carefully in the future, especially when the future and livelihood of communities are at stake.

One final question on the Garibaldi Alpen project. The minister has indicated that he is certainly open to further proposals and has not closed the door on other proposals coming forward. Another proposal is brewing, and the minister is probably aware of it. There has been consultation between the original proponent, whose proposal has been rejected, and the municipality of Squamish.

This proposal would include having the municipality of Squamish make a proposal to assume jurisdiction, I suppose one could say, over the Crown land that is to be developed and to allow the municipality, in turn, to deal with potential developers in the future. I wonder if the minister can indicate, for the benefit of members of this committee, whether or not the ministry would be amenable to that kind of proposal, to that kind of use of Crown land: to work with the municipality at that level and allow the municipality, in turn, to deal with private developers.

Hon. J. Cashore: We have received some communication on that, and we're in the process of developing our response.

D. Mitchell: I appreciate that a response is forthcoming, and we all look forward to what it will be. But in principle, could the minister indicate if this is the kind of approach his ministry would be willing to consider: working with the municipality, transferring control over Crown land to a municipality and allowing the municipality to, in turn, assume control over possible development of that land? Are there precedents for that in British Columbia? Is that the kind of approach that this ministry is likely to accept in principle, without referring to the specifics of this particular case?

Hon. J. Cashore: There are no precedents in British Columbia for this kind of project. With regard to the principle, I think I stated the principle in a previous answer a few minutes ago. The only thing I would add to that is that in this particular situation, we think that development of a tourism strategy, where the municipality is involved, is an important step.

D. Mitchell: I'm not really sure what the minister's response means. I guess we'll just have to look forward to how he responds in this particular case and, from that, try to extrapolate what those principles are that he referred to. I'm not sure that I can find them, but I'll go back and check through the record afterward to see if there is an underlying principle there. It's not obvious to me.

Hon. J. Cashore: If I could repeat what I said a few moments ago, I've stated that the ministry, along with other ministries, is willing to work with local people. I stated the principle of openness, in the fact that we released the information. I stated the principle of consultation, in that we met with the proponent and also with Mayor Tobus and his council.

With regard to the question of whether this precludes other possibilities, I've answered that. I've said no, it doesn't preclude other possibilities. But the Lands part of the ministry has a responsibility to respond to whatever proposals come forward in an informed and appropriate manner. The principles of stewardship of the land base of the province are absolutely fundamental. I've stated those principles, but I'm glad to state them again.

D. Mitchell: I understood those principles, but my confusion was with respect to -- for the minister's benefit -- whether or not those principles of stewardship could be transferred from the ministry to a municipal level of government. The minister has indicated that there is no precedent for that in British Columbia, but I'm wondering whether or not that is the kind of approach this minister would be in agreement with. Would the minister be willing to consider transferring his stewardship responsibility over Crown land from his ministry to a municipal level of government?

[3:45]

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, there is no precedent for that. As the member knows, there are certain criteria whereby free Crown grants are sometimes a matter of transfer. The member might want to review it in that context, but there is no precedent for that. That's not to say that it's not within the realm of possibility; I can't say off the top of my head.

[ Page 2214 ]

D. Mitchell: I have one other question I have for the minister. With respect to the Garibaldi Alpen project, we've talked about the hiring of consultants. I have a question with respect to the hiring of consultants and contractors by the ministry, and what the policy and practice is with respect to that. I know the ministry has a very competent staff, but I know that it engages consultants and contractors from time to time in a number of different ways. I wonder if the minister could comment on this.

I don't want to go into something that I think would be out of order, but I'll just say for the sake of reference that there is a question on the order paper of this House asking for a list of all the consultants and contractors who were hired since the minister was sworn into office on November 5, 1991, until the eve of the session, March 16. We're hoping that question will be answered in due course, and we've had some assurances that it would be. The answers haven't been forthcoming, however.

I'm wondering if the minister can commit to this committee today to provide to members of this House a list of all the consultants and contractors who were hired from the period of March 17, the day this session started, until the present, looking at the same criteria as those in the question on the order paper of this House.

Hon. J. Cashore: I won't respond to the order paper question, but the process that the ministry uses is a bid process. A consultant who is hired goes through an appropriate bidding process.

D. Mitchell: I'm pleased to hear that the process is open, and because it is open, perhaps the minister would see nothing wrong with providing to members of the committee a list of all the consultants and contractors who have been engaged by his ministry from March 17 until the present day. Could I ask for that commitment from the minister?

Hon. J. Cashore: I've already answered that.

D. Mitchell: I don't believe I have received an answer to this question. The question is with respect to consultants and/or contractors engaged by the ministry that he is responsible for. The minister has indicated to us today that it is an open bidding process, so presumably he would have nothing to hide. Would he provide a list to this committee? If he doesn't have it with him today, I would be pleased if he would simply commit that he will get that to us: a list of all....

F. Gingell: April 1, this year.

D. Mitchell: Let's say March 17 might be one date. We could go from April 1 if the minister wants, but up until the present day -- a list of all the contractors and consultants hired.

Hon. J. Cashore: All of this information comes out in the public accounts. With regard to issues of access to information, that's subject to legislation that's before the House. There could be instances where a minister or a ministry would decide to release information prior to that, and I would have to take that under advisement. I'm not prepared to say one way or the other right now. But the information does come forward under the public accounts.

D. Mitchell: I'm fully aware that the material does become available eventually, in good time, in the public accounts, but I'm asking the question today, and I'm asking it here. The minister has indicated that it's an open process. Presumably then he would have nothing to hide.

In the spirit of the freedom-of-information legislation, which has been tabled in this House -- and this government claims to be an open government -- if it's an open process, surely there would be nothing wrong with providing, or committing to provide now -- not next year in Public Accounts, but now -- a list of all the consultants and contractors engaged by his ministry.

If the minister has a problem with that, could he tell us what his difficulty is? Because I can't imagine what the problem would be.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'll work on that, and in time if we're able to make something available to the hon. member earlier, we will do so.

D. Mitchell: The minister is saying: "Well, I'll think about it, and I'll get back to you." But we're here today reviewing his budget for the 1992 fiscal year. We're here reviewing his budget, and he's asking us to approve his budget. We're here expressing our grievances before we're going to grant supply to this minister so that he can spend the taxpayers' dollars. And what does he do? He answers the question by indicating that he'll get back to me maybe perhaps one day. I'll just ask the question one more time.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, with all respect, I don't think that the member should berate me for just having indicated that while there's no statutory requirement for me to issue something prior to the Public Accounts, I've stated that in good faith I will look into the matter. I'll review it, and if I'm able to make that information available at an earlier date, I will. So I don't think there's any point in getting all hot and bothered about it. I'll do the best I can.

D. Mitchell: I agree with the minister: we should resist becoming hot and bothered. The session is getting late, and the minster is on his way to Rio, where he is going to get hot and perhaps a little bothered. I for one believe he should go to Rio. Unlike some other members of the House and perhaps some members of the news media who have urged him not to go and stay home, I think he should go, but I think first we should approve his budget. I think that would be very useful and constructive. I'm simply seeking a commitment -- not some vague ambiguous statement that he will look into it and get back to me.

That's not the kind of commitment I'm looking for from the minister, and it's not the kind of commitment we should expect.

It's a very simple question. I would just seek a little firmer commitment from the minister. Could he commit

[ Page 2215 ]

to provide us with a list of all the consultants and contractors engaged by his ministry? He said it's an open process. If he has nothing to hide, then why not agree today to provide that information to us -- not consider getting back to us, but agree to give it to us? We know that the material comes out in Public Accounts next year; we'd like to have the material now if we could, hon. Chair.

The Chair: Hon. member, it's my opinion that your questioning is becoming repetitious and tedious, according to standing orders. I believe the minister has answered the question, so could we please proceed.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: My constituency -- and you're fully aware of it -- covers a tremendous area of northern British Columbia. We have numerous guiding and fly-in fishing businesses. I would like to know if the same rules and regulations apply to guides and outfitters as to sport guide-in fishermen for the purpose of building cabins on remote lakes.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, for guide-outfitters to have a cabin, they have to have a guide-outfitting licence. For others, they don't.

R. Neufeld: For guided fly-in fishing, you need a licence for that also if you're going to guide people and fish in remote lakes, as I understand it.

Specifically, I have a constituent who has applied for land to build cabins so he can facilitate his fly-in fishing people. He does fly an awful lot of people into the north, based out of Muncho Lake; they come from all over the world to fly into different lakes. He's applied for leases on Denetiah Lake, South Gataga, Maxhamish Lake, Frog River and Netson Lake for the purposes of building a cabin so the fishermen have some shelter. He has actually been fishing on Maxhamish Lake commercially and flying people in there for about 11 years. But he's been turned down on a number of occasions from your Fort St.

John office. He's a little concerned that the ministry still allows the guiding industry to build cabins on remote lakes, but he is not allowed to build cabins on some of the lakes that he's applied for. He'd like to know why. He understands also that because of the backcountry things that are going on, it becomes very difficult. He says that after 11 years, he should be able to make some headway so he can do some planning; at the present time he can't plan. He's kind of caught short there.

Hon. J. Cashore: I think the hon. member has really answered the question for me. Pending the outcome of the process on commercial back country recreation, we are not accepting applications. It's unfortunate that your constituent is caught in that, because as you have said, he has been in this process for, I think, 11 years. However, it's my understanding that that is how our policy is taking place at this present time, and until we complete that process, we are not going to be processing any applications.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate that, and I understand where the ministry is coming from. However, during that time there has been tenure granted to some guide-outfitters to build different cabins. I'm not sure where, what lakes or what areas, but my constituent says that if you're going to allow the guide-outfitters -- he says -- that they are mostly owned by people from abroad -- to build cabins on some of these lakes, why not him? They all fit under the same thing. It's all the back country thing that is being held up, but those are still allowed to go ahead.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. member, that's a good example of the kind of difficult situation that we're trying to resolve in this process. I would like to recommend that we arrange for you to meet with senior staff and give you an opportunity to outline that specific concern. Among other things, I think it will help us in terms of being aware of the array of problems that are being encountered out there.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate that, and I'll do that.

The other question I have concerning that same constituent is the construction of a floatplane base on Parker Lake, which is actually close to Fort Nelson. Parker Lake is not what you would call a lake like you see in the Okanagan or a lake down here. Parker Lake is actually some real swamp land. It's a very shallow lake. The road was basically built in there by a contractor many years ago to use as a floatplane base. Through time they have coerced the regional district into doing some grading, and local contractors have hauled an awful lot of gravel and spent some time on that road.

This certain person, who of course uses float planes, needed a place to base from, so he uses Parker Lake. He says that he went to Lands and talked to them about how he would build a float plane base at this lake. It's not an extensive base, but it does have walkways out into the water so that you can both get out to your plane and load without getting wet. I think he went to considerable expense to do this. Now it's not policed by anyone -- it's about ten miles out of town. There are some people that live closer, but they don't police it. So he uses it, and so do a lot of other people.

It's also an emergency place. When he received his bill from Lands for the use of the lake.... I just want to read a paragraph here -- it's from the Fort St. John office -- so you understand: "I have received your letter of February 5 with a cheque for $1,160.95 for the Parker Lake tenures. I understand that you do not agree with the valuation, but I have again reviewed the file and believe that we have determined a fair market value for the upland and waterfront lot."

It sounds like we're talking about a pretty fancy place, but we're not. He's disputing that it's a little bit out of line. He said that if he could rent space at the airport, which he does for his wheeled aircraft, it's cheaper than that. So he says: "I went to all the expense to build everything there, and it could get vandalized, and other people use it, yet I have to pay this rent." There's no way that he mans it so that he can charge other people. So he feels that maybe it's just a little bit unfair; in fact, he thought that half of that would

[ Page 2216 ]

probably be more than sufficient. And it's a service, I guess, provided to the general public.

Hon. J. Cashore: The first point is that there is a valuation appeal process. If there's a dispute, there's a process whereby it can be appealed through an independent process. He also has the option of charging other users. With regard to the specific point, it may be that the hon. member would like to discuss that on the occasion that he meets with staff in terms of the intricacies of this particular situation.

R. Neufeld: One other question that's always been a burning issue in my constituency is over what's going to be done between the guides and outfitters and the packers? What kind of regulations, if any, are we going to put in place between those two? It does cause an awful lot of problems from both sides. I'm not standing on one side or the other, but the fact remains that there is a tremendous amount of conflict and friction between the two, and we do need some regulations to take care of it. Those same people tell me that they want less regulations, but here they want regulations to take care of some of their problems. Does the ministry have any idea on that?

[4:00]

Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member has identified one of the real tough problems. It's a very difficult issue. It's under very intensive review. It involves both the Environment and Lands parts of the ministry. There's a lot of intense work going on in trying to sort this out. At this point we're not able to come forward with clear and concise answers to your questions, but we hope to be doing that. We hope to get this matter resolved, but it is a really difficult one.

R. Neufeld: It definitely is. I certainly don't begrudge your job on that one, because it is a difficult one. I look forward to a ruling on it so that we can carry on.

I have one other question. It's the last one, and it's not predicated on some of the questions that were asked by the member from the opposition on contracts and that type of thing. Quite a while ago, probably over a month, I wrote a letter to your ministry requesting just some information on how you tendered helicopter time, specifically in my constituency. I'm not concerned about the rest of the province on that, other than a number of helicopter outfits in Fort St. John and Fort Nelson.

Some of them have contacted me to say that they don't seem to be able to bid on any work or get very much of it, compared to what's happening. So I would just like some clarification on it or how you do that.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm informed that it is tendered, but we don't always go with the lowest bid. There are factors that have to be considered in accepting the tender. We are going to be responding to you and we're preparing that response, but that's about all I can say for now.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate that answer. It's just that in my constituency the oil patch is a little slow, and also forestry, and of course all of these companies depend heavily on that, along with government work. So they would like to see it spread around a little bit more, because they're all competent, and I think probably when you come down to it, the rates are almost all the same for the same type of helicopter with different companies. That was the main reason for asking the question.

F. Gingell: I have asked you questions with regard to the Roberts Bank backup lands on two previous occasions. Now we've got to the time where it's going to be dealt with, and I've already asked most of my questions. But you will remember that I spoke first of all about the proposition, as it has now been clearly determined by the Vancouver Port Corporation that they wouldn't require these lands and they have made that commitment in a very unequivocal manner, that there was a possibility that they could be sold back to the original owners from whom they were expropriated.

The second question that I asked: if they couldn't be sold back, could the terms of the leasehold interest or the leases be changed so the cancellability clause or the fact that the lease can be cancelled on one year's notice be taken out of them so it will be reasonable and proper that good soil management practices take place?

My understanding of your responses to both those questions was that another study is being done, a study that will be fairly broad in dealing with all the questions of those Delta lands. Could you just respond to that to set the groundwork?

Hon. J. Cashore: It's being reviewed by the ministry with Agriculture and with the tenants. I believe that's the extent of the information we have at this time.

F. Gingell: One of the other alternatives I would ask you to consider, if the land isn't going to be sold back, is that the administration, if not the title, be handed over to the Ministry of Agriculture, because they will clearly have a better understanding of the needs of farmers and be more sympathetic to the concerns that farmers have with regard to soil management practices, ditching, drainage, irrigation and all those other programs which the Ministry of Agriculture gets involved in, very often with municipal and federal cooperation.

Hon. J. Cashore: In response to that, it's my position that it's not subject to what ministry is involved but subject to the policy of government. The role of Crown Lands is simply to administer in the context of government policy. I think our government has a very strong record with regard to land use policy.

F. Gingell: One other matter that is of concern to Delta farmers is the matter of the wildlife habitat replacement proposal that arises with respect to the construction of the third runway at the Vancouver

[ Page 2217 ]

International Airport. A copy of a letter written by the Delta Farmers' Institute to Transport Canada dated March 3, 1992, was sent to you. Will you consider the proposals outlined in that letter and show your support by championing their position with the federal authorities, who, after all, are the people who have the end role in this matter?

Hon. J. Cashore: I understand the letter was from the Delta Farmers' Institute. I'm advised that we're consulting possible options, but we haven't made a decision on it.

F. Gingell: One other question with respect to your responsibility on parks -- actually two or three items. Number one is that there has been a discussion and a proposal for some time now to improve and develop facilities on the south side of the B.C. Ferry causeway at Tsawwassen. It is being used as a park now. If you ever happen to catch the Friday afternoon or weekend ferry over to Tsawwassen, you will see what is going on. Could you please advise me where on your priority list that that particular project sits?

Hon. J. Cashore: That apparently is currently part of a B.C. Ferries' lease. It is not on our study area list, so we don't have any plans at the present time.

Hon. J. Cashore: Our position is that that's a regional use, and it's more likely and more appropriately addressed as a regional consideration. The terms of the lease are that that's under the control of B.C. Ferries. As I have said before with regard to Parks and Wilderness for the 90s, it is a study area list, and that's not on the list. I have also said that some areas will be added and some will be removed, because that's a dynamic process. It's possible that there might be letters indicating interest in that area. Our position is more inclined to encourage, if there is some thought of park status there, that it be considered on a regional basis.

[4:15]

F. Gingell: Perhaps we could get some dynamics going this afternoon and add it to the list. I really do think that it is a major facility that would well be part of your study. On that same subject of your study list, could you advise me if any thought has been given in your ministry with respect to the well-known lands that are involved in the Spetifore ALR property that is part of my Delta South constituency, specifically the land on the eastern side of Boundary Bay Road that sits between the golf course, the Guichon farm and the waterfront?

Hon. J. Cashore: It's private land. We don't have any jurisdiction over it. Some of the factors there would probably be addressed in the Boundary Bay area study that I was talking about earlier, but that remains to be seen.

With regard to the earlier point about the ferry causeway, I think we need to make a distinction here between a park and a campground. That's used mainly as a campground, and I don't think it really fits the criteria that we would look at when we're thinking of a park or any of our other designations.

W. Hurd: I'll continue briefly with the designated study area -- the Parks and Wilderness for the 90s plan. In light of the considerable impact that the Schwindt commission recommendations may have on the minister's budget -- particularly this strategy to increase the size of parks and wilderness preservation in the province -- is it the intention of the ministry to make any presentations to the Schwindt commission regarding compensation issues on lands that may be affected in this particular area?

Hon. J. Cashore: At this point the Schwindt commission has not approached us, and we have not discussed it with them.

W. Hurd: I'm looking at some of the areas that have been designated for a decision under the Parks and Wilderness for the 90s plan. There are considerable tracts of wilderness area which we would assume will overlap mineral land claims on the part of some companies in the province. How many claims are we dealing with here in terms of the areas that are designated to be decided upon as early as 1993? Surely the minister must have a grasp on the areas for which the government, depending on the recommendations of the Schwindt commission, may end up having to compensate resource holders in some small way.

Assuming the results of the Schwindt commission, would those compensation claims be applicable to his ministry in the current fiscal year?

Hon. J. Cashore: We don't have that information with us, but I'll make a commitment on the record that we will get it for the hon. member within two weeks.

W. Hurd: I have a brief series of questions on the corporate inventory initiative. Can the minister explain which projects in Lands and Parks are going to be funded in the current fiscal year under funds available from this particular initiative?

Hon. J. Cashore: That information is on its way. I'll have to answer that question later.

W. Hurd: Does the minister have any information on what portion of the $10 million fund will be

[ Page 2218 ]

available to his ministry during the current fiscal year? We're curious as to what process the Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development may use in the allocation of these funds, given the number of ministries that are lined up to receive funds under this $10 million initiative.

Hon. J. Cashore: The Ministry of Environment will receive about $4.4 million and 12 full-time employees. This is the portion that will be directly apportioned through the Ministry of Environment.

W. Hurd: Further with the corporate inventory initiative, can the minister explain to the committee if this is a perpetual fund, or is it merely a one-shot deal available to his ministry? I note that the funds -- if my reading of the parameters is correct -- are to develop inventory projects. Is that how his ministry intends to use these funds -- an inventory-type of initiative?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes.

W. Hurd: We'll look forward to receiving a list of those projects from the minister in the coming weeks.

Perhaps in the interest of speeding things up I can address a line of questioning on the rather considerable increase in fees for the use of provincial parks in the province. Once we get past the July 1 holiday, all members of the House will be the recipients of a number of letters on this particular issue.

As the minister may be aware, I have addressed correspondence to his ministry on this issue, and I certainly appreciated receiving a response on this particular important issue. As a critic for Forests and for Lands and Parks, I continue to receive letters from the public, who are concerned about the impact of these particular increases.

I was struck in particular by one letter I received from an individual who owns an 11-year-old pickup truck and a 15-year-old eight-foot camper, and whose greatest enjoyment in the spring, summer and fall was touring Vancouver Island, with a few trips to the southern Interior.

They pointed out that: "We prefer to stay at the provincial sites, because utility hook-ups are not necessary to us, and we don't mind the pit toilets." However, our rates are now higher than those charged by private operators offering water, hydro hook-ups and all the same amenities that Parks offers -- tables, fire pits and firewood, for example. Most of the private parks, according to this letter writer, have hot showers and flush toilets.

These particular individuals are seniors, whose pensions are not indexed and who are feeling the effects of the double whammy from these park increases and from rather dramatic increases in ferry fares and ICBC rates. I think they raise a legitimate point in this question. Was there any thought by the ministry of developing a different fee structure for British Columbians, particularly for seniors who would be fairly heavy users of these facilities -- and have been in the past -- as opposed to outside visitors? Was there any thought in the ministry of providing a made-in-B.C. policy for applying these parks fees in the upcoming fiscal year?

Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the question as to whether there is any consideration of preferential rates for British Columbians, the answer is no. I would point out to the hon. member that the 1992 fee increase ranges from 9 to 13 percent, depending on the fee level. This is significantly lower than the 19 percent increase in the British Columbia consumer price index since 1987, which was the last time that there was an across-the-board fee increase. I would point out to the hon. member that the fees were set in recognition of the fee structures of the commercial campgrounds.

We feel that we as a province have a responsibility to recognize those commercial campgrounds as being a viable business, and there was a problem before that we were causing some of them problems in terms of them being able to manage their accounts and show a reasonable return on their investment, because the provincial fees if they are not kept in sync will undercut them. Our information is that our fees, taken on the average, are appropriate in relation to those other fees.

Also with regard to seniors, yes, we have received some complaints about that and it's an issue that we're watching carefully, but we've also had input from seniors who have said to us that they feel that they are capable of paying the fee. There's also a reduced fee for seniors in the shoulder season. I take this concern seriously, but it is the policy of government to charge an appropriate fee as a means of helping to appropriately maintain those campgrounds. We believe this is good management because we have not been raising this every year. We've kept it down as much as we possibly could, but it behooved us to make this increase during this year.

W. Hurd: I believe the letter writers and others I have received make valid points, however, when they suggest that the ministry should have compared the services available in provincial parks to those private operators.

Has the ministry, in deciding on these rather draconian increases for seniors, recognized the fact that they may not be providing the same level of service as private parks, and wouldn't it then be logical to assume that the people who do use provincial parks will either be driven south of the border or will use the private parks on a much higher incremental basis, because they do enjoy these amenities which these rather seasoned travellers suggest are not available in provincial parks?

I'm a little curious. Surely the maintenance of the park not only depends on the fees charged but the number of people using the parks, and if we see a rather dramatic drop in favour of private facilities, wouldn't that have an impact of dramatically reducing the revenues from provincial parks and therefore threaten their viability just as much?

Hon. J. Cashore: In California, Washington State and Oregon it's my understanding that they're charging at the rate of what the market will bear, and they're having 100 percent occupancy in their campgrounds in California. I want to repeat what I said a few moments

[ Page 2219 ]

ago, and that is that these prices were set with complete awareness of the prices being charged in the commercial campgrounds, and that was one of the factors that was important in setting the rates. We think that we're holding the rate at a very reasonable level in British Columbia, but we do recognize that there have been complaints. We're not trying to deny that. We'll take that into consideration, but we think the rate that has been set is the appropriate one.

[4:30]

W. Hurd: I'm certainly somewhat disappointed to hear the minister suggest that British Columbians don't deserve a break in their own parks. Surely there should be some admission by the minister that out-of-province visitors should possibly pay a little more for the use of these parks, as they don't make as many frequent trips to British Columbia and often come in motor homes and other vehicles and tend to spend longer in the parks. Is the minister willing to at least examine the ratio of usage between British Columbians in their own parks and those out-of-province visitors to determine if British Columbians aren't in fact subsidizing the people who use these facilities?

Hon. J. Cashore: This suggestion comes up from time to time. It was tried in Oregon. They had to cancel it, and the reason for that is interesting: Oregonians then had to pay a premium price when they went to other states. Therefore there will be a reaction when you try that kind of approach.

Fundamentally, hon. member, I disagree with you. We should have a one-price policy. I don't think that British Columbians would look upon that as being unfair. In the concept of tourism, we need to be providing services that recognize that this is a destination location for a great many people. We want to see them continuing to stimulate our economy.

I want to clarify that when I stated earlier that California is charging what the market will bear, that certainly is not what I'm advocating. We're advocating trying to have a price that's realistic, in recognition of the costs of operating campgrounds.

W. Hurd: I don't want to belabour the point about increases for parks. I'm sure that the minister will be hearing from many other concerned British Columbians after July 1. I will leave it to them to point out the error of this particular policy.

I have a few additional questions on Lands and Parks. I want to briefly revisit the aboriginal issue. The minister talked about the study areas that he has identified -- the 12 percent not compromising the land claims issue in any way. Will aboriginal people continue to have fishing and hunting rights in these particular areas until the aboriginal question is resolved? I ask that question particularly in light of the announcement this morning about the grizzly bear designated area.

I suppose that is somewhat unique for the province, because it does represent a preserve specifically for one indigenous wildlife species. Will aboriginal people continue to have their access to these areas for their long-standing traditions of hunting and fishing?

Hon. J. Cashore: Natives will participate in developing guidelines for each study area, along with the study process. With regard to the specifics on the Khutzemateen, the answer is yes. The Git'tsiis tribe of the Port Simpson people, who are part of the Tsimshian nation, will continue to have their traditional activity. By making the announcement that we made today, we are concerned that it will attract a lot of attention to the area. Therefore we have to look at possible interim measures pursuant to the ultimate designation that will be decided.

With regard to this issue, I'd like to mention that this is one of the most creative areas in which we have the opportunity of working on plans with native people. It could be a good model for our land claims process. For instance, the Nisga'a lava bed park, which we dedicated a few weeks ago, was an excellent example. Chief Alvin McKay on behalf of the Nisga'a nation and myself on behalf of the B.C. government dedicated a park which is really on a sacred area where about 250 years ago a volcano caused the death of about 2,000 people who lived in villages.

The logo of the native people is on the plaque that we unveiled along with the B.C. government plaque. We're now in the process of developing a management plan which will ensure that they are a very fundamental part of managing a process jointly with the province. It will be helpful in terms of awareness, education and understanding of their culture and their values. It's something that we can look toward as a model for that type of activity.

A further example that I'm very interested in is one that I have discussed with Chief Ron Ignace of the Skeetchestn band, who has an area of interest in the Cariboo-Chilcotin. He has also been active in a very helpful way in indicating an interest in a partnership approach. I think there's a real opportunity with the native issue.

L. Hanson: In the Parks part of your ministry, do you have a policy that under some extreme circumstances would allow for, as an example.... Maybe I should go back a little bit and explain.

Our forests have some enemies -- mostly in the form of insects -- and some of them are badly damaged by them. Unfortunately, those insects don't know where the park boundaries start. In class A parks, does the ministry have an ability under special circumstances to log, if necessary, for the protection of the rest of the park?

Hon. J. Cashore: We permit logging if it enhances the park, and we do so in consultation with the Ministry of Forests. It has happened in Manning Park.

L. Hanson: Manning Park is, in fact, a class A park. Would that same philosophy apply to blowdown and that sort of thing?

Hon. J. Cashore: It could, but it would be subject to a lot of technical input from biologists. The reason is that in some areas of the province our wilderness is still in a somewhat balanced and unmanaged state. It would have to be recognized that blowdown is part of the natural evolution of the ecosystem, so each situation

[ Page 2220 ]

would be different and based on the values for which that particular park is intended.

W. Hurd: I have just a few more brief questions on Lands and Parks, recognizing the minister is anxious to head to Rio.

I had a particular interest in the Islands Trust situation on the Gulf Islands archipelago. I'm sure the minister is aware of the concern of that level of government about the designation of areas in the Gulf Islands for protection, respecting the fact that in this particular unique region there may be a need for an even greater percentage of preservation than the 12 percent provincial average. Can the minister share with the committee any ideas or recommendations that his ministry has about the Gulf Islands? Is he intending to hold meetings with the Islands Trust in the near future, as that body has some fairly grave concerns about land issues on the islands?

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, the answer is yes. We are working with them, and we do wish to include them in the planning process with regard to the study areas.

W. Hurd: Further to the Islands Trust, does the minister have a proposal before him from the Islands Trust pertaining to areas that they are anxious to see some action taken on by the ministry? Have they presented that type of plan to him, and has he made any commitments under his ministry vote this year to take action on some of these rather critical areas, particularly the issue on Galiano?

Hon. J. Cashore: I have committed to meet with officials from the Islands Trust within the near future about some general land issues there. With regard to your question about Galiano, I'll have to check on that one.

W. Hurd: As the minister may be aware, the issue on Galiano involves private lands that are under the control of a forestry company, MacMillan Bloedel. There is some concern that this particular area may be designated for housing or some other use. I think what the Islands Trust is looking for from the minister is some sort of commitment to designate a general classification for these lands, even though they may be in private hands. If he can provide some information on this issue to the committee in the future, it would certainly be appreciated.

I have just a few additional issues with respect to Crown lands. We're particularly interested in the dispensation of Crown lands, particularly for forestry woodlots. Is the minister actively working with the Minister of Forests to assist individuals in assembling enough Crown land to take advantage of the rather generous federal programs available for woodlot creation, given the fact that the commission by Mr. Sandy Peel identified considerable opportunities for private woodlot programs and the important role that the minister responsible for Crown lands could play in that process?

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, we work as a referral agency, but the lead role is in the Ministry of Forests with regard to the forestry woodlot program.

With regard to Galiano, our staff at the regional level are in regular contact with the Galiano people on this point. I'd remind the hon. member that our ministry purchased Dionisio Point from Mac-Blo last year. There are continued discussions, but we haven't had any further resolve on that issue coming out of the regional office discussions that I referred to.

W. Hurd: Just one final question. I note that under vote 33, the minister also has responsibility for the Commercial River Rafting Safety Act. I must confess, as the critic, that I'm not as apprised of the issues in this particular area as I possibly should be. In light of the incidents that have occurred with these particular rafting outfits, is he planning to review this act in the coming fiscal year with the aim of drafting new regulations in connection with river rafting activities? I recognize this represents future policy, but it does fall under vote 33.

Can he share with the committee any ideas he has about the current river rafting safety act and whether there are changes that might be necessary?

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I don't think we have to talk about that in the context of future policy; it came up in 1987. The guidelines and the regulations are working well. There were incidents precipitating them at the time, and some tragic situations had occurred. I'm going to be river rafting this summer on the Tatshenshini, along with my wife. I understand there's one day there that's really quite exciting.

L. Fox: Wear your life jacket.

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, we will wear life jackets and rain clothes.

Hon. member, if you have a situation to bring to our attention that we should be reviewing, we would be glad to do that. It's our understanding in the ministry that the present regulations are working effectively.

[4:45]

W. Hurd: I had nothing else really regarding Parks and Lands, and I understand that the hon. Leader of the Opposition wishes to return at this time to an environment issue. I certainly respect that and cede the floor to the hon. member to do that.

G. Wilson: Hon. Chair, I did want to come back to one matter that was raised earlier, with the minister's indulgence, and to correct the record on this matter. It's a matter that I believe is of grave importance to British Columbians and certainly to coastal British Columbians. It has to do with the Ministry of Environment's involvement in ocean dumping of toxic wastes.

I read from a letter from Mr. Heskin, director of Pacific and Yukon region, Environment Canada, that states clearly that a permit under this act is required to dispose of any substance in the sea. It says: "Disposal of toxic wastes, including discharges from land-based sources, is generally controlled in B.C. by permits

[ Page 2221 ]

issued pursuant to provincial legislation such as the Waste Management Act, and for hazardous or special waste, the special waste regulation." It suggests also that ocean dumping applications are referred to a number of review agencies, which includes three federal agencies and the British Columbia Ministry of Environment, and that there is a high level of scientific input -- oceanographic, fisheries, biological and engineering -- that is put in place.

It suggests also that the provincial Ministry of Environment will have the authority within the permitting process to specify dumping at a designated site which has been chosen for the particular materials to be disposed of. There are also -- in an earlier question that the minister was unable to answer, our research has now determined the answer for us -- 29 such registered sites in the province of British Columbia. These range from Howe Sound all the way north to Campbell River and beyond.

These sites are currently taking not only dredged material from harbours, but a whole variety of different materials from land-based operations that include everything from wood waste to supplementary waste from various industrial activities, logging activities and pulp-milling activities. These also include a significant number of heavy metals with respect to some of the more polluting ones, with lead and cadmium being of particular concern.

I return to this question where the minister said he had no authority or input, and I suggest that his ministry does have permitting input. I asked to what extent the minister first of all will allow the continuation of ocean dumping of toxic waste material in British Columbia, and to what extent those wastes are examined and reviewed by ministry officials prior to any permit being issued for a currently registered federal dump site -- one of the 29.

Hon. J. Cashore: We have input, but not authority. We make input into the decision that is made by the federal government. We don't have the authority. The authority is a federal authority. What the hon. member has stated does not contradict anything that has been stated in the House.

G. Wilson: Prior to any dumping, it says here that these wastes are frequently materials associated with dredging programs, which was the case in the recent activity in Howe Sound to which this letter referred with respect to cadmium. And it says that in order for this to be done there must be a permit issued by the Ministry of Environment. If a permit isn't issued, then presumably there would be some signal to the Ministry of Environment or Environment Canada that they can't dump.

Hon. J. Cashore: We are not aware of the permit that Environment Canada is referring to in that letter. If we are to stand corrected, we will do so, but on the basis of the information that our staff have at this present time, that does not fit with their understanding of the requirements and of the permitting process. If it turns out on reviewing this situation that I am incorrect, I will correct the record in the House.

G. Wilson: Thank you, and I appreciate that from the minister, because we would like to get this matter cleared up. Clearly that is the indication that we have received in this documentation.

I wonder then, just in a final question on this matter, if the minister might inform us as to whether or not his ministry approves of toxic dumping in the 29 approved marine dumping sites, and whether or not he's prepared to take issue with the federal government and Environment Canada to have those sites terminated.

Hon. J. Cashore: The federal regulations don't allow toxic dumping.

G. Wilson: Federal regulations do allow toxic dumping, and the regulations are governed under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act -- and it's

part 4 of the act, to help the minister. That act essentially requires also that a provincial permit be issued. There are 29 registered dump sites. If the minister would like, I can supply him with the maps of exactly where they are in British Columbia, and with a list of what has gone into those dump sites over the last little while. It is clearly allowed under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Will the minister intercede to see whether or not he can close these dump sites to protect us from having any more toxic materials dumped into the Georgia strait and Howe Sound region?

Hon. J. Cashore: When our ministry was dealing with what is now the Concord site, the rules were that nothing could be dealt with other than what was referred to as native till. That which was classified as toxic was not allowed to go out to those sites. The Leader of the Opposition has referred to toxic dumping, and I haven't seen the document which he has in his hand, so it's possible that I could stand corrected.

But I am not aware of the term "toxic dumping" being a standard of the federal government, because I believe the use of the word "toxic" is defined with regard to an accepted definition based on analysis. Therefore the dumping that goes on, which I have some concerns about, is not technically, to my knowledge, defined as toxic dumping, using that word "toxic" as a technical term that fits into an accepted definition.

G. Wilson: I would be happy to supply the information that we have with respect to the report. The report I refer to here is a report done by Mr. D. L. Sullivan. It was completed in March '87. This particular one is "Compilation and Assessment of Research, Monitoring and Dumping Information for Active Dump Sites on the British Columbia and Yukon Coasts from 1979 to 1987." It was prepared by the Pacific Region Ocean Dumping Advisory Committee. It talks about sampling toxic material.

In the Port Mellon region, for example, on page 1, it says that there was material done with respect to dredged material going in from the mill, some of which was "toxic" and some which was "non-toxic." It goes on to talk about some of the various materials that are in there. This is not new; this has been going on for a long time. These sites, which are legally registered federal toxic marine dumpsites on the coast

[ Page 2222 ]

of British Columbia, have been the subject of some considerable concern to a lot of communities, especially in the Georgia Basin and Howe Sound, where shellfish fisheries have been closed down as a result of extreme contaminant