1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th 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)

MONDAY, JUNE 26, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7865 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 7865

School Act (Bill 67). Hon. Mr. Brummet

Introduction and first reading –– 7865

Independent School Act (Bill 68). Hon. Mr. Brummet

Introduction and first reading –– 7866

Litter Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 60). Hon. Mr. Strachan

Introduction and first reading –– 7866

Waste Management Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 58). Hon. Mr. Strachan

Introduction and first reading –– 7866

Oral Questions

AIDS prevention video. Mr. Harcourt –– 7866

Fatt's Island Poultry Farms. Mr. Sihota –– 7868

Committee

of Supply: Ministry of State for Thompson-Okanagan and

Kootenay, Responsible for Crown Lands estimates. (Hon. Mr. Dirks)

On vote 52: minister's office –– 7868

Hon. Mr. Dirks

Mr. Williams

Mr. Clark

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Kempf

Hon. S.D. Smith

Farming and Fishing Industries Development Act (Bill 44). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Savage –– 7894

Mr. Lovick –– 7894

Mr. Clark –– 7894

Hon. Mr. Savage –– 7895

Agriculture Protection Act (Bill 30). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Savage) –– 7895

Mr. Clark

Mr. Lovick

Mr. G. Janssen

Mr. Loenen

Third reading

Financial Institutions Act (Bill 51). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 7899

Mr. Clark –– 7901

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 7903

Committee

of Supply: Ministry of State for Thompson-Okanagan and

Kootenay, Responsible for Crown Lands estimates. (Hon. Mr. Dirks)

On vote 52: minister's office –– 7903

Mr. Williams

Hon. S.D. Smith

Mr. Darcy

Mr. Rose

Mr. Clark

Mr. Serwa

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. REID :

In the House today are some very distinguished visitors. Mr. F.I.

Chang is the president of the Formosan Aboriginal Culture Village of

Taiwan. Mr. Chang and his group are touring British Columbia for the

purpose of viewing mutually beneficial joint tourism ventures within

our province. Attending the House today with Mr. Chang are: Mr. Ed

Kisling, president of Asia House Financial Group; his son, Mr. H.S.

Chang; Mr. Jack Lee and his daughter Jean; Peter Yuen of Vancouver;

Yuen Mow of Vancouver; Ms. Lee Chan of Vancouver; Mr. CX Chang and his

son from Vancouver; Mr. Tony Hu of Taiwan; Mr. Frank Sze of Vancouver.

Would the House give all these people a special welcome.

MR. PELTON :

Hon. members, seated on the floor of the House today is a very old

friend of many of us here. He is a man who served this House and served

his community for a long time — he's the miracle Whip, the ageless

George Mussallem. Would you please welcome him.

While I am

on my feet I would like to introduce to the members of the House a lady

of whom the second member and I are very proud indeed. Some years ago,

Cheryle Macdonald started a dance school in Dewdney and called it the

Stave Falls Scottish Dancers. Through her leadership the school became

world-class. In addition to entertaining audiences throughout British

Columbia, her students have danced in competitions and major events all

over the world. This year the school is celebrating its thirtieth

anniversary and has about 150 students. Today Mrs. Macdonald and a few

hosts from the riding have brought to the Legislature 19 British adults

from the Doncaster district's Royal Scottish Dancers. Would the House

please make them all very welcome.

MR. PERRY : I'd

like to welcome to the House today an esteemed colleague and friend,

Dr. Steven Lippman, from the great city of Little Rock, Arkansas, who

is visiting today along with his wife Heidi. Could the House please

make them welcome.

MR. ROGERS : I have a guest today:

Ghislain Eschasseriaux, from the House of Hennessy in Cognac, France. I

know each and every member will want to make him welcome, having in

their own small way contributed to the cost of his coming here.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : In the gallery today are representatives of the senior

staff of my ministry, the B.C. Teachers' Federation, the B.C. School Trustees'

Association and the Independent School Associations. Perhaps some others have

come here in great anticipation, and I would like the House to make them welcome.

MR. PERRY :

We also have in the precincts today Dr. Paul Cappon, who is the leader

of the federal wing of the Quebec NDP. I'd like to make him welcome.

C'est pas souvent qu'on a l'occasion de parler franais dans I'assembl e, mais on lui souhait une bienvenue tr s chaleureuse.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I have some reports to present. I have the honour to present a report

of the Crown Proceeding Act for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1988;

the financial statements and auditor's report for the B.C. Housing and

Employment Development Financing Authority for the fiscal year ending

March 31, 1989; and the report of guarantees and indemnities for the

fiscal year ending March 31, 1989, in concordance with

section 56 of

the Financial Administration Act.

Hon. S.D. Smith tabled the annual report of the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia for the year 1988-89.

Introduction of Bills

SCHOOL ACT

Hon. Mr. Brummet presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled School Act.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I'd like to just comment briefly on this bill. I think all members are

aware that the education system faces significant challenges and

opportunities as we move towards the twenty-first century. This

government initiated the Royal Commission on Education to recommend how

to best meet these challenges and to take advantage of the

opportunities.

In January, after an extensive consultation

process, the government announced major new policy directions in

response to the royal commission's recommendations. Virtually all of

the commission's recommendations have been acted upon.

This

bill will provide the necessary legislative foundation for these new

policy directions to enable our education system to move forward

towards "A Legacy for Learners" as proposed by the Sullivan report. I

have made no secret of my own view that our education system should

first and foremost serve the best interests of the students.

The

new School Act is the first major redraft of the School Act in 31

years, and brings into one document the previous amendments to the act

and legislation related to education. The finance

section is brought

forward from the existing act to this act with only minor changes, as

there is a firm commitment to a review by next year of the entire

process of funding and taxation. Work has begun on this, and we expect

to involve the major stakeholders in a consultative role before any

policy is finalized.

The bill has been developed with the

complete involvement of all the major stakeholders. Their input and

advice has been much appreciated, and I

[ Page 7866 ]

certainly thank all those involved for their significant contributions, commitment and assistance.

its preparation, this legislation has undergone the widest possible

range of input, discussion and revision through EPAC and other

representations. I expect it will receive general support, if not total

support, from particular interests. I move the bill be introduced and

read a first time now.

Bill 67 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.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL ACT

Hon. Mr. Brummet presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Independent School Act.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Mr. Speaker, much of what I have said in conjunction with the School

Act is applicable in this case: the consultation, the input from all of

the major stakeholders, is also applicable to this bill. In addition, I

think it's important to indicate that the Independent School Act will

require the registration with my ministry of all independent schools

operating in the province. This will ensure that the operations of all

independent schools will be in the best interest of students, parents

and the public of our province. This act also incorporates

recommendations from the royal commission report. Again, it has been

developed through a consultative process and has undergone the widest

range of input, and I expect that it too will receive general support.

[2:15]

Bill

68, 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.

LITTER AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Hon. Mr. Strachan presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a

bill Intituled Litter Amendment Act, 1989.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Mr. Speaker, speaking briefly to this bill, the intent was mentioned in

the throne speech, where we said that we would increase fines for

littering and also extend the jurisdiction where we would fine. The

fines will be going from $500 to $2,000. They will include littering

offences that occur in the marine environment. That is the intent of

the bill.

Bill 60 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.

WASTE MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Hon. Mr. Strachan presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a

bill intituled Waste Management Amendment Act, 1989.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

In a brief statement with respect to this bill, Mr. Speaker, I

indicated last spring that in conjunction with CEPA, the federal

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, we would be making moves in

British Columbia to significantly increase the fines we would levy on

polluters. This bill will increase the fine to $3 million for serious

damage done to the environment, plus an additional fine if the person

polluting has made any profit out of that pollution. So it's $3 million

plus if the court so finds. These amendments also deal with the

management of biomedical wastes in British Columbia and indicate to

municipalities that they must have waste management plans in place by a

certain date. So it's significant legislation. It's been expected for

some time.

Bill 58, 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

AIDS PREVENTION VIDEO

MR. HARCOURT :

I have a question to the Minister of Health. Can the minister explain

on what basis he and the Premier have personally decided to block the

government's AIDS prevention video?

HON. MR DUECK :

The Provincial Advisory Committee on AIDS reports to the Minister of

Health, and the advice provided to the committee makes a very important

contribution to my ministry. An upgrading in educational material on

sexually transmitted diseases is an ongoing part of my ministry. When

this film was presented to me, I believe I was convinced that neither

the medium nor the message in that particular film was appropriate and

properly balanced. We felt that while encouraging the use of condoms is

certainly a way of reducing AIDS in our population, especially in the

teenage group that this was zeroing in on, it was not considered a

balanced or a proper film at this time, comparing it with other

programs that we have in progress now.

I must also say that

the knowledge of teenagers in our province.... A Canada-wide study was

done by Queen's University on youths and AIDS in Canada, and we rank

number one in Canada. By and large, our communication has not been bad.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm sorry if I have to take a little more time, but I must do

this. It's been indicated that just because we don't do exactly what

someone else has an idea we should, somehow we're not doing anything in

the area of AIDS. Just to go over some of the things that we have done

in this area — and it's a serious matter....

[ Page 7867 ]

Interjections,

HON. MR. DUECK : You guys asked the question; you listen.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

HON. MR. DUECK :

I don't think it can be laughed at or talked back to. If you want to

listen to what we've done this far, then please listen. If not, then

just don't ask the question.

AIDS virus antibody testing

has been going on in this province for some time. It's done free of

charge. Physicians and health units are involved, as well as a clinic

in Vancouver. Since October 7, 1985, 70,000 tests had been done to the

end of 1988. Of those, 2,600 were proven positive.

AIDS

pamphlet series: seven information pamphlets were produced and sent

out. Six of these are still used on a regular basis and are being

upgraded all the time. In household mailings in September 1987, we sent

out

MR. PERRY : You admit there's an epidemic, but you won't do anything about it.

HON. MR. DUECK :

Mr. Speaker, would you ask the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey

to please listen, because it's directly involving him as critic.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. The minister will finish the answer,

HON. MR. DUECK :

Over 1.2 million copies were sent to every household in British

Columbia. In that material, there was information about the disease

itself, its spread, what precautions to take, how to talk to your

children about the disease and also the myth that it can be contracted

by kissing, touching or that type of thing. It was a very explicit,

all-encompassing package.

The B.C. AIDS line was

established to answer calls around the clock from people with questions

in that particular area. We've had many calls on this particular line.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. I think the minister is extending the answer a little

further than the question asked. I would ask him to allow the next

question. I'm sure he'll have more of an opportunity to get more of his

answer out.

MR. HARCOURT : A supplementary, Mr.

Speaker. This video was viewed at an international conference that had

over 10,000 participants, and it was praised very widely. It was viewed

by a large number of young people and others in British Columbia and

praised very widely. Would the minister not agree that by opposing this

he is simply imposing his own narrow moral standards?

HON. MR. DUECK :

Mr. Speaker, to continue what I was saying, we have a video production

that was done in 1987. General information on this particular video,"

The New Epidemic," which described in detail the AIDS virus which is

now infecting so many people.... This film was also done in Cantonese,

Hindi and Punjabi, and we were praised for it. As a matter of fact, we

sent it to many other provinces in Canada, and they said: "You're far

ahead of what we're doing here."

Family life education in

the schools in the fall of 1987: the Ministry of Education introduced a

mandated curriculum for grades 7 to 12, and we were instrumental in

helping make that particular program. "AIDS in the Workplace," a

package produced on how to deal with the AIDS epidemic in the

workplace, was sent out to about 200 or 300 large corporations.

have a dental clinic at VGH that deals with people with AIDS. We have

street nurses in the city of Vancouver. We have six nurses who provide

outreach information for people on the street, and they are highly

successful.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. The opposition House Leader rises on a point of order.

MR. ROSE :

I hate to do this during question period, but I just can't stand here

and allow the minister to smuggle in a ministerial statement, which

he's permitted to do at any time, and answer every question except the

one he has been asked.

The question is, basically: can the minister distinguish between medical and moral issues?

HON. MR. DUECK :

Mr. Speaker, we're not doing all of these things because of a moral

attitude. We're doing these things, and we've produced these programs,

because of the AIDS epidemic that is now going on throughout the world.

We have professional education, including a symposium for physicians, a

physician's manual, a hospital manual, a bimonthly B.C. Medical journal

column, and testing and counselling in the workplace. We have a hospice

in St. Paul's Hospital and VGH. As a matter of fact, St. Paul's

Hospital currently is recognized as the center of excellence for AIDS.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. I remind the minister that our standing orders ask for not only questions to be brief but also answers.

MR. HARCOURT :

If the minister won't admit that he's imposing his own moral standards,

then I'm sure he'll admit he's imposing the Premier's and his own moral

standards.

As the minister reads out the prepared ministerial statement, I'd like him to ponder.... Surely the

[ Page 7868 ]

minister

is aware that over half of grade 11 students are sexually active. What

advice is he prepared to give these young people who are now running

the risk of AIDS infection?

HON. MR. DUECK : That's

why we have these programs in place. I was trying to explain to the

member. But if they don't want to listen, then I have no more to say.

was just getting into the native area, where we're now assisting the

federal government to bring this program also to the natives of our

provinces; we find that the AIDS virus is also in that particular

population.

We have done many things. This is all related

to the AIDS problem. This is all related to what we're doing. If that

member, the Leader of the Opposition, can stand up and say that it's my

moral conviction or attitude.... We wouldn't be doing these programs.

We're doing them because it's a health issue; it's a medical issue;

that's why we're doing them.

Mr. Speaker, we would not be

recognized throughout Canada if we had not done some of the things that

we ought to do, that are our responsibility. Right across Canada, when

I meet with the other health ministers, they're saying," What are you

doing in this particular area?" and they're following our example.

would like those members to know that we've never finished. We're never

at the end of doing what we can. We are constantly looking at new ways

of educating the population, but we are doing it in a way that is

acceptable to the majority, and we are hitting every segment of the

population.

MR. HARCOURT : He is basically saying

what the Premier said earlier: young people want to have sex, but they

don't want to die. That's their attitude towards young people. What an

insult!

This minister has spoken out against making condoms

available in schools. He has stubbornly refused to make available the

recommendations of his AIDS advisory committee. He clearly has joined

the Premier in his sexual fantasyland.

Does the minister

not agree that he is pursuing an anti-prevention policy on AIDS, by

putting his own narrow personal views ahead of the health of our young

people?

[2:30]

HON. MR. DUECK :

I certainly don't want to bore these people with the information I have

of what we are doing in the province against this dreadful disease.

Again I must tell the opposition that we have done more per capita in

this province than any other province in Canada. If you ask me if we

have done enough, I'll say no, we could do more, and we are still

exploring other areas.

But you know very well that when

that question was asked about the dispensing of condoms in the schools,

I said it was up to the school board to make that decision. They kept

badgering me about my personal opinion, and I did say that personally I

think it's ridiculous. I still stand on that.

That has

nothing to do with the decisions we make in regard to medical outreach

on this particular disease. Mr. Speaker, they know very well that the

AIDS program in British Columbia is doing well. We are reaching out and

doing everything we can. I can start again at the beginning of the list

of things we are doing.

FATT'S ISLAND POULTRY FARMS

MR. SIHOTA :

I don't know why the Minister of Health just can't admit that he is

imposing his moral values on the people of British Columbia.

question is to the Minister of Agriculture and deals with the

government guarantee to Fatt's Island Poultry. Fatt's, under the

precondition, has to produce 50,000 birds per week. For the last three

weeks I've got information on, the production levels have been 6,000,

6,000 and 20,000 birds, well below the rate that the company has

committed itself to. What steps is the minister prepared to take, in

light of the fact that Fatt's is not meeting its conditions? Secondly,

will he now admit that his department did not approve the granting of

that loan when it went to Treasury Board?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I would take solace if I had those figures in front of me to quote what

the hon. member is quoting. I will not respond until such time as I

have them confirmed.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF STATE

FOR THOMPSON-OKANAGAN AND KOOTENAY,

RESPONSIBLE FOR CROWN LANDS

On vote 52: minister's office, $298,377.

HON. MR. DIRKS :

I'm pleased to present to the House the estimates of the Minister of

State for Thompson-Okanagan and Kootenay and the Ministry of Crown

Lands for the 1989-90 fiscal year.

In the coming year the

Minister of State for Thompson-Okanagan and Kootenay and the Ministry

of Crown Lands will continue to vigorously fulfil their respective

mandates. For the development regions, this is to continue to take an

active role in ensuring that there is a regional mechanism for input to

government decision-making and increased support for economic

diversification. For the Ministry of Crown Lands it is to continue to

provide Crown land management for the people of British Columbia, to

encourage appropriate and orderly development while ensuring a fair

return to the province, while making Crown lands available for a

variety of purposes, and to support the activities of government

[ Page 7869 ]

and industry by providing comprehensive base mapping and land information services.

support of this mandate, we are requesting a total voted expenditure of

$37.9 million for fiscal '89-90. Of this, $298,000 is for the operation

of the minister's office, $1.47 million for the two development regions

and $36.1 million for the Ministry of Crown Lands. My ministry has

specific responsibility for two dynamic development regions: the

Thompson-Okanagan and Kootenay. We will continue to work within these

regions to aid in the development of their regional economies in a

manner sensitive to their unique strengths.

In the Kootenay

region we have established task forces to examine various key economic

and social factors within the region. Their recommendations have laid

the groundwork for the year to come. They have greatly assisted in

identifying priorities and short- and long-term objectives. Members are

to be commended for their diligence and reasoned recommendations. Their

input has been of substantial value in determining government-wide

decisions which are sensitive to regional impacts.

The

Thompson-Okanagan region has recently established six task forces in

key economic development and infrastructure areas in order to bring

forward regional priorities in a more integrated manner. We expect this

process to bring about significant activity in the coming year,

Over

the past year we have started to see the results of the regionalization

process through programs such as regional seed capital. We have also

seen the regional structure as a major component in key government-wide

initiatives such as the provincial transportation planning process,"

Freedom to Move," and the community alcohol and drug abuse prevention

community programs of the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services.

the coming year, both tourism development and mining will be the focus

of regionally based studies initiatives and programs such as these are

raising regional awareness and increasing the demand for our services

and assistance.

The coming year will be a very active one

for the minister of state. To continue our activities in regional

development through the minister of state's offices, we are requesting

a 1989-90 budget of $1.47 million. This budget represents a very modest

increase from '88-89.

The Ministry of Crown Lands

represents the major component of our budget. Over 90 percent of the

land in our province is publicly owned Crown lands Crown lands is the

central responsibility for this very essential resource. The land base

is a very important component in the development plans for our province.

must continue to use this resource wisely and effectively to stimulate

industry and commerce while ensuring that development is sensitive to

long-range environmental and multi-use concerns. Since the creation of

the Ministry of Crown Lands in July 1988, much work has been done to

reorganize the components within a single management structure. This

has entailed separating the Lands portfolio from the Ministry of

Forests and Lands and integrating the surveys and resource mapping

branch from the former Ministry of Environment and Parks.

Last

year Crown Lands was given the lead role in the disposition of the BCEC

lands portfolio. This will mean continued involvement in the management

of certain properties in the coming year. Crown Lands was also charged

with managing the consolidation of mapping and land information systems

within government. The ministry has developed a corporate strategy for

land information that will rationalize existing systems within

government and provide better information exchange between government

agencies and industry in future.

The demand for Crown lands

is increasing. As we move into our first year of full operation as a

ministry, we are excited and optimistic about the opportunities and

challenges we face. We are equally aware that we must have adequate

budgetary resources if we are to achieve our goals. Crown Lands employs

467 people in eight regional offices and four Victoria branches.

Crown

land programs are a profit centre in government. For every dollar we

spend in this area, we generate approximately $2 in revenue. Crown

Lands is proud of its service orientation and of having positioned

itself in a manner that is both efficient and entrepreneurial. It is an

organization that is client-centred and market-oriented.

The

ministry works with all sectors of the province to allocate land for

industry, commerce, settlement and conservation. We operate a registry

of legal interests in public land and support rational use and

management of public resources through the production of topographical

base maps and geographic information. The development of Crown land by

the private sector will continue to contribute significantly to the

long-term economic health of this great province.

Marketing

our Crown land complements rather than competes with the activities of

the private sector. It also contributes to our ability to fund

conservation efforts in the province. The Ministry of Crown Lands has

committed additional funds this year in support of two key initiatives.

The first is to increase our marketing initiative in support of

regional development. We are increasing funding of identification

studies in two vital areas for future development: coastal resources

and back-country recreation. These studies provide a blueprint for land

use by determining potential conflicts before allocating land for

specific use. To support these initiatives, which will be undertaken in

many areas of the province, we have committed $250,000 in the coming

year. Ultimately this planning process will contribute new jobs and

infrastructure improvements while being sensitive to the region's

environmental and conservation needs.

Crown Lands will also

be enhancing accounting and management systems for the Crown land

special account. These enhancements will preserve existing

accountabilities and make the system more respon

[ Page 7870 ]

sive

to our decentralized operations. In support of this initiative for

systems enhancement, Crown Lands is committing $250,000 this fiscal

year. This expenditure, in conjunction with an accelerated marketing

initiative, will produce significant revenue benefits.

The

second key strategy is to enhance the ministry's ability to make

resource information available to government and industry. We will be

increasing our expenditures for the development of a geographic

information system for Crown Lands and the Ministry of Environment.

Such a system will simplify the dealings the public has with our

regional offices and enable staff to provide more timely and effective

service in the management of natural resources. A total of $500,000

will be expended on this GIS development in '89-90.

The

budget before you represents a modest increase which will pay dividends

in the years to come by increasing revenue and stimulating the economy

through the marketing of Crown land, and also by providing more

comprehensive and effective systems for natural resource management.

the floor today to help me with information that may be requested, I

have my associate deputy, Ed Macgregor; the assistant deputy, Frank

Edgell; and Jim Switzer, vice-president of lands in BCEC.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Mr. Chairman, he tells us in terms of his regional stuff that there are

six task forces, that they'll be attacking regional priorities in a

more integrated manner — harrumph, harrumph! — and that they are

developing a "corporate strategy" with respect to Crown Lands. Poor old

Johnny Johnson, Larry Bell and all of those predecessors, who thought

they were the corporate whiz kids, are going to be hurt.

Then

he sums up by telling us how entrepreneurial he is by saying that for

every dollar they spend in Crown Lands, they get back $2. Well, what

kind of businessman is that? You're given the Crown lands as a gift,

you spend $1 managing them, and when you do sell, you make $2 back.

That's probably the worst business operation in the history of Canada.

But be that as it may, that's the way this minister operates.

[2:45]

I wonder if the minister could advise us how it works at

Blackcomb. Maybe the minister could provide the House with information

about the arrangements with respect to Blackcomb.

HON. MR. DIRKS : Would the member like to be a little more specific, please?

MR. WILLIAMS : How does the ministry sell lands to Blackcomb Ski Enterprises?

HON. MR. DIRKS :

Basically, in a few words, there is an agreement. The benchlands, I

believe, are what you're referring to. In '79-80 Blackcomb opened phase

1 of the development plan. Simply by putting lifts, or investments, on

the hills, they earn the right to draw down land for development

purposes.

MR. WILLIAMS : I want to thank the minister

for his frankness and detailed accounting of this arrangement. I wonder

why he's so reluctant to give us more details. Or is he just not aware,

and he has to be briefed?

HON. MR. DIRKS : Mr.

Chairman, I'm being very brief about this because the agreements were

in place prior to my assuming the office. I'm sure this has been

canvassed many times before.

MR. WILLIAMS : The

minister is wrong; it has never been canvassed. The minister is wrong;

it has never been public. Can the minister tell us when the documents

were given to the people of British Columbia in a public information

program? Isn't it true that the agreement was amended many times and

the last amendment to the agreement was in 1988, when you were the

minister? It may have been just prior to the minister's appointment,

actually.

HON. MR. DIRKS : If I had been sitting over

on the other side of the table and this agreement was in place for that

length of time, I don't think I'd admit that I had let the government

go that long, as you suggest, without revealing the details of it.

MR. WILLIAMS : Well, then, there's every opportunity for the minister to enlighten us.

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Oh, is the prompter, the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith), not

willing to stand up and do some more public prompting of the minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Shall vote 52 pass?

MR. WILLIAMS : The Attorney-General is here as the minister of defence for the Minister of Crown Lands. Well, so be it.

I'd

just like to make the point that the question of Blackcomb and the

development of Blackcomb is something that deserves full public

discussion, and reasonably so.

AN HON. MEMBER : The minister agrees.

MR. WILLIAMS :

The minister has agreed, but he hasn't really provided us with the

background. So I guess I'm going to have to begin with a general

discussion of what the administration in '72 inherited at Whistler and

how we evolved a plan to establish Whistler as the resort it is today

to a very great extent.

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Oh, no. Most of you people simply either don't know history or rewrite

it. You people are reluctant to provide to the public the kinds of

details about the contracts you have made

[ Page 7871 ]

that should have been made public throughout the years and have not been.

Just

to set the background straight, when the administration changed in

1972, the Whistler region was a scattered mess of speculative

subdivisions. There was no public water system in that valley, no

public sewer system, no plan whatsoever. That was the inheritance of

the early Social Credit years at Whistler. It was the classic

botch-up — impossible management or non-management of the public

lands. There was pollution in Green Lake and Alta Lake. It was the end

product of non-planning through the W.A.C. Bennett years. It needed

major government intervention to begin the cleanup.

There

were problems in terms of not understanding or analyzing the ski

potential of that and other regions of British Columbia. The full

potential of that region was being missed. It needed a water system, a

sewer system and a community plan; it needed all of that.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

On a point of order, I'm sure that what occurred in 1969, '70 and '71

is interesting to historians and sundry socialists, but I'm wondering

if we might get a little closer to 1989, the current estimates which

are before us.

MR. CHAIRMAN : We are discussing Crown

lands, and I believe the member opposite has been discussing Crown

lands. That's what we're dealing with in vote 52,

MR. WILLIAMS :

There was no analysis in those days of the ski-potential regions in

British Columbia, and there was a real need for applying human capital

in terms of understanding this great potential we have. There was a

need to front-end and spend public money to deal with the lack of work

by the previous administration. The Environment and Land Use Committee

of cabinet began that work. That became activated in those days, and a

team of some 70 interdisciplinary people were applied to a range of

problems in British Columbia.

One of those problems was the

Whistler region. We intervened and stopped devastating logging that was

taking place on Blackcomb, Mr. Attorney-General, because we recognized

the significant ski potential there. That was stopped in order to

protect the tourism and recreational potential of the valley.

addition, we didn't really understand snow, the weather and conditions,

and the whole matter of an international resort and how it could be

really developed from scratch — or at least a little bit beyond

scratch, because we had to clean up some of the mess that was already

there. That meant that we had to hire people we deemed to be the best

ski-engineering people in North America, so we hired Snow Engineering

out of Colorado to analyze that whole snow basin around the Whistler

valley. Out of that work developed the plans for the Whistler region

and for Blackcomb, and out of that came an understanding that the

Fitzsimmons Creek area was the natural town centre for the Whistler

valley.

So this area — Crown land — which had in

fact been a garbage dump near Fitzsimmons Creek, was clearly the area

where the values in terms of future ski development could be focused.

We had a unique opportunity to link Whistler from the town centre, the

Whistler ski development and Whistler Mountain, and then have another

lift to Blackcomb and tie it all together in the old garbage site at

Fitzsimmons Creek. It was, in fact, an extremely good planning exercise

involving some talented people who were this significant team in ELUC:

British Columbians who had left, British Columbians who had stayed. Out

of that came the proposal for the development of the resort

municipality of Whistler.

It seems to me that all this upfront money at Whistler — public money in terms of infrastructure and the like —

is somewhat similar to the New Westminster situation, where another

public corporation, the First Capital City Development Co., which was a

sub of BCDC and BCEC, established the infrastructure and the basis for

rehabilitating the waterfront in New Westminster. There was a lot of

money to be spent in terms of a sewer system and a water system in the

valley and to develop the town centre, and a lot of human capital and

new institutions to clean up the mess that had been inherited.

Part

of that worthwhile exercise was establishing the job of ski coordinator

in the province, and Mr. Al Raine was hired in the Department of Lands.

For the first time ever in British Columbia there was a ski

coordinator, somebody with a terrific background in terms of the

practical sense of the ski world and competition skiing, and an

understanding and knowledge as good as anybody's in the world of the

ski resorts of western Europe and North America. So it was a unique

blend of human capital that started to work on Whistler. I want to put

that on the record, Mr. Chairman, because these birds don't understand

how you establish a significant planning exercise and achieve something

worthwhile over the long haul. All of that was done in those few short

years.

Raine had this superb background, and he also, as

part of that initial legislation, became an alderman in the resort

municipality of Whistler. So he was the liaison for the provincial

government in those early years, right on the council at Whistler. The

province was spending a lot of money in the valley on cleanup. He did

an admirable job and well beyond what one might have expected from what

might nominally be called a layman in terms of planning and

architecture. Raine actually got them to redesign the town centre and

orient it in a more effective way toward the sun and the lifts and so

on. Because of his early input and his reanalysis of those problems,

the modern townsite of Whistler is far better than it would otherwise

have been.

We then, of course, had a period of recession

and a downturn in the market some time later, and the province ended up

taking over the Whistler land company, which had been an operation of

the community and was part of the package. Out of that exercise, the

government, instead of being Keynesian — as one would hope governments might be — put

[ Page 7872 ]

the

clamps on. At a time when there should have been more provincial

spending and keeping up in terms of the infrastructure and recreational

facilities that were planned, there was a clamping down. That was

unfortunate, but that kind of insensitivity is something we get

accustomed to out of Social Credit. So we got a classic conservative

anti-Keynesian approach at a time when we should have gotten exactly

the opposite.

We also had a deputy minister fired. Mr.

Johnson, an extremely capable person, was fired directly by the Premier

of the province, Mr. Bennett — we read about him in the papers these days —

and the minister didn't even know. He was replaced by Mr. Flitton. Mr.

Flitton, of course, had impeccable credentials as a civil servant: he'd

been in the Premier's election campaign plane the previous general

election. That's who moved into the Ministry of Lands.

MR. MESSMER : What's that got to do with it?

MR. WILLIAMS : It's just an interesting aside.

haven't really had a balanced community built there in Whistler. There

are significant problems in terms of housing for workers in that

community.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, I don't mean

to interfere, but I should possibly remind hon. members that the

minister's responsibilities date from the day that he was appointed. I

have let the hon. member continue in this manner, thinking he was going

to come up to date.

MR. WILLIAMS : I'm actually right there, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the point.

then had a pattern of more short-term thinking with respect to

Whistler. I think that pattern has continued, and, like New

Westminster, it carries with it some costs. I think that's the reality.

this point I think the minister should continue the story. The minister

should tell us what the arrangements are with respect to Blackcomb.

[3:00]

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Well, I want it to be clear that the minister had an opportunity to

provide more information regarding the Blackcomb land arrangements, and

he chose not to take the opportunity — not once, not twice, but thrice, okay? He just shook his head negatively.

HON. MR. DIRKS :

I can repeat what I said earlier if the member didn't hear me before.

The arrangement was made prior to my assuming this role and would have

been canvassed at that time.

MR. WILLIAMS : The

arrangements, Mr. Chairman, were amended on four or five occasions

post-'79, and the most recent was in 1988, I believe. Is the minister

unwilling to provide the House with any information?

HON. MR. DIRKS : If there were any changes, they were before July '88.

MR. WILLIAMS :

It was in July 1988. But anyway, the minister and previous Social

Credit administrations have not made this material public. Let's get

that straight.

Prior to the estimates being considered for

the Minister of Government Management Services (Hon. Mr. Michael)

responsible for the Enterprise Corporation, I asked for a list of all

the lands sold by the Enterprise Corporation over the last few years

and received it. On that list was a list of properties sold at

Blackcomb — sold pursuant to the agreement that I've been asking the minister to provide us with.

Let's

see what kind of arrangements that has represented over the last 18

months. First let's make it clear: the Blackcomb property was

acquired — I think it was originally Fortress Mountain —

there were various amendments in the contract and subsequently it was

owned by Intrawest or its subsidiary, Blackcomb Ski Enterprises. Those

are the people that have been dealing directly with the Crown in recent

times — since mid-'86.

This is the arrangement with

respect to the benchlands at Blackcomb, which the minister does not

want to make public. Let's make it clear here and now what the deal is

at Blackcomb, because the minister has made it abundantly clear that he

does not want to tell the people of British Columbia what the deal is

on the benchlands at Blackcomb.

Here is what it is: 255

acres at the foot of the lifts, or its equivalent, available at $10,000

per acre net developer acre plus 5 percent of the market value of the

land up until December '87; after December '87, $10,000 an acre net

acre and then 10 percent of the real value of the land. After '92 it

moves up to 15 percent of the selling price. After '97 it moves up to

20 percent of the selling price.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Let's make it clear. Your Minister of Crown Lands sure did not want to

talk about this deal in public. He made it clear over the last

half-hour that he did not want to discuss it. Is lack of comment an

embarrassment? He does not want to get into those details? Hopefully

the opposition would not have the information? Hopefully we would not

know the kind of deals that were indeed made at Blackcomb? I guess!

Let's

look at the parcels of land sold in the last 18 months under the

Ministry of Crown Lands at Blackcomb. Let's see the kind of money that

has been made by Blackcomb Ski Enterprises just in the last 18 months

alone. Here it is: one project, the Gables — sold July 2,

1987 — 2.26 acres, payment to the Crown, $82,637; price when sold

or flipped through BSE as part of the profit prendre agreement that you have.... That's what they actually call it: profits prendre.

MR. LOVICK : Somebody got taken.

[ Page 7873 ]

MR. WILLIAMS :

Exactly. Profit for the taking — $1.2 million. I am talking about

same-day sales, essentially; that was the arrangement made with respect

to the lift. That's the Gables.

There was workers' housing,

and that ended up going up from $64,000 to $640,000. Snowcrest, another

condo project, was sold by the Crown for $34,820 — 1.5 acres —

and was resold for $256,000. Pinnacle Ridge: sold by the Crown to BSE,

October 12, 1987, for $209,000; subsequently sold, same day, $2.5

million.

Canadian Pacific Hotels, Chateau Whistler: 10.08 acres, $275,000 for ten acres at Whistler —

anybody who knows you pay that for a condo at Whistler these days. It

was $275,791 to be precise, and subsequently sold for $3.5 million on

the same day.

The Chamois development: July 14, 1988, sold

by the Crown for $122,253; flipped for $1,125,000. Glacier Lodge: sold

December 16, 1987, for $175,000; flipped at the $2 million level. Cedar

Ridge: December 18, 1987, 4.14 acres sold for $119,573 by the Crown,

and flipped at the $800,000 level. Stoneridge: 1.82 acres, sold by the

Crown on July 14, 1988, for $133,481; flipped for $1,080,000. Wildwood,

another condo development, sold July 14, 1988 — just last year —

for $125,761 by the Crown; flipped for $1,103,500 on the same day.

Powderhorn: October 31, 1988, $114,661; flipped for $1,024,000. Forest

Trail development: sold July 29, 1988, for $114,299; flipped for

$936,000. Foxglove: 1.9 acres sold by the Crown July 14, 1988, for

$109,133; flipped for $900,000. Snowberry: 2.06 acres sold by the Crown

July 14, 1988, for $110,628; flipped for $900,000. Wintergreen

development: 1.9 acres sold by the Crown July 14, 1988, for $109,051;

flipped for $900,000.

Total up just that group — and

that's not all in the last 18 months. Just add them up. Payments to the

Crown: $1,925,401; flipped at $19,434,288. Not a bad deal.

might ask ourselves: how long will it go on, and how much land, when we

know what condo prices are in Whistler now? You're locked into this

deal. How long, Mr. Minister? How long are we locked in? Is it to the

year 2000? Is it to the year 2010? Is it to the year 2020? Is it to the

year 2030? He has to check.

Two hundred and fifty-five

acres, downtown Whistler: that's the deal, and they're basically

getting it at a tenth of what it's worth. That's in the last 18 months.

There

are others where we had to interpolate the information: Snowy Creek

development, Cedar Hollow development, Greystone development, Whiski

Jack development and another unnamed one. In those cases, the payments

to the Crown were an additional $470,940. We estimate the price they

were sold at to be $3.8 million. That would then make another profit a

prendre of $3,375,000 to be added to the $17,500,000 profit. That makes

a profit of over $20 million in 18 months, and all of this on land that

they can continue to slice off on demand. That is the arrangement at

Blackcomb. So they don't even pay taxes in the interim. Most other land

developers have to pay taxes on the remaining land, but no, these folks

can slice it off when they want it so they avoid any property tax. They

make the immediate flip — the profit prendre, as the agreement refers to it — and that's it.

It's

just another example of very typical business approaches by Social

Credit. This deal was revisited again and again, and in '88 it was

visited again. This is still the deal for 255 acres in downtown

Whistler Blackcomb. It's an extraordinary deal. Let's get it straight:

this minister did not want to discuss this deal. He did not want to

discuss it at all. That's an indication of the continuing attitude in

Social Credit, in terms of not wanting to be open and aboveboard about

the arrangements they make with respect to the public lands in British

Columbia. We're talking about the public lands of British Columbia.

This

minister got up and bragged in his opening statements that they make $2

for every $1 they spend. Well, what do you think Interwest and

Blackcomb Ski Enterprises make for every dollar they spend? Under this

deal, for every dollar they spend, they make $10. A minor lesson for

the minister — someone is a little more entrepreneurial, Mr. Minister.

They

didn't even own the land in the first place. You owned it in the first

place, and you can still make only $2 for every $1 you spend. They just

cut such a sweet deal with the Crown that they make $10 every time they

spend $1, and they make it overnight. There's no way. They've got their

buyer right there. That's the arrangement. They've got you on a

contract until the year — what was it again? — 2034. Is that

It? That's the deal, and they've got you where they want you until

2034. As the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) says: "Could anybody have

been that stupid?" The answer is: "Yup." Only Social Credit could have

been that stupid.

[3:15]

HON. MR. DIRKS :

This is getting interesting. The member over there said he didn't

understand snow. Obviously, from the little tirade that he just gave

us, he believes the public won't understand a snow job when they hear

one. He fails to recognize two very fundamental things. First of all,

they had to earn the right to draw down that 254 acres. They had to

earn the right by investing in those hills. They have invested

approximately $54 million in order to get the right to draw down that

land. It's no longer that they are getting ten times what they

invested. The other thing that good member doesn't mention is that they

are getting raw, unserviced land.

As a planner, he knows

the difference between raw, unserviced land and developed land. They've

spent somewhere close to $8 million to put in services. They have an

investment there of somewhere around $62 million. For that investment,

they have the right to draw down land.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Let's at least clarify it. Intrawest ended up picking up this package

in 1986. The numbers the minister is talking about are total

expenditures throughout this exercise. Is that correct?

[ Page 7874 ]

MR. LOVICK : The Attorney-General was in court that day.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DIRKS : Would you mind repeating the question, Mr. Member?

MR. WILLIAMS :

Yes, if you'll tell me what the Attorney-General said, I'll repeat it.

The minister said that some $50 million was spent. He's talking about

the whole arrangement right from the beginning with Fortress Mountain.

Is that correct?

AN HON. MEMBER : What year was that?

MR. WILLIAMS : It was 1979.

HON. MR. DIRKS : That's all part and parcel of the deal. Their total investment is $54 million in order to earn the draw-down of the 254 acres.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Yes, but the point is that Intrawest.... There's been operating revenue

from the lift system. Right? They will have the lift system well into

the next century. There's all the operating revenue from the system. In

addition, there's the land deal that you people have never been willing

to make public — including today. Let's reinforce that.

What we had here is another company coming along — Intrawest-Blackcomb Ski Enterprises — picking

up the deal from Fortress and the Federal Business Development Bank.

They paid something to the Americans who were Fortress, and they made a

deal with the Federal Business Development Bank. Let's talk about the

real dollars they've got in there, Mr. Minister. What are the real

dollars they've got in, in terms of acquisition price from Fortress

Mountain and FBDB?

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS :

I'm getting tired of this interlocutor down in the back ranks and the

Attorney-General feeding words into the mouth of the minister.

HON. MR. DIRKS :

I am rather amused by this. He says that this wasn't public knowledge,

and yet he has got all the information there. I'm just not sure. I

think he's off on one of these little witch-hunts and I don't want to

be part of it. That happened before my time, and I think we really

should discuss the estimates for '89-90 rather than discuss what has

gone on in the past. That's the purpose of this exercise, if I

understand it correctly, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Let's get it clear, Mr. Chairman. It's only the result of a great deal

of work that we pulled together this information. It Is a great deal of

work on the part of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to, indeed, find out

the kind of arrangement that exists there.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS : You bet. You and your friends with their $10 million flips. You bet.

MR. BLENCOE :

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We are used to the outbreaks by the

Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith), but perhaps you could call him to

order and ask him to sit in his own seat.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The point is well taken.

MR. WILLIAMS : Okay, the minister confirms the numbers.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS : That's what he's just said: the minister confirms the numbers that are the result of our investigative work.

HON. MR. DIRKS :

I would confirm that $54 million was spent on the lifts and the day

lodge, mountaintop restaurant, parking-lots and so on, to earn them the

right of a 254-acre drawdown of unserviced raw land.

MR. WILLIAMS :

The minister is not challenging the numbers. And let's get it straight

in term of servicing. The earlier administration, '72 to '75, undertook

the infrastructure in that resort municipality. As a result, there are

sewage systems, sewage treatment plants, water systems and all of that,

anted up for by the province, right to the base of the bench lands we

are talking about. So all of those utilities are right there.

You

are simply pushing up another few hundred feet into the bench lands,

and all you are doing is talking about servicing a small bench land

area for these kinds of millions of dollars, so that these developers

are able to pick up ten acres from the Crown for under $300,000 and

flog it to the CPR for the $3 million number or its equivalent that I

mentioned earlier. That's the kind of deal you've given them. They buy

at $1 and they sell at $10. That's the clever deal you made. It can

carry on to the year 2034.

My God, when it costs a quarter

of a million to buy a condominium in Whistler today, and you've got

another couple of hundred acres in downtown Whistler available to you,

Mr. Minister, have you ever had your staff try and estimate what kind

of king's ransom is involved here as they slice off a couple of acres,

step by step? Have you tried to make any estimate of the kind of

returns, $50 million or no, they are going to get out of this project?

HON. MR. DIRKS :

There are two points here, really. If they hadn't spent that $54

million on developing those hills, we'd still have moose pasture up

there. That land wouldn't be worth what it is today. They had to make

that investment for that land to be worth something today.

[ Page 7875 ]

The

other thing is: he keeps talking about how they spend $1 and get $10.

He says it's insignificant, the servicing. I don't think $8 million on

a sale of $19 million is insignificant whatsoever.

MR. WILLIAMS :

It's not sales of $19 million; it's sales of more like about $24

million, and there's still land to be developed from that servicing. So

let's get that straight.

HON. MR. DIRKS : I am just quoting the figures that the hon. member gave me. If his figures are incorrect, why is he giving them to this House?

AN HON. MEMBER : You weren't listening.

MR. WILLIAMS :

The situation is very clear. We are talking about just a little pocket

of the bench lands, right above the town centre. There is still land to

be developed there, to carry on. It's fascinating.

The

reality is that it's part of a pattern. It's part of a pattern of the

earlier Social Credit administration; it's part of a pattern with this

Social Credit administration. It's a pattern of selling off public

assets for far, far less than they are worth. You did that in the New

Westminster waterfront; indeed you did. You did that on the New....

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS : Yes. You want to talk about the New Westminster waterfront? Do you want to talk about it more, Mr. Attorney-General?

HON. S.D. SMITH : Tell us about it.

MR. WILLIAMS : You think that's okay?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Through the Chair, please.

MR. WILLIAMS : Do you think a $10 million flip is okay? That's okay in your business, is it?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. members, order, please. If the Attorney-General wishes to speak and he rises, he will be recognized.

MR. WILLIAMS : It's part of a very clear pattern. You undersold land in New Westminster in terms of its value.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : That's absolute rubbish.

MR. WILLIAMS : And you, my dear, know about as much of it as the man in the moon.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS : I think the Attorney-General should withdraw the kind of comments he has been making, Mr. Chairman. It's not in keeping.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Would the Attorney-General please withdraw.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

Mr. Chairman, I don't know which remark he wants me to withdraw. If it

was when I said that he attempted a sexist put-down of the member, I

think he should reflect on that. I think sexism is out of place in this

society, and it's something that he ought to be cognizant of,

particularly on that side.

MR. WILLIAMS : The man who aspires for the Premier's position has made it clear what his qualifications are.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Order please. It's normal practice in this House for one person at a

time to stand and speak. The Chair recognizes the opposition House

Leader.

MR. ROSE : I'm quite sure that my colleague

doesn't need any help from me. But it seemed to me that there was a

request by the Chair for a withdrawal; I didn't hear the withdrawal.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

Mr. Chairman, as you well know, my respect for this House means that at

any time I would withdraw — if I knew what to withdraw. If someone

could tell me what I am to withdraw, I'd be more than happy to.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Just before we continue with the first member for Vancouver East, the

Chair can tell the hon. Attorney-General what the words were that he

should withdraw, and I think the Attorney probably knows those words.

Could we have a withdrawal, please.

HON. S.D. SMITH : At the request of the Chair, Mr. Chairman, of course I would withdraw whatever it is.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you very much.

MR. SIHOTA : What's the matter, are you afraid to say it on the record now?

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Order, please. I think the debate has proceeded to the point where it

has lost all significance due to the catcalling coming from both sides

of the House, and I would like to bring members back to order. This is

a serious question we're discussing, and the people of British Columbia

deserve better than what we've been going through for the last 15 or 20

minutes.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. WILLIAMS :

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate your concern. The

Attorney-General, who does aspire for the highest office in the

province, has

[ Page 7876 ]

clearly

established his qualifications today. I agree that these are serious

matters, and they should be canvassed in a serious manner.

gave some of the background with respect to Whistler during the period

that there was a different administration. I gave an indication of the

kind of work that went into it. This administration has been given this

incredible opportunity and has certainly proceeded. But the question is

what the public received in terms of value for what it sold. That

applies across the board, in terms of various dealings of this

administration especially. It applies with respect to the selling of

the New Westminster courthouse and those lands for $400,000. It applies

to the selling of the waterfront lands for $2 million and then having

them flipped virtually the same day at the $10 million level. It

applies with respect to other sales of BCEC properties.

suggest it applies with respect to Blackcomb. We're talking about 250

acres here. We're talking about a string of sales over the last 18

months basically for $1 and traded subsequently for $10 dollars. If you

want to project those numbers up until the year 2034 and the remainder

of the 250 acres, it's very clear indeed that Interwest and Blackcomb

Ski Enterprises are going to do extremely well. I ask the minister if

he's given any thought to exactly how well they will do, in terms of

projecting some of these numbers into the future.

HON. MR. DIRKS :

The member keeps wanting to talk about New Westminster, and actually

that was canvassed very well with the Minister of Government Management

Services (Hon. Mr. Michael).

[3:30]

He knows full well, from the discussion and from looking at the

paper that was served to him that day or was given to him during those

discussions or that debate, that that was not an external flip; that

was an internal or between directors type of transaction. It was not

based on the marketplace whatsoever. It was done, and there is a court

case proceeding at the present time on that issue. Unless he's

referring to the other New Westminster land deal, where I believe the

taxpayers have already paid $20,000 to straighten the member out.

MR. CLARK :

We'll deal with some other aspects in New Westminster some other day;

I'm sure the minister's prepared for that. But today I thought I'd like

to canvass a little more some of the questions around the Blackcomb

deal. I'm not as familiar with it as the first member for Vancouver

East, so I would like to ask a few questions.

I understand

that the total deal with Blackcomb is 250 acres. I wonder if the

minister could confirm that, and second, tell me how much has been

drawn down — to use the minister's term — to date and how much remains.

HON. MR. DIRKS :

If the member wants to enter the debate, it would be better if he was

in the House and listening to these proceedings. It would save a lot of

time and repetitiveness.

The answer is that there are 254 acres, and approximately one half of that has been drawn down now.

MR. CLARK :

I know that 254 acres was in the debate earlier, but that one-half, I

believe, is new information. I wonder if the minister could tell me

what the Crown received for that one-half and if he knows what the

developer received for that half. I guess we can work it out. It's ten

times.

HON. MR. DIRKS : I would simply repeat: if the

member opposite was in the House during the debate, he would have heard

those figures from his colleague the first member for Vancouver East,

who said it was $19 million and the Crown got somewhere around $1.9

million.

MR. WILLIAMS : Just to help the minister

out, the numbers I provided him with were for the last 18 months, not

for the term of the agreement, which was ten years.

HON. MR. DIRKS : There wasn't any drawdown of land until 1986.

MR. WILLIAMS : Then I think the minister's probably mistaken in terms of the total amount of drawdown.

MR. CLARK :

I just noted that the minister is getting some staff help. The first

member suggested that one half might be a bit high. Maybe he can

confirm precisely how many acres have been drawn down as part of this

arrangement, if that's possible.

HON. MR. DIRKS : We don't have that here, but we can certainly get it for you.

MR. CLARK :

I wonder if the minister could explain on what basis he made the

assertion that half of it was drawn down, if the information isn't

available.

HON. MR. DIRKS : The term was "about half."

MR. CLARK : Did that information come from your staff or is it that you just know intuitively that it's roughly half?

Interjections.

MR. CLARK :

With all due respect, I'm not trying to be facetious. We're trying to

get some answers. I appreciate that the minister said he'd come back. I

just wondered whether he's of the view, through his staff, that

generally speaking, half — "about half" is the minister's term —

has been drawn down, so to speak, and that we can get the precise

number from the minister at a future date. The minister is nodding his

head, so I assume his staff has informed him that

[ Page 7877 ]

about half has been drawn down to date. The minister has given that assertion.

wonder if the minister could tell me whether his staff have conducted

any analysis to determine what the present net value of the deal would

be in total. Presumably, when the deal was struck by the Crown at an

earlier date, there was some estimate of the value of the contract. Has

the current ministry, under his auspices, attempted to review the

contract — which seems to be reviewed regularly — to bring it up to date

and see what the estimated value of the deal is, or the likely future

value?

HON. MR. DIRKS : That's a very difficult thing

to answer, for two reasons. First of all, they've had this arrangement — the right to draw down — since 1980, so it's at their discretion when

they draw down. And second, with a very changing market, it would be

very difficult to evaluate the precise value of that.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Maybe the minister could advise us, with the help of his staff, how the

contract evolved over the years and how it changed, and how the basic

original element of the contract was relative to the movement of skiers

up the mountain. As I recall, the number of townhouse sites, for

example, relative to the number of people being yanked up the mountain

on the lift was the original arrangement. It subsequently got changed

over the years, and then we ended up with a solid block of some 255

acres as the deal. That strikes me as a significant change or evolution

of the contract. Maybe the minister could confirm that.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

HON. MR. DIRKS :

The contract has been really the same right from the beginning; it

hasn't undergone any changes. That was back in 1979-80, well before my

time.

MR. WILLIAMS : The contract said in 1988: "...upon acquiring title to certain additional lands" — additional to the

lands described in the original agreement. Does the minister want to

reconsider what he just told the Legislature?

HON. MR. DIRKS :

I don't think that is different at all. Basically, some development has

occurred on Whistler — I am sure you are aware of it — since '79-80. In

'82, lift 6 was constructed. That created 900 more bed-units. In 1985

Seventh Heaven T-bar was installed, for a further 400 bed-units.

Finally in 1986 they proceeded with the installation of the three quad

detachable chairs, the second T-bar, a second mountaintop restaurant, a

new day lodge and extensive trail development, at a cost of

approximately $23 million. This development brought Blackcomb up to Its

maximum 7,500 bedroom-unit entitlement for the bench lands, which

translates to 254 acres.

MR. WILLIAMS : Then the

minister is confirming that they are now at maximum — that this is the

maximum, and regardless of changing capacity, this arrangement with

respect to these specific lands, these 255 acres, will not be expanded.

Is that so?

HON. MR. DIRKS : That is true.

MR. CLARK :

I appreciate that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) wants to get in. I

assume it is on a different topic, so I'll just pursue....

seems to me — and I am gleaning this from the debate — that the

government entered into an arrangement to induce the development of

capital investment in a ski hill. I might well criticize the government

for doing that; I might well criticize the arrangements. But it seems

to me that the principle might be that there is risk associated with

this development. Therefore the government is going to underwrite some

of that risk by giving them access to lands at certain prices.

This

is the interesting question. When the capital development is in place

and a dramatic number of skiers use the lifts.... And there is a

dramatic number at Whistler. Anybody who skis there, as I do — and as

do, I am sure, other members of the House — knows how successful that

operation is. One could say, as a government, that we want to try and

underwrite some of that risk to make the development. It would seem

logical to link the development to the number of skiers using the

mountain.

As I heard the first member for Vancouver

East.... I can understand the logic that there would be certain things

based on the number of skiers. The reason you would do that is that it

would give an operating return, presumably. Given the fees at that

mountain and the number of people using it, the operating revenue would

be quite dramatic. That would be, I would think, taken into

consideration by the ministry. In other words, to put it a different

way, if lots of people use it at fairly hefty fees, then the amount of

Crown land required to induce the activity might be zero, might be very

small or might be debated. That is the kind of thing I would assume the

government would do.

Given that this was amended in 1988

and appears to add more land to the development, I wonder if we could

have some discussion or explanation of my general thoughts and how that

evolved, and whether the minister could explain why more land would

seem to be added to the development, given the phenomenal success of

the mountain.

HON. MR. DIRKS :

Actually, if you go

back to the '79-80 agreement, the value of the improvements entitled

Blackcomb to acquire 3,000 bed-units in the bench lands, and those

3,000 bed-units were calculated based on 50 percent of the uphill

capacity of the ski lifts.

MR. CLARK : The notion is

that they would get access to Crown land to build units or to sell it

to build units, in order to increase the number of skiers on the

mountain.

[ Page 7878 ]

HON. MR. DIRKS : Just the reverse of that.

MR. CLARK : Those 3,000 bed-units — is it worked out on a per-acre basis?

HON. MR. DIRKS : It depends on municipal zoning.

MR. CLARK : So the municipality could dramatically affect the number of acres required, depending on the density. Is that correct?

HON. MR. DIRKS :

It was virtually the municipality of Whistler that insisted on that cap

of 7,500 bed-units, to conform with their official community plan.

MR. CLARK :

Are you saying that the 100 bed units — whatever it is — is a cap per

acre? As I said, it seems to me that the amount of acreage required to

accommodate 3,000 bed-units could be dramatically different depending

on the zoning.

Let me ask a different question. Was the

zoning in place prior to the deal, or is the zoning evolving? Has the

zoning for the entire bench lands already been arrived at by the

municipality?

HON. MR. DIRKS : The municipality

virtually said that they would only allow 7,500 bed-units on the bench

lands, and those 7,500 translate to 254 acres.

MR. CLARK : Earlier you said 3,000 bed-units.

HON. MR. DIRKS :

Three thousand bed-units was '79-80. There have been developments since

then that the member from Vancouver was referring to as changes in the

agreement, but virtually they were only additions to the bed-units

allotted to them by making additional investments on the hill.

[3:45]

MR. CLARK :

I see. It was originally 3,000 bed units, and that would have

translated into a smaller number of acres, but it.... I was just

assuming that the acreage would expand with the municipal zoning

changes and therefore we've reached the maximum now.

Let me

put it a different way. Is the minister saying that for each additional

branch run, so to speak, they come to the Crown or to your ministry and

say: "We've got a plan to build another ski run; please give us" — to

put it crudely — "more land to underwrite that investment"?

HON. MR. DIRKS :

Again, Mr. Chairman, if this member had been in for the total debate, I

think he'd understand a little better where we are right now. He would

understand that it is capped at 7,500 bed-units, and the cap is 254

acres — that's it, period, finito — that will draw down on that.

MR. CLARK :

I appreciate that. Now on the basis of the 254 acres or 7,500

bed-units, on what basis can they draw it down? The original capital

plan presumably didn't include all of the runs and all of the

chairlifts, did it? Do they have to come and ask to draw down a certain

amount of that land or number of bed-units on the basis of capital

investment in particular ski lifts?

HON. MR. DIRKS :

Again, in '79-80, with the investments that they made on the hill, they

earned 3,000 bed-units. In '82, lift 6 was constructed and this

created another 900 bed-units. In '85, some more bed-units; in '86,

some more bed-units; to where they are at a cap now of 7,500

bed-units, which translates to 254 acres total.

MR. CLARK :

I understand that. I'm trying to determine each interval: '82, 900;

'85; '86. How can they draw it down? Is there a formula in place

whereby if they invest X amount of money in 1979 dollars or

something.... Or each time they want to invest, do they have to

negotiate how many bed-units they get for the investment they make?

HON. MR. DIRKS :

I'm not exactly sure how to answer the member so that he understands

what we're talking about. He seems to have a problem in getting it

through his mind that basically the agreement was put in place in

'79-80. In '79-80 they had 3,000 bed units. They've been increasing it

by investments on the hill. They've been increasing what they can draw

down. In other words, they've got a credit there for X number of acres

of land. That credit translated to 254 acres, and they had the right to

draw that down as they were making investments. They virtually had the

right to draw down as they saw fit, when they saw fit. Okay?

MR. CLARK :

It's at the discretion of the developer when to draw down, so it had

nothing to do with incremental capital investments. Is that part of the

initial agreement? I'm just curious: why would they have 900 bed-units

in '82 and not 1,000? They could have had 1,000 if they had chosen to

develop 1,000 bed-units, because it was within the cap. Is that fair

to say?

HON. MR. DIRKS : One more time around the

block. I'm not exactly sure how I can say this so you will understand.

The whole purpose of the policy was to encourage ski hill development.

As they developed the hills, as they made investments, they earned the

right to draw down land. They have earned the right, from their

investments from '79 through to the present, to draw down 254 acres,

which equates to or is tied to 7,500 bed-units on the bench lands. In

1986 they actually started their drawdown. Up until then, all they'd

been doing was investing on the hills without any drawdown. They earned

the right to draw down 254 acres; they started that in 1986. I've said

that they've drawn down approximately one-half of that at this time.

[ Page 7879 ]

MR. SIHOTA :

I just want to pursue something here with the minister. In his

so-called defence, I guess, against what the member for Vancouver East

was saying earlier.... The member for Vancouver East, of course, pointed

out how this land had been flipped, and that for every dollar it cost

them to buy it, they've made $10 in the flip. In response, the minister

said that the $54 million put in by the company to justify that

arrangement.... It seems to me, as I think about this, that that's

really kind of a false argument.

I take it that the $54

million relates to ski hills, restaurants, and so on. I think that's

what the minister was saying, if I'm not mistaken. Am I correct on

that, first of all? I see the minister nod. If I'm correct on that,

surely they're getting a return on that investment. Am I correct on

that? If they're getting a return on that investment, surely they've

amortized over time the pay-down of that $54 million. I don't

understand why it was vital for the government, in assessing the risk,

to provide as much land as they did, given the fact that they're

getting a return on that $54 million. Certainly the minister's argument

on that $54 million is somewhat weak, when you realize the return

they're getting when they run skiers up there at 30 or 35 bucks a head

for a full day, feed them and run them back down again.

HON. MR. DIRKS :

Well, I can see why the member is the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew

and doesn't know much about ski hills. I think if he looked at the

books of a lot of ski hills.... Until they are well established, they

are on very shaky ground. Certainly there is no given that a ski hill

will make money. We've been very fortunate that Whistler has been able

to become a world centre for skiing and to attract skiers from around

the world. But that certainly wasn't the case back in 1979-80, when

this agreement was put in place.

MR. SIHOTA : I'll

ignore the facetious comment from the minister and just ask him this

question. Surely you must agree now that in order to comfort them into

putting up this development, there was a rather generous allotment of

land provided to the company.

HON. MR. DIRKS : I

certainly would not agree with that assumption, Mr. Member. I think

that when you invest $62 million for the right to draw down 254 acres,

that's not a given.

MR. SIHOTA : That's crazy. We're talking about 254 acres of prime land in Whistler....

MR. CHAIRMAN : The minister on a point of order.

HON. MR. DIRKS : That was prime moose pasture until that $54 million was invested in the ski hills.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Would the member please proceed.

MR. SIHOTA : I thought the minister was rising on a point of order.

That

wasn't moose pasture; that was Whistler. You didn't need a degree in

economics or to be a rocket scientist to know what was going to happen

up there. I can remember being involved in a student society when we

were buying land up there in the mid-seventies, fully aware of what

was going to happen. It didn't take a lot.... Maybe the minister can

explain why he doesn't agree that there was a rather generous allotment

of land. We're talking about 254 acres in Whistler. That's a hell of a

lot of acreage. It's a significant investment at Blackcomb.

AN HON. MEMBER : Withdraw.

MR. SIHOTA : I'm sorry. I withdraw the word "hell." I didn't mean it that way.

You'll

have to agree that's a tremendous amount of land in terms of comfort. I

don't know how much comfort you've got to give a developer, but to turn

around and say....

Interjection,

MR. SIHOTA :

The member says it's free enterprise; I say it's Socred enterprise to

give away that type of land under those conditions in that portion of

the province, so as to get somebody to put a ski hill up there. I take

it that this is at Blackcomb and not at Whistler.

HON. MR. REID :

You'd close it down if you had your way. You never saw anything

positive in your life. You don't know what positive things are.

MR. SIHOTA : I thought I had the floor, Mr. Chairman, but the Minister of Tourism is....

HON. MR. REID : I get upset when you pick on Whistler. It's the best facility in the world. Think positive for a change.

MR. SIHOTA : The Minister of Tourism just confirmed my point.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Order! Would the Provincial Secretary take his turn in debate, but at

present endure the comments being made by the hon. member for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA : To give out 254

acres.... It was a tremendous amount of land. I am sure they are making

a $54 million return. Surely you could calculate it out in the course

of that agreement that they were going to make a return on that $54

million that they invested, not on the acreage but just in running the

ski hill. You don't need to be a genius to figure out that it's a good

place to develop a ski hill. Even the Minister of Tourism understands

that. I know well enough that there are portions of the province where

you are somewhat isolated, so if you try to put up a ski hill it's not

necessarily a go. But when you've

[ Page 7880 ]

got a population base the size of Vancouver, and you are an hour and a half away, it seems to me a different thing altogether.

Would

the minister now not agree that, in retrospect, there was just too much

of a land giveaway? If not, could he explain why not?

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Before the minister answers, I'd like to remind the members that we are

discussing the estimates of the minister of state under vote 52 at the

present time, and we are not discussing agreements dating back almost a

decade. If we wish to become a little more relevant and tie the

question in to the application of today's administration of the

document, then we can proceed.

MR. GABELMANN : On a

simple point of order, Mr. Chairman, the minister is responsible for

Crown lands and the members are discussing Crown lands. What's your

problem?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Mr. Member, my understanding

as Chairman is that I am only to carry out the rules and standing

orders that have been adopted by this House. My understanding is also

that we are discussing the votes and proceedings under the Minister of

State for Thompson-Okanagan and Kootenay, as well as the Crown Lands

responsibility, and that we are supposed to be discussing matters

relevant to his ministry within his time of holding that office.

MR. GABELMANN :

Mr. Chairman, we are discussing administrative matters that are the

responsibility of the Minister of Crown Lands. His responsibilities

include the ongoing administration and how we got to that point with

regard to Whistler. You cannot talk about today without talking about

events that preceded. We do that in every single set of estimates in

this Legislature. I know the Chair won't recognize this, but we have

done this for many decades in the past.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I'd like to remind the hon member that I am only following the rules that are set out by the House.

MR. GABELMANN : Mr. Chairman, would you cite the rule?

MR. CHAIRMAN : I shall.

[4:00]

MR. KEMPF :

On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, far be it from me ever to

have professed to be an expert with respect to the rules of this House

However, it has been my understanding for going on 14 years now that —

in estimates you discuss the administrative responsibilities of the

minister in question. Having sat here very quietly all afternoon, I

have heard nothing but that kind of debate. Before the Chair makes a

ruling, or before the Chairman says any more with respect to this

particular point of order, I would ask him to seriously consider that.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

I appreciate the member's point, and I certainly do not wish to be

overly strict, but item 61(2) of standing orders does specifically

state that the discussion is to be strictly relevant — and I emphasize

the word "strictly" — and it has to be an item or clause under

consideration. The point I was making is that the member's opinion of

some agreement that took place a decade ago is not relevant, in my

opinion, and I would ask the member to redirect his question and

proceed.

MR. WILLIAMS : On a point of order, I

don't know if the Chairman was listening to the debate, but what we

have here is a contract that was originally established in 1979 and

amended many times up until 1988, when it was most recently amended.

The contract is enforceable until the year 2034, so it's going to be

around for quite a while.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The Chair recognizes that point and wishes to have the debate relevant to the estimates.

MR. WILLIAMS : Thank you, Mr. Chairman; we are in agreement. That's excellent.

Just

to make the point again so that we understand how these arrangements

work, the CPR hotel at Whistler, Chateau Whistler, is on a ten-acre

site that was sold by the Crown for $275,791. It was in turn sold by

Blackcomb Ski Enterprises Ltd. to the CPR for $3,500,000, a

difference of $3,224,209 in that one case alone. That's the kind of

pattern we have as a result of the contract.

AN HON. MEMBER : What period of time?

MR. WILLIAMS :

The sale date at the $3.5 million level was November 9, 1987; the

previous sale was November 5, 1987. But it's the pattern: basically a

day or two between sales.

Another one was the Gables

development on the Blackcomb bench lands. The transaction took place

July 2, 1987. It was sold by the Crown for $82,637 and subsequently

sold by Blackcomb Ski Enterprises Ltd. for $1,200,000, a difference

in this case of $1,117,363. That was July 10, 1987. Another case in

point is a development called Le Chamois. The transaction took place

July 14, 1988. It was sold by Blackcomb for $1,125,000. The Crown,

which had transferred it at about the same time, got $122,253; so the

profit a prendre, to quote the contract, was $1,002,747. If we

project that pattern, I don't think there's much doubt, given land

values into the next century, that Blackcomb Ski Enterprises and their

parent company will be doing very well indeed.

It would be

interesting to ask if the same people made other land transactions with

other agencies of government in earlier years; the answer is yes, they

did. You could ask whether they did well; the answer is yes, they did.

Did they maybe do even better than they've done in Blackcomb, and the

answer is yes, they did. But I'm answering for the minister. He should

really look at all of these arrangements that

[ Page 7881 ]

he's

inherited. They're worthy of some study, because they're a textbook

case in how not to manage the public lands. It's true at Lonsdale, it's

true at New Westminster, it's true in Tilbury in Delta; it's true

across the board. Only now are you starting to get a handle on it —

some of your staff, that is — and doing proper appraisals prior to the

sale. That has not been the pattern at all through recent years.

Now

that it is finally moved from the Enterprise Corporation, there are the

beginnings of professionalism in this exercise, but it has taken a

long, long time. The former minister responsible for the Enterprise

Corporation, the senior member from Little Mountain, was the minister

responsible in terms of these incredibly bad textbook examples.

Unfortunately she is not here to answer for all of that exercise, but

she should be, just as the previous administration should be, on a

whole string of things. The numbers are significant. Throughout a

period of restraint, when everything was being clamped down and so on,

we move into this, where we consistently sell below value.

When

I go through these documents, there's a name — a vice-president, I

think, of land in the Enterprise Corporation by the name of George G.

Flanigan. You'll find his name everywhere in some of these interesting

sales. Is Mr. Flanigan still advising the ministry?

HON. MR. DIRKS : No.

MR. WILLIAMS : Could the minister advise me when the contract arrangements with Mr. Flanigan ended?

HON. MR. DIRKS : Early August to mid-August last year.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Was there a period when Mr. Flanigan was working as a private

consultant as well as carrying on his activities with respect to some

of these public lands?

HON. MR. DIRKS : I really couldn't say, Mr. Member, because that was before my time. I took over in July; he left our advisement in mid-August.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Maybe the minister could check that out and advise us at a later stage,

if it's a matter of checking the information in terms of whether there

was a period where Mr. Flanigan was simply operating as a consultant on

some of these land arrangements and carrying on his own consulting

business as well or whether there was a firm end. He was a

vice-president. Was it all over — his being a vice-president of BCEC

lands — or was there a transition period? That's the essential

question, and I guess that could be checked out.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

There's

another area I'd just like to ask a question about. It's not an area

I'm familiar with, so the minister is safe. In the East Kootenays, I'm

particularly interested in the Panorama Resort. There were sales for a

golf course and other uses at Panorama. Maybe the minister's staff is

familiar with it; it's in the Invermere area, I guess. Could the

minister advise me what arrangements were made with respect to the sale

of additional lands to the Panorama Resort? That's a company out of

Calgary.

HON. MR. DIRKS : We are negotiating with that company for land for use as a golf course, but arrangements have not been made yet.

MR. WILLIAMS :

So arrangements have not been finalized. Has there been no Crown land

sale at all to them adjacent to the resort itself in the last couple of

years?

HON. MR. DIRKS : I certainly couldn't say about the last couple of years, but I can say that since July '88, no.

MR. WILLIAMS :

I think it might be worthwhile just to open up the whole question of

the public documentation of sales. It would seem to me that a standard

approach would be that when a sale has been completed, it should simply

be available on a public file to all and sundry. Is that the kind of

arrangement the ministry has when there's been a transfer of any kind

of public lands whatsoever?

We might even begin at the very

beginning. We do have the catalogue. That's standard, that's

understandable, and it's there for everybody. That's an even

playing-field; fair enough. If there's a buyer who's interested in one

of those parcels at that price, that's that. But there will be other

cases where land's not in the catalogue but it is deemed, after

investigation, to be fine to sell. In those cases, what kind of public

information system do we have in terms of (

a) knowing that the site is

available; (

b) finding out if more than one person can bid on it; and

(

c) knowing after the fact, at least, that the transaction took place,

what the sale price was and who the buyer was? That's the kind of

standard public documentation of land sales by the Crown which, it

seems to me, should be available in Victoria and in the regional

offices. Is that kind of pattern there? I'm simply not up to date. What

is the pattern you have?

HON. MR. DIRKS : In relation

to that, we generally have a public advertising offering the land, and

the method of disposition is widely known. Then we generally make an

announcement as to who the successful purchaser was.

MR. WILLIAMS :

That's good news. It's just a matter of it being available in some

consolidated form. If I requested the information then — or anybody

else — it may not be available immediately in tabulated form for the

past fiscal year or for your annual reports, but it wouldn't be

difficult to do that. Could that be made available, in terms of sales

for the

[ Page 7882 ]

last few years, so that it's clearly on the public record in a consolidated manner?

[4:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN : The member for Omineca.

MR. WILLIAMS : Well, I guess....

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Order, please. The Chairman just recognizes members standing. If

they're waiting for the minister to respond, then we can just wait;

that's fine. The member can take his seat, and I'll wait until the

minister is ready.

MR. WILLIAMS : The minister indicates the material is available, and

it's available after each sale. It's simply a matter of consolidating

the information and making it convenient for those who are interested in just

the data and information. So I assume that it can be consolidated. It may not

be consolidated, but it would be available within a reasonable length of time.

HON. MR. DIRKS : At the present time we do not make out a consolidated list of all land sales in the province.

MR. WILLIAMS :

If my memory serves me right, in the last annual report, which I read

about a week ago, it's in the 400 to 500 range, in terms of parcels. Am

I correct? We've got half a dozen regions or something like that.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Nine regions? Eight regions. So in each region, we're talking about

only 50 or so sales; it's not very substantial. Is the minister saying

that's available regionally on a consolidated basis?

HON. MR. DIRKS :

The total in the region is shown in our annual report, but individual

sales in that region are not listed separately. But I could take that

under advisement.

MR. WILLIAMS : Well, I'm asking you

here and now, Mr. Minister, if you will make that information available

to the public. Why would you not make it available?

HON. MR. DIRKS : My only comment at this point is that I will take that under advisement and see what can be done.

MR. WILLIAMS :

We are not asking for anything but the most basic fundamental

information about the operation of your ministry. That is: who did you

sell to for what and when? I say you have an obligation as Minister of

Lands to make that information available to every citizen of British

Columbia. Don't you have some understanding of what your obligation is

in, terms of prudence and information for the public?

HON. MR. REID : Don't lecture the House.

MR. WILLIAMS :

I'll lecture whomever I please, Mr. Minister of Tourism. I'll bet if

you were to ask any of our citizens in British Columbia right outside

the door — in Cranbrook, Kamloops or Fort St. John — about the Minister

of Lands not providing the public with information about land he sells

and at what price, he or she would be shocked. That's obviously

information that should be readily available. I think the minister

should reconsider what he's saying and simply say that it's available.

It may take a little time to consolidate the information, but it will

be made available.

HON. MR. DIRKS : I really don't

know what the member is getting all worked up about. Basically,

individual sales are.... The information is available in regional

offices. We don't consolidate it and come out with one consolidated

list of all the sales in the province, but information is available on

request at any lands office.

MR. WILLIAMS : So the

minister is saying that if I write to each of the regional managers of

the Lands ministry, I can get a list of their land sales, to whom and

at what price for the past year. Is that correct?

HON. MR. DIRKS :

No, that is not correct. If you want information about a specific sale,

that information would be given to you from a regional office. But if

you ask for a list of all the sales, that information is not readily

available.

MR. WILLIAMS : Why?

HON. MR. DIRKS :

Well, there is no reason why we would withhold any information. It is

public information, but it hasn't been requested. But at a fee, it

certainly would be made available.

MR. WILLIAMS : So

the minister is changing his statement from my previous question. He's

now telling me that it is available on request. Is that so?

HON. MR. DIRKS : If you request it, we'll make it available to you.

MR. WILLIAMS :

I appreciate that; it took a little bit of time. But I would like the

public of British Columbia to know that if they're interested, they can

write me. I'm going to have to ask it of the minister before they can

ask for it and get it, presumably.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS :

No? Oh, it's available to all and sundry now. Good. That's settled. Is

a verbal request satisfactory? I'm making the request right now, and

I'll follow it up with a letter.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Mr. Member, since the mood of the House has improved somewhat, perhaps I could

[ Page 7883 ]

ask you to address your remarks through the Chair, as we try to accommodate the wishes of all members.

MR. WILLIAMS : Certainly, Mr. Chairman, and through you I should express my appreciation of the minister's newfound cooperative mood.

Maybe

we can just slip into the ministry-of-state area, because it's

intriguing, and the minister is.... The professionals can go to sleep

for the next little while, and we'll deal with the question of the

great southeastern regions of British Columbia.

Now, let's

get it clear. The Premier established these regions, and they were

pretty big to start with. But then he decided that some of them could

be consolidated. So in the northeast we have Nechako and the Peace

consolidated together, on the coast we have the Island and Coast

consolidated together, and in the southeast we have Okanagan and

Thompson and the East and West Kootenays consolidated together. So this

decentralized mode ended up being enlarged. I really have trouble

following some of this, so I have to go through it slowly. Our

decentralization program means consolidating the regions, for starters.

Let's

think of all the towns, valleys and basins this minister is responsible

for. Let's see. There's Ymir in the East Kootenay. Isn't that right?

Then there's Cranbrook, Grasmere, Fernie, Elkford, Kimberley,

Invermere, Athalmer — those 'meres — Sparwood, Golden, Revelstoke,

Nakusp, Nelson, Meadow Creek, Crawford Bay — all of that wonderful area

of the Slocan — Winlaw and Slocan City, Rossland, Trail, Greenwood,

Grand Forks, the Boundary country, Penticton, Oliver, Osoyoos, Kelowna,

Winfield, Summerland, Westbank, Oyama, Vernon, Okanagan Landing, Lumby,

Enderby, Salmon Arm, Sicamous and Malakwa. Then there's Pritchard,

Kamloops and all of the North Thompson communities: Blue River and

Birch Island, where the noted Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) comes

from. It's easy to understand where he learned his vocabulary. Then

down into, I guess.... Is Merritt part of that, Mr. Minister? Merritt

and the Nicola Valley — that gets us to Quilchena. Then it must break

around the new mining community to the west. Or does it include the

mining community? So it has Hedley, Princeton and so on. Then you go to

the headwaters area on the Hope Princeton Highway. It goes even

further? Oh, it doesn't go that far; okay. Well, that gives us a bit of

an idea — right up to the Yellowhead and the Big Bend of the Columbia

River.

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS : Oh, I see. Somebody suggested that I forgot a few places.

Needles? Yes, we forgot Needles. Burton? We forgot Burton too. And Wasa. Now

I don't even know Wasa. I hesitate to admit it, but I don't know Wasa.

Did we miss Wasa? We did miss Wasa. And it may be appropriate for the summing

up: Ta Ta Creek. Well, welcome to the land of decentralization. This is probably

the size of New Brunswick, P.E.I. and Nova Scotia. That's a quick guess;

I suspect it is.

did make some notes when you covered that. You said something about six

task forces, corporate strategies, regional strategies, etc. But when

you think about it, the southeast region of British Columbia is

probably the one that suffers the most economically. Isn't that so? The

highest unemployment figures are in the Kamloops region and the

Kootenays. Isn't that so? Your own home riding has very high

unemployment figures, so it requires some special skills if one looks

at these things seriously. It's hard to believe that one is, given the

budget you've got. I think you said the budget was $1.4 million. You

didn't use your budget of last year, because that was an arbitrary $1

million by order-in-council.

It's disturbing, in a sense,

because I happen to be very fond of the Kootenay region. For me it's

one of the very special parts of British Columbia, and I think the

people are very talented in the Kootenay region — despite some of their

voting habits. I think of the Slocan Valley, for example: again, very

high unemployment levels. These people have talked about genuine

decentralization in the Slocan; people like Corky Evans, the man who

ran against you and lost by 20 or 30 votes. He was the coordinator of

an economic and land management plan for the Slocan in the early

seventies.

I used to be a professional in that field of

regional planning. I would like the minister to know — after he has

received the additional pearls of wisdom from the Attorney-General —

that, for my money, the work that the community.... We're talking in the

Slocan Valley about some of the people of Doukhobor background and many

Americans who were Vietnam protesters who moved to that valley. There's

a very interesting mix of modem people from the United States and these

people with significant history from Russia living together in that

valley. They worked together, and one of the younger Doukhobor men who

worked on that project told me that it was almost a spiritual exercise

for him. He's three generations of Doukhobor people in that valley,

working with those expatriate Americans who have become Canadian

citizens.

They talked about genuinely managing the

resources of their valley. They talked about multinational companies

that controlled the important assets — natural resources — of the

valley and generally, unfortunately, didn't manage them very well;

interfered with their own water supply areas and watershed areas, with

very real problems. They documented what had happened historically, how

they had lost in terms of economic development. They charted a way out

in terms of more economic control by local people. I think it's the

most impressive new idea in local economic development that we've had

in a couple of decades in British Columbia, and it's to the credit of

those people who worked on that report. That was genuine

decentralization they were talking about.

We began that process in 1975, establishing a community council for that sub region, so that the

[ Page 7884 ]

Slocan

Valley would have become the first region in British Columbia to manage

the public lands and forests that they lived in. It's really quite an

exciting idea, and it's an idea whose time has come. We're a province

that more and more is a province of Greens, people who care about this

place. For those of us who were born here, especially, it has great

meaning — those of us with significant social roots in our own

communities and who understand generations back, what they fought for

in this province.

[4:30]

Some of

those people in the Slocan are like that, and they have this input of

new people who care equally about their region. They're talking about

fundamental change. They are talking about decentralization, but they

are talking about an uncorrupted word.

We have a

significant problem in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in finding the

language that we and the citizens of the province try and espouse

getting corrupted by the people currently in power. You people say that

you have a decentralization program The people of the Slocan know what

they would like and desire as a decentralist program for both

themselves and the people of other regions. I think they are right.

That's a personal statement. I've come to the conclusion that big

government does not work very well. The minister can chuckle away. I am

satisfied that big corporations often don't work as well as they

should, either. It's a bureaucratization which is maybe unnecessary.

talked about the greening of British Columbia, which has been happening

in recent years. I think people realize that our environment in this

province is not being adequately managed. They can visit the

constituency of the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) and see

what's happening, as he indicates, to the north of Friendly Cove, where

there is massive clear cutting and so on, and know...

MR. CHAIRMAN : Could I ask the member to relate these matters to the regional....

MR. WILLIAMS : Okay.

...that something is amiss. I'm talking about the minister who's

responsible for two major sub regions A chunk of that sub region is the

Slocan. I'm saying that there's a kind of dream out there on the part

of the average citizens of British Columbia that they want genuine

decentralization, genuine regionalization. I'm saying that this

administration has corrupted the language by what it has done in the

name of decentralization and regionalization.

What irony

that in the name of decentralization we have a minister of state who

covers all those communities that I mentioned earlier. What kind of

decentralization is that? It is no kind of decentralization; it's a

corruption of the idea, a corruption of the word. It's the kind of

newspeak that comes out of this administration and this

Attorney-General. I say to the minister: what can you tell the people

of the Slocan in terms of their having some genuine input in their own

valley, in terms of managing the forests of the Slocan, in

terms of making sure that their watersheds are looked after, and in

terms of determining what their employment future would be, rather than

have some outsider determine it, which is the pattern of today? The

minister has a budget of $1.4 million....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Mr. Member, the time under standing orders for your remarks has expired.

When

members stand to be recognized, the Chair would appreciate it if they

would remain standing, so that if one member is recognized, then we can

proceed.

MR. KEMPF : I was enjoying that dissertation

with respect to the present regionalization and real regionalization so

much, Mr. Chairman, that I wanted to hear more. I'm sorry that the

member who was speaking has left the House.

I don't really

want to get into the minister's responsibility as the minister of

state, because I've done that once already in this House, and I intend

fully to do it again during the estimates of the minister of state in

whose jurisdiction my constituency lies. It was interesting as well....

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF :

Mr. Chairman, I sat very quietly and patiently listening to the debate

from both sides of the House, when I was waiting to take my turn. I

would ask that you direct the Attorney-General to do the same.

was interesting to listen to the debate with respect to the Whistler

lands, for a couple of reasons. One specific reason — I'll get into

that a little later — was that I had several questions with respect to

the sale of Crown lands and the amount of dollars asked for them. I now

have twice as many questions.

One thing interested me a

great deal — and I won't go into it in this minister's estimates.

Perhaps in some of the things discussed here this afternoon with

respect to Crown lands at Whistler lies the key to the political

intervention that took place with respect to the Powder Mountain

proposal. I wish to get into that in some detail in another minister's

estimates, which surely will come before this House in due course —

perhaps in August, September or whenever. I won't get into it now, but

perhaps in some of the debate, in some of the questions, in some of the

circumstances that were canvassed here this afternoon with respect to

the Whistler lands, lies the key to what really happened with respect

to the political intervention that took place regarding the Powder

Mountain Resorts proposal.

I heard the minister suggest at

one point this afternoon that it was the object of the ministry to

provide Crown land to the public at a fair price. I think that is the

key to my questioning and my part of the debate here this afternoon. I

have, on behalf of the many people I represent in north-central British

Columbia, just the opposite problem to the first member for Vancouver

East, with respect to the price of Crown land in British Columbia. I

can understand

[ Page 7885 ]

now,

listening to the debate, why we have to Reece the ordinary citizens

when it comes to the sale of Crown land. We have to make that dollar up

somewhere. If we are only making a dollar, and we are giving away the

high-priced land, then we have to make that up somewhere. I intend in

the...

MR. CLARK : Months ahead.

MR. KEMPF : ...months ahead, if necessary, to show that to this House.

The

price charged the ordinary citizen for Crown land and the price charged

developers for Crown land are significantly different. I intend this

afternoon — and I am not a lawyer, but I don't think it is going to be

too difficult — to make a case for the cost of lakeshore leased lands

in north-central British Columbia and to show this House how unfair....

The minister is leaving the House. I don't want him to miss any of

this, because I think it is very important. I have only written to him

on half a dozen occasions pointing out very clearly what the problem is

and how it could be rectified, but it seems from the last

correspondence — which, incidentally, is dated as late as June 20, 1989 — that he hasn't understood what the problem really is.

MR. WILLIAMS : Surely you jest.

MR. KEMPF :

I jest not; I am very serious. As a matter of fact, my constituents,

whom this administration is asking to pay double the price, the going

rate, for lakeshore leased land.... We talk a lot about appraisals. I

see a strange philosophy in that ministry when it comes to appraisals

vis--vis actual values. They see one philosophy when levying taxes on

appraised value and another philosophy when using those appraised

values to sell leased lake lots to ordinary citizens.

I was

so happy. For ten years I fought in this administration for a policy

that would allow the sale of those leased lake lots to the citizens of

the province.

MR. WILLIAMS : And then they sock it to them.

MR. KEMPF : Sock it to them! That's an understatement.

intend to prove that, and to ask the minister why his ministry is

asking ordinary citizens, people who have leased land on lakes in the

central interior for a number of years.... They have not held them and

paid nothing to the government, as we've heard in other situations, but

paid not only lease costs but also property taxes on that leased land

for a number of years. They took the government in good faith and

developed, in many cases, modern homes — perhaps that was a mistake,

because they only had a lease — and modern facilities on those lots. Is

it that the government now considers they have a captured audience and

are holding these people up to ransom for those lots?

[4:45]

I intend to get very local. I really hope that this minister has some

answers for me, because, as I see it, there is absolutely no logical

response that the minister can give which will inform this House why

the ministry is asking more than twice what lake property is selling

for in the same area for those leased lots. I get letter after letter

from the minister, as I said, the last of which came to my office

today, giving absolutely no reason.

Is the minister aware

that the area I've been writing him about is a very depressed area?

There isn't great economic development going on all over this province;

I can assure the minister of that, and I can give example after example

as to where it is not happening. I'll name the area; it's the Topley

Landing area on Babine Lake. Is the minister aware that three- and

four-bedroom homes are selling not five kilometres from there for as

little as $15,000, lot included? Is the minister not aware that

lakefront land...? We're talking about homes that aren't on the lake,

admittedly, but have lake views, a beautiful location overlooking

beautiful Babine Lake. Three and four-bedroom homes are selling for

$15,000, and the government is asking $10,000-plus for a leased lot.

Absolutely no reason; no excuse whatsoever.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The

minister writes that there will be a second appraisal by an

"independent appraiser." I will tell you about those independent

appraisers as well, and I will get into a situation where, had it not

been for the ministry getting into a contract, a contract which they

fully intended to break, but when they were reminded of the

ramifications of breaking that contract, they backed off.... That's

fine in the case of one particular piece of agricultural land, but what

of those dozens of other north-central British Columbians in the same

predicament? Is the ministry going to stand by their "independent

appraisal," which in this case would have asked not $65 an acre for

agricultural land, but $110 an acre for that same land based on fair

appraisals? We in the north are very fair individuals. All we ask for

is fair treatment.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

Now,

I have go back to the lakefront lots. How can the minister, through his

ministry, say that $10,000 is a fair purchase price for a lakeshore

lot at Topley Landing, when just down the lake like property has sold —

not is selling, not is up for sale, but has sold — for $2,000 an acre?

Not five kilometres away, three- and four-bedroom homes complete with

lot are selling for as little as $15,000. We can shorten this debate

considerably. The minister can simply stand up and say: "I've made a

mistake. We have miscalculated. We are going to sell these lots to

ordinary British Columbians at a fair price." They're not even asking

that the offer be reduced to what it should be; they're simply saying:

"We'll pay a fair price. We'll pay $5,000 a lot for that property. It

should be $3,000, but we'll pay $5,000."

[ Page 7886 ]

simply ask the minister: why are they asking $10,000 a lakeshore lot

at Topley Landing, given the facts with respect to the sale of other

lands in that area? Why do I get letter after letter saying....

MR. CHAIRMAN : I regret to inform the member that his time has expired under standing orders.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

Mr. Chairman, I was very interested to learn about the price of land at

Topley Landing, among other places, and I would like to hear more about

it.

MR. KEMPF : Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank

the Attorney-General. I'm sure he's got some constituents on his back —

probably a number of them — for the very same matter, so I just have to

pursue it.

We talk a lot about assessments. We talk a lot

about actual values. Where does the ministry get this actual value of

$10,000 for these lakeshore lots? If the minister can stand up and

give me examples this afternoon of where those prices come from, I'll

pack up my papers and go to my office and listen on the loudspeaker

there.

I just want to know, on behalf of.... These are just

ordinary British Columbians, people who work in the mine, in the woods,

people from as far away as Burns Lake or Houston who have a summer

cabin, which is their only outlet for recreation. Why are we fleecing

these ordinary British Columbians? We heard in this very House this

very afternoon what we're selling Whistler property to developers for.

I would hate to think so, Mr. Chairman — what a horrible thought — but

is this the way we're going to make up the losses? By fleecing ordinary

British Columbians on lakeshore lots? And not just lakeshore lots. I'll

be talking a lot to the minister, in and out of these estimates, with

respect to agricultural land. I see that the minister has initiated a

probe into agricultural use of Crown lands, and we'll talk about that

at length too, because I really fear that there's an ulterior motive

here. I saw it once for myself, in person. There's an ulterior motive

here.

I guess at this point I've got to make the remark

that never, ever was I sorrier to see two ministries split up than I

was to see Forests and Lands once again torn apart. It took years for

this province to wake up to the fact that forests and lands should be

one and the same as far as being in the same ministry is concerned. You

can't take the two apart. If you take them apart, you're going to have

two different factions fighting over the same Crown land, because

there's only so much of it in British Columbia. One of the most

ridiculous things done was, after the many years of work that went into

putting those two ministries together, to have them torn apart. Now

they're just an appendage. Lands is simply an appendage on a state

ministry. Ridiculous, absolutely preposterous: after years of hard

work, torn apart once again. That's not the fault of the minister, and

I'm not faulting him for that.

I am asking the minister why

his ministry is asking British Columbians, whether it be for lakeshore

lots or whether it be for agricultural land, for clearly twice what

it's worth in that particular area based on the sale in the private

sector. I was of the opinion that that's what this administration based

everything on: what went on in the private sector. That's all I'm

asking. Treat them the same as those who buy land in the private sector.

I'm

sure the minister's staff is aware of the Wayne Ray situation in Fort

Fraser; it has been around for a number of years. If it weren't for a

contract that the ministry inadvertently signed and had to be reminded

of, they'd have held the Rays up to ransom for $110 versus $65 an acre

for this Crown land.

Why is this going on? That's all I

ask. A very simple question: why is this going on? I'll sit down now

and allow the minister to get some answers from his staff to answer

these questions this afternoon.

HON. S.D. SMITH : I

want to raise a couple of questions for the minister as well, and I

want to make a couple of comments about decentralization generally.

I've

listened with enraptured concentration this afternoon to these

1-percent credit-card socialists waxing eloquent about local input,

consultation and decentralization and all the wonderful things they

did, would do, could do and should do. But when I think about

consultation and decentralization in the Thompson-Kootenay region,

immediately to mind comes the amalgamation of Kelowna and Kamloops, not

exactly a shining light of either consultation or intelligence or

anything else that would be referable to good, sound regional

development or the practice of good sound regional development, or

indeed anything else that could come to mind.

[5:00]

One of the major issues we have had to confront and are confronting

today in that region, as the Minister responsible for the

Thompson-Okanagan region is well aware, relates to transportation, to

sewage disposal and to a number of issues about infrastructure in our

communities. It relates as well, in the case of Kamloops particularly,

to questions about land and about land within the agricultural land

reserve that sits between two nodes of population that must be joined

up, which puts a tremendous cost on not only the communities but also

the province.

I want to urge the minister responsible for

these regions not to take the soft-spoken, pseudo-full-of

kindness-and-concern advice that has occasionally come from across the

way about how to affect this regional development issue, particularly

as it relates to these lands and these communities, and the settlement

patterns in those valleys. Better than him listening to these

smooth-talking, born-again entrepreneurs, coming across the floor with

this stuff at this particular hour in the mandate, he should look at

their record. Look at the record in Kamloops of the forced amalgamation

of five communities, as well as the Kamloops Indian reserve.

[ Page 7887 ]

One

of the most offensive parts of that amalgamation was the forcing of the

Kamloops Indian reserve into the city boundaries by fiat of the then

minister of everything, as well as his cabinet c