1986 Legislative Session: 4th

Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The

following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 15, 1986

Morning Sitting

[ Page 8235 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Liability insurance. Mr. Skelly — 8235

Louisiana-Pacific plant. Mr. Williams — 8235

Alleged anti-American statement by

Vancouver alderman. Mr. Reynolds — 8236

Gasoline storage at service stations. Mrs.

Wallace — 8236

An Act To Establish An Institute Of Native

Indian Languages For British Columbia (Bill M20). Mr. Hanson

Introduction and first reading — 8237

Tabling Documents — 8237

Ministerial Statement

Provincial parks anniversary. Hon. Mr.

Kempf — 8237

Mr. Mitchell

Tabling Documents — 8237

Private Members' Statements

Nuclear accidents. Mr. Rose — 8238

Hon. Mr. Pelton

Motor vehicle testing. Mrs. Dailly — 8239

Hon. Mr. A. Fraser

Houseboat rentals on Okanagan Lake. Mr.

MacWilliam — 8241

Hon. Mr. Kempf

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Lands,

Parks and Housing estimates. (Hon. Mr. Kempf)

On vote 56: minister's office — 8242

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Reynolds

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. MacWilliam

Mr. D'Arcy

Insurance For Crops Amendment Act, 1986

(Bill 16). Second reading

Mr. Hanson — 8252

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 8252

Erratum — 8253

THURSDAY, MAY 15, 1986

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

LIABILITY INSURANCE

MR. SKELLY: In the absence of the Minister

of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie), I would like to direct this question to

whoever is responsible for his portfolio.

On April 28, 1986, the Sproat Lake fire department in Port

Alberni

had its liability insurance cancelled. They're having difficulty

obtaining liability insurance at any price. As of last night, the fire

department was forced to consider withdrawing its services if they are

unable to obtain liability insurance. What action has the minister

taken to make sure that volunteer fire departments in this province are

covered by liability insurance so that they can continue to provide

this essential service?

HON. MR. PELTON: Certainly I realize that

at this time

there's a great deal of discussion with respect to liability insurance

in many quarters, not just in volunteer or other types of fire

departments. In the absence of the minister, in this case, I'll take

that question as notice. I'm sure he'll provide the hon. member with an

answer as quickly as possible.

MR. SKELLY: Discussion about liability

insurance has been

going on for a long time. This Legislature has been in session for a

long time. The minister has been saying that he's looking into

liability insurance for a long time. Does the acting minister not

consider fire services essential services, and should the members of

those fire departments be covered by liability insurance? What action

does the minister intend to take immediately to make sure there are

fire services in areas of this province where they're provided by

volunteer fire departments?

HON. MR. PELTON: My response to the hon.

Leader of the

Opposition is that I will take that as notice and pass it on to the

minister, and he will bring back a response as quickly as possible.

MR. SKELLY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker,

to the Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs. A number of other organizations, in

particular small businesses, are having some difficulty obtaining

liability insurance, again at any price. A few days ago I met with a

small airline in the Shuswap-Revelstoke provincial constituency that is

in danger of having their insurance cancelled or increased beyond the

point where that airline is able to pay the costs of liability

insurance. What action does this minister plan to take to investigate

the liability insurance problem in British Columbia to make sure that

small business people in this province are able to obtain liability

insurance coverage at rates that do not bankrupt those small businesses?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Liability insurance is not

only a British

Columbia problem, it's a national problem, indeed an international

problem at the present time. It was brought about largely by such

situations as the Bhopal incident in India. But we do have an

interministerial committee, we have a committee within our own ministry

examining the situation with respect to liability insurance, and indeed

we have an intergovernmental committee. However, I will tell the hon.

member that the market is improving in B.C. somewhat. It's not as good

as what we'd like it to be, but I have known instances where, with a

little shopping around, liability insurance is available in most cases.

We are working on it. We're aware of the problem, and I'll be meeting,

I believe it's on June 2, with federal counterparts to further discuss

the problem.

MR. SKELLY: Again to that minister, I would

like to point out

to him that the volunteer fire department at Sproat Lake has approached

ten different insurers and been rejected by those companies. So if the

market is improving, the Sproat Lake volunteer fire department

certainly isn't aware of it.

I want to ask the minister, has he provided a deadline for

that

interministerial committee to report to him and for that minister to

report to the House on the action that he plans to take to make sure

that those small businesses and those volunteer fire departments are

able to get the coverage that they require so that they can provide the

services that people in B.C. require on an essential basis?

HON. MR. VEITCH: First of all, I wasn't

aware that the Sproat

Lake fire department was a small business. I thought his comments were

with respect to small business previously, and I answered in that

context. However, there's no need for a deadline, because I'm having

reports on a constant basis on the matter; and yes, I think the proof

of the pudding will be in the eating, as the Canadian and North

American market improves and adjusts to meet the obvious problem that

exists today.

LOUISIANA-PACIFIC PLANT

MR. WILLIAMS: I have a question for the

Minister of Industry

and Small Business Development The Minister of Industry advised the

House two days ago that he was not warned of the implications with

respect to countervail duty in terms of the very generous loans that

were granted to Louisiana-Pacific. Has the minister reconsidered his

statement?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WILLIAMS: So while the minister

confirms that his staff

reports indicated there were problems there, he is still telling the

House that he wasn't warned. So be it. You were warned in terms of

changing policy, in terms of government becoming the major risk-taker

with respect to this operation. Why was the decision made, given the

warning that under no current policy of this administration could that

kind of loan be given? Why was the decision taken, given the warning in

terms of criteria that had clearly been established regarding other

corporations in this province?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: There were no warnings

given to the

minister about any of the items that that member has taken up. First of

all, in the discussion of various economic policy objectives, staff

seldom warn the minister about things. However, the staff of ministries

are encouraged

[ Page 8236 ]

to raise all issues that might become

part of a

discussion, and so we have things called discussion papers which come

before the ministry and which are considered by the ministry, by the

minister, by cabinet, by my colleagues, before any decisions are taken.

We do that in a very prudent manner in achieving the objectives that

the government has, the basic objective of which is to attract new

investment in order to build job opportunities for British Columbia

people. That's an objective that we've taken proudly. We want

investment in our province from all over the world, and that's one of

the reasons we've developed Expo 86: to bring to our province visitors

from all over the world, business leaders, in order to be able to make

them aware of the opportunities available for them in our great

province.

The same thing was true with an American company called

Louisiana-Pacific, which we wooed to come to British Columbia — and I'm

proud of it, Mr. Speaker. I don't have any problem standing up and

defending the right of British Columbians to have job opportunities,

and that's what this is all about.

[10:15]

MR. WILLIAMS: Was the Minister of Industry

and Small Business

Development led to believe that British Columbia was in direct

competition for this plant with several American states and the

province of Alberta?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I honestly don't know

how to answer that

question. I believe that anybody would have wanted the job

opportunities that this plant creates. I was not led to believe that

there was active competition because, frankly, Mr. Speaker, I wasn't in

on the active negotiation for this plant. I promised the House that I

would bring an exhaustive list during question period next week of the

kinds of incentives that are being offered to companies like

Louisiana-Pacific, and in fact in Louisiana-Pacific's case they were

considering four new plants. Three of them went to the United States

and one of them came to Canada — to British Columbia, providing jobs

for British Columbians. They have eight such plants. In many of the

instances in which they have plants in the United States....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Speaker,

very substantial and

attractive incentives were given in other locations. We're in a very

competitive market here, and I'm going to be very happy to show that

member what kind of competitive market we're in, next week. But I don't

know who else was competing for this plant, and I don't care. We wanted

that plant and we went and got it, and as a result 300 new jobs are

going to be created in an area of this province that very much needs

it. We're going to be using a wood resource in this province that has

never been properly used before, and this is the kind of issue that

that member should be standing up and championing instead of trying to

sabotage.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, he said he

wanted the deal at any

price. That's what he's telling the House. What a wonderful target for

the Louisiana boys.

My further question is: was the department looking at other

possible

oriented-strand board proposals, or waferboard proposals, and what is

the status of those other proposals, submitted by Canadians, Mr.

Speaker?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker,

there are other proposals before my ministry at the present time, and

we're studying them.

ALLEGED ANTI-AMERICAN

STATEMENT BY VANCOUVER ALDERMAN

MR. REYNOLDS: My question is to the

Provincial Secretary, and it relates to statements made yesterday in

Vancouver by one of the aldermen there, a left-leaning, anti-American

alderman by the name of Libby Davies. In talking about U.S. sailors who

are visiting British Columbia, she said: "We want to make a clear

statement that they are not welcome here." I would like to ask the

Provincial Secretary if she would take the time to call the U.S.

consulate in Vancouver to make sure they know not only that U.S.

sailors are welcome in British Columbia, but also that all British

Columbians are proud to have the Americans as our allies, and that we

want them here in British Columbia not just during Expo but any time of

the year.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would be

very pleased to convey the message. I hope it is a unanimous message

from the House.

I would say that I am really disappointed to hear that the

largest

city in British Columbia, Vancouver, has a representative on it — or

more than one — who would show that kind of lack of protocol and lack

of friendship with the best neighbour that any country could have. If

we were to make a choice of who we would like to have as a neighbour in

this country, I am sure that most British Columbians, as opposed to the

left-wing opposition in this province, would prefer to have the United

States of America.

In addition, I want to say that I am really surprised that any

member of that council would seem so selective in whom they attack in

terms of their not wishing to have people in the city of Vancouver. I

notice that there isn't that kind of attack on very many other

countries that have been represented, and which this government and

hopefully the city of Vancouver will welcome, no matter what their

political stripe.

Mr. Speaker, it is really a very grave and upsetting statement

come from any member of any council in this province, particularly the

largest, representing the largest city, because that kind of message

goes not only throughout British Columbia but Canada-wide and North

America-wide, and unfortunately, to the shame of that council and its

left-wing members, throughout the world. I think that is a sad

commentary. I would be glad to give the message to the U.S. consul.

GASOLINE STORAGE AT SERVICE STATIONS

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have a

question for the Minister of Environment. There have been a number of

accidents and near misses respecting the storage of gasoline at service

stations. Has the minister decided to institute regulations to protect

the public and secure safe storage for petroleum products?

[ Page 8237 ]

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of

the numbers of

incidents that have taken place. One of the current ones is out in the

Port Coquitlam area. We are taking some action and are looking at the

possibilities of making some regulations that would control the

installation of these tanks.

At the moment my understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that such

regulations are carried out under the Building Code. But we are looking

at it, and we certainly see a requirement to bring forward something

that would regulate more stringently the installation of these tanks.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO ESTABLISH AN

INSTITUTE OF NATIVE INDIAN LANGUAGES

FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. Hanson presented a bill intituled

An Act to Establish an

Institute of Native Languages for British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: It would have to be with leave.

Leave granted.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, as the members of

the House are

aware, the native people of the province of British Columbia did not

have a written language. Their language and culture was communicated

through oral traditions. That fact of life, and the fact that British

Columbia is one of the most linguistically diverse places on earth,

having half of all the native languages of Canada within the boundaries

of the province....

I've introduced this bill that would give the native people

status,

in terms of having the responsibility and authority to have an

institute that would study curriculum and put Indian languages into the

educational system of this province.

Mr. Speaker, one only has to go to Expo and any other

international

function where Canada is represented to see that the native culture is

highlighted, and we bask in the reflected glory of the Haida and the

Tsimshian and the coast Salish people's accomplishments. People such as

Charles Edenshaw, Bill Reid, Robert Davidson, many other great

artists.... We bask in the reflection of their accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, Japan would regard the elders, the people who are

fluent in the language and culture, as national treasures. The

unfortunate thing is that as these people pass away — and there are

fewer and fewer all the time — the language and the cultural heritage

of the Indian people of the province is being swept away. It is not too

late if action is taken now to establish an institute to give the

Indian and non-Indian people of the province the opportunity to

understand the richness of Tsimshian, Gitksan and Carrier, and all

these other languages, Mr. Speaker. It's about time that this was done,

and I appreciate the House's granting leave for me to introduce it

today.

Bill M210 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.

Hon. Mr. Veitch tabled the 1985 trade practice annual report

and the

sixty-fourth annual report of the liquor control and licensing branch

of the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

PROVINCIAL PARKS ANNIVERSARY

HON. MR. KEMPF: I rise to make a

ministerial statement.

Mr. Speaker, as all members would know, 1986 marks the

seventy-fifth

anniversary of parks in British Columbia. In that light, I ask leave to

make an introduction.

It's a great pleasure for me this morning to introduce a

special

visitor from my constituency, the official mascot for B.C. Parks in its

seventy-fifth anniversary, Jerry the Moose. Mr. Speaker, Jerry will

host many.... [Laughter.] I know that the House is very happy to see

Jerry, but there's a story to be told as well. Jerry will host many

special events this spring and summer in parks throughout British

Columbia. He'll be making surprise visits to shopping malls, schools

and parades, and he may even take a day off to visit Expo. A British

Columbia Parks birthday celebration is planned for the long weekend in

August, and a major part of this program will be the announcement of...

AN HON. MEMBER: How is he in the hot-tub?

HON. MR. KEMPF: He won't fit in the hot-tub.

...winners of our first-ever parks contest with six fabulous

parks

prizes, generously donated by the private sector. The contest will

publicize the tremendous quality and variety of our world-class park

system in British Columbia.

There are both serious and fun sides of parks. We regularly

deal

with the serious side through our master plans and resource-management

projects, and through reports such as that of the Wilderness Advisory

Committee, but this is a time for fun and celebration in recognition of

the seventy-fifth anniversary of the best provincial park system in

Canada. Jerry and I extend a special welcome to all members of the

Legislative Assembly to visit as many of our beautiful parks this year

as possible and to encourage all of their constituents to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, please welcome to the House Jerry the Moose.

[10:30]

MR. MITCHELL: I'm not sure if that was a

ministerial

statement, as we started off to say, but I do feel that I should reply.

I say this because of something I've been saying for the last two or

three years that I have been critic and debate leader for Parks: we

must continue to process and push the most important asset we have, and

that is our parks and our people. When you look at it, if it takes a

little humour, if it takes someone dressed up, then let's do it. But

the only thing that I find bothersome is that we look at everything as

TV hype. We've got to look at it seriously; it's a serious program that

we have in job creation, and I know we have hired one of the

constituents from the minister's constituency, and I'm not against

that. I do believe he is a professional actor and we do need some

employment in that field. I wish him well and I wish more and more

people to raise the figure of 16 million Canadians who have visited our

B.C. parks; we want to make it 32 million.

Hon. Mr. Segarty tabled the 1984-85 annual report of the

British Columbia Council of Human Rights.

[ Page 8238 ]

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, with respect

to private

members' statements, l would ask leave of the House to permit the

member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose), who is positioned number four,

to speak first on his subject this morning.

Leave granted.

NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS

MR. ROSE: I thank the hon. House Leader,

the Minister of

Health and welfare and almost everything, and also thank the House for

this courtesy. I observe that motions for unanimous consent don't

always receive such prompt and unanimous approval.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: I noticed that yesterday. So I do

thank him doubly, after yesterday's experience.

Mr. Speaker, all of us were shocked and concerned about the

recent

nuclear accident at Chernobyl. Chernobyl nuclear accident was a tragedy

not only for the Soviet Union, but it was a tragedy for their

neighbours and perhaps the rest of the world; and probably a tragedy

for nuclear energy as well, but I'm not unhappy about that part of it.

I have been consistently fighting that high-tech turkey, called the

Candu reactor, now for about 15 or 20 years.

This isn't quite the same, but I want to know, without being

alarmist, whether members realize that within 500 miles of our border,

just south of Spokane, we have a war reactor at Hanford, Washington.

This reactor was built something like 40 years ago. This reactor has

had several major accidents to it. Sister Rosalie Bertell, who is a

world-renowned expert on nuclear energy and nuclear fission, has said

that Hanford is an accident going someplace to happen, or words to that

effect. It's an accident waiting to happen.

The Hanford reactor has now been closed down. What I want

members to

know is that places in Poland and Hungary and as far away as Italy have

received substantial fallout from that accident at Chernobyl. We also

know that we had fallout in Coquitlam...

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: ...and Vancouver, enough to be

concerned about the water supply.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: I'm trying to be deadly serious

and I resent

frivolous, gratuitous comments from the member across the way, whose

chief stock-in-trade is frivolous, mischievous comments.

Chernobyl caused nine deaths, and so far 299 seriously

injured. It

is presumed that it will take, after that reactor is buried, hundreds

of years to cool. It is not an insignificant matter. We've had our own

problems here. I'm not pointing the finger at the United States or the

Soviet Union and leaving us out of it. We had an accident at Chalk

River, and a cleanup was necessary in 1952 and 1958. People like

Bjarnie Paulson have got cancers all over their body because they were

sent in there insufficiently equipped to look after that cleanup.

There's a tremendous case and cause for what is sometimes called the

radiated veterans, who have an incidence of cancer a dozen times more

than the rest of us.

If such a little thing as a blowout of a nuclear reactor in

Russia

could cause all that trouble and concern, and one at Three Mile Island

which caused us some concern, just think of a nuclear war with 50,000

nuclear warheads flying around. And we talk about Star Wars,

protections and limited nuclear wars! What lunacy are we up to? This is

absolutely ridiculous.

The Candu reactor's base is plutonium. The base at Hanford is

plutonium. It's a weapons reactor, located on an Indian reservation, on

a fault line, an earthquake fault line. So it's inevitable that

something is going to happen.

What protection are Canadians being offered? As a provincial

government, what can we do here? I've been thinking about this. I've

been thinking about how we could, without alarming people

unnecessarily, seek ways to protect ourselves from what will happen.

Well, here's the history of Hanford. They had a mini-meltdown twice

before. They've had spills before. I could give you all kinds of

chapter and verse if I had time. I have only one minute left, I'm told,

and I know that someone else wants to speak.

Why can't the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon.

Mr.

Gardom) seek an audience or somehow consult with the Minister of

External Affairs to seek a reference to the International Joint

Commission. We have a Canada-U.S. Joint commission that looks after

boundary matters — matters such as pollution, Skagit Valley flooding,

all kinds of things. That is a commission staffed with experts equipped

to look after these things and investigate them. I called for this once

before, when we had the Three Mile Island incident and I was a member

of the federal House. So I'm calling upon the government, through this

Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, to contact the Secretary of

State and seek an investigation of Hanford and other boards....

We've got plants next to the U.S. border, too. So I think it

behooves both countries, for the safety of their citizens, to have an

impartial body.... Don't ask the nuclear industry or the Atomic Energy

Control Board. They have a tremendous history of coverups, and if I

have a chance to speak about that in a little while, I will.

I'm asking the government of British Columbia to go to the

federal

government and seek a reference to the IJC to investigate the safety of

not only Hanford but also other nuclear plants on both sides of the

border, so we can prevent another Chernobyl from happening in Canada or

the United States.

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, I won't take

up a great deal of

time, so that my friend on the other side may continue to speak on this

subject. I must say that only a fool would disagree with any of the

things that the hon. member has said. Certainly the Chernobyl thing

once again brings to our attention the dangers inherent in this type of

thing.

I noticed that when he first began to speak, the member made

particular mention of the fact that he does not want to alarm people by

discussing this subject. So I thought that I might take a moment just

to tell the House what I've been able to find out, knowing that this

was coming before us today, about what precautions we have in place.

Heaven only

[ Page 8239 ]

knows we don't want to have a real

test to see how

adequate they are, but there are some precautions that have been taken,

and some exercises that have been carried out to see if it can be

measured how well they work.

But first of all, about the nearby nuclear plants, plants in

the

States are regulated, as members probably know, by the American Nuclear

Regulatory Commission. My understanding is that this agency employs

world-class technology and safety standards to minimize the possibility

of problems at any of their nuclear plants. I also understand that the

American standards call for containment structures, which I don't think

they had in place in Chernobyl, and this is to minimize the escape of

radiation in the event of a meltdown. The Soviet plant that failed did

not have containment provisions, as I've just said. The nearest

American nuclear power station is the Trojan power plant, which is

about 160 miles south of the border at Rainier in the state of Oregon,

and it's owned by Portland General Electric Co.

On the emergency response side, many events, such as oil

spills,

tsunami waves, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, etc., involve both

the American and Canadian governments. Our emergency response systems

for those types of disasters are very good indeed. Certainly that was

evidenced by the immediate reaction we were able to take to the tsunami

that they thought was coming to the Alberni area from Alaska. In the

event of a problem at the Trojan plant, I can tell you the steps that

would be taken. After notification by American officials, the first

thing that would happen, of course, is that Environment Canada would

become involved and would predict the upper air movements from the

power plant. The Department of National Defence at Nanaimo would

provide more detailed predictions of the movement of the radiation

cloud within British Columbia. The public health department and local

elected officials would implement emergency plans in the target

communities, and the public would be advised to take precautions —

secure drinking water, etc., etc. There was a test run on a St. Helens

eruption, which is an entirely different thing, but it gave some

indication of how these tests work out.

I see the light is on and I've only got a moment left, so

rather

than go into detail, I'll tell you that the tests proved very good

indeed for a possible St. Helens eruption. We were notified within 45

minutes by American officials. One hour after the supposed blast we had

direct contact with on-site scientists; one and a half hours after the

supposed blast there was a prediction of cloud movement; two hours

after the blast the target communities had been alerted; and four hours

after the blast emergency plans were being implemented. I have other

information, but having said that, and because I'd like my friend to

have a little more time, I will take my seat.

MR. ROSE: Well, I thank the minister. I

would have preferred,

while I enjoyed receiving the information, a reaction about whether or

not he would take my representation to the cabinet with the proposal I

had, rather than a reassurance that we are safe from the eruptions of

St. Helens.

But I am not reassured at all by the nuclear regulatory group

in the

United States. Like the Russians, and like the Canadians, we have a

history of secrecy relating to the whole nuclear industry. We are never

told the truth about these things. These are lethal devices from which

there is no defence if they happen close to you. The U.S. has had

meltdowns. A former Energy department official says a major safety

inspection of newer N-reactors at Hanford was skipped five years ago —

we're not talking about the old one. But the safety inspection by the

Atomic Energy Commission was skipped five years ago.

Here's another one from Loma Saltzmann's book, The World's Most Dangerous

Garbage ,

page 117: "Yet another Hanford leak, perhaps the biggest of all, was

kept secret for more than 20 years. In the meantime, the natives on the

reservation and other people who worked there were radiated." I've got

something on this from the same source. Dr. Thomas Mancuso of the

University of Pittsburgh studied the death certificates of former

workers, and I quote from a little further on: "Thirty-five thousand

workers showed increases in several forms of cancer, ten to twenty

times the federal average."

Now Canada is not concerned about new plants next to the

border. I have a copy, and I'm quoting from Hansard

in 1979, and this is an aide-memoire passed to the United States from

the then Secretary of State for External Affairs, Flora MacDonald, and

that's the same government back in there again. Here's what the

aide-memoire said, and I quote from part of it: "Therefore, although

construction of a nuclear power station near the border, it wishes to

not to oppose nuclear power stations next to the border, and this was

the issue of Sedro Woolley at the time. So I am not reassured.

[10:45]

But as far as the secrecy is concerned, here is a quote from

the

then Liberal member from Thunder Bay–Atikokan, and he talked about the

Atomic Energy Control Board and the AECL. "I have never had experience

with any group that I mistrust more. They operate in a semi-secret way

and they use big public relations operations to put people off."

This is a bad industry, it is a dirty industry, it is an

expensive

industry, and we should get out of it, and we should let people know

how we feel about it.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Pursuant to standing orders,

the Chair would

recognize the member for West Vancouver Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds), who

does not appear to be here, so the Chair recognizes the member for

Burnaby North.

MOTOR VEHICLE TESTING

MRS. DAILLY: My statement is on the

restoration of motor

vehicle testing in the province of British Columbia. The removal of

mandatory provincial testing by the Social Credit government was, in my

opinion, one of the most callous, irresponsible and reprehensible moves

any government has made in this province, because the results of that

have brought about injuries and accidents.

AN HON. MEMBER: Proof.

MRS. DAILLY: I have proof here, and I've

been called to give

proof already by one of the back-benchers who obviously has his head

completely in the sand on this issue. It's one of the former ministers,

who you'd think would know better, but unfortunately he doesn't.

Very recently, a company called Minit-Tune International

Corp.,

which is a B.C.-owned company, presented to the minister — and I know

he's well aware of this — facts and

[ Page 8240 ]

their concern about the removal of

mandatory

testing. In the brief time that I have, I can pick out just a few of

these. The Minit-Tune International Corp. letter to the Minister of

Highways commends the government for their recent announcement of

mandatory commercial, but they ask for its restoration for all cars,

passenger and non-commercial. Speaking of that, I want to point out to

the minister that although I commend the fact that something has been

done about the commercial inspections, I am not in favour of the way

it's being done. I would like complete restoration to the way we had it

originally in British Columbia, done by the government testing stations.

What does this letter say to the minister? "Since the vehicle

inspection facilities operated by the government were discontinued, our

mechanics have been acutely aware of the increase in the number of

vehicles operating in an unsafe condition on the roads and highways. If

a vehicle is unsafe and not roadworthy, and the owner decides not to

repair it when they come to us, there is nothing we can do about it.

It's a shocking situation." That's the situation I'm talking about. To

even suggest that with cars driving around with mechanical defects, it

does not necessarily follow that there is inevitably to be accidents,

is again holding your head in the sand, as the former minister has just

done.

Here are some of the statistics. Of a total of 743 vehicles

tested

in the lower mainland on April 14, 1986 — pretty up to date — 34

percent would have passed the previous motor vehicle testing; only 257

out of the over 700 brought in. The number of vehicles that would have

failed the previous motor vehicle testing was 486. So 486 would not

have been allowed on the road if we had gone back to mandatory testing

— and this is just one two-week testing period.

The reasons, of course, are minor and major. There were 312

major

defects found. Major defects involve primarily steering and brakes. As

one man said recently, anyone who drives with their steering wheel

defective is akin to a drunken driver. Isn't it interesting that we

have a government which does a fair amount of advertising on the matter

of drunken driving, but is not concerned about the steering wheel

defects in cars? I can't understand it, Mr. Speaker. I cannot

understand a government that could be so stupid about this issue. The

stupidity is leading to tragedies in this province, and that is my

concern.

During question period recently — I don't believe the minister

was

here — I brought up to the minister that the police board in Vancouver

is concerned about restoration of mandatory testing. Quoting from a May

article in the Sun

— pretty

recent — Police Superintendent Ziola says: "If a vehicle is not

properly maintained, you may not see it in an accident in the city, but

when it drives at high speed out on Highway 1, it's a different story."

So every day the Social Credit government is putting the lives of the

people of this province at stake because of their reprehensible,

callous, irresponsible attitude to mandatory testing.

HON. MR. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I want to

say a few things

regarding statements made in the press on this subject, and first of

all inform the House that the records we have show no increase in

accidents caused by mechanical failures for the last seven years.

According to our records, less than I percent of accidents are caused

by mechanical failure, and are staying constant at that at all times.

In 1985 the total number of accidents increased over 1984. In

there were 102,928; 1984, 98,506. Except fatal accidents — 1985, 428;

1984, 447. The observation I make there, Mr. Speaker, is that we should

all be happy with the trend on fatals. They're going down.

The ministry statistics for the first two months of 1986 do

show an

increase in injury accidents. However, the same statistics show no

increase in the defective vehicle category related to injury accidents.

The Vancouver

Sun

showed that injuries are climbing for the following reasons: subcompact

cars carry more passengers on the average; poor driving habits being

displayed by drivers in the lower mainland; ease of availability of

financial settlements from ICBC; lack of deterrents for drivers who

commit driving infractions. None of these statements is related to the

mechanical condition of the vehicle.

The

article does not address the possible increase in traffic

loads.

For example, Expo 86 will result in additional traffic volumes in the

lower mainland. Factors such as this have to be taken into account.

The lady said that we were irresponsible as a government in

getting

rid of mechanical inspections in 1983. I just want to refute that and

say that we were not irresponsible, and advise the Legislature that

inspection of vehicles through the old inspection system was only a

once-a-year check. I can assure you that there was no follow-up, Mr.

Speaker. It didn't assure the safety of the vehicle.

The key factor is continued enforcement provincewide of the

rules.

That's one reason that we have police patrolling the highways. I think

it was also said in this Vancouver

Sun

article, Mr. Speaker, that an unsafe vehicle in the city, travelling on

a highway outside of the city, is subject to the same laws as an unsafe

vehicle from the country travelling to or in the city. That is the

approach to enforcing laws as applied provincewide.

One must remember that the old system was discriminatory,

which

would, in the opinion of the legal people, be subject to successful

challenge under the new Charter.

If the Vancouver police department are concerned, they have

all the powers to enforce a program on their own.

I conclude on this remark, that I think that a lot of that

article

was politically inspired, because Mayor Harcourt made comments, and

Mayor Harcourt is an NDP candidate for the next election.

MRS. DAILLY: I thank the minister for being

here today to

give his government's case, because I appreciate the fact that he has

much to do tomorrow. But I simply must say that, of course, I found it

rather sad that the minister had to end on a note of partisan politics

on an issue like this which is dealing with the lives of the people of

our province.

The people who want the restoration of mandatory testing, I

can

assure you, Mr. Speaker, come from all political parties in this

province and from apolitical people. It was the police chief, not the

mayor.... But even if the mayor had made this comment, surely because

he happens to have an NDP stripe, does that mean that everything he

says is suspect and wrong?

Put aside the mayor's comments. What did the police

superintendent

say in the city of Vancouver? He said that last year there were 644

injury-causing accidents in the first three months. There were 1,377

such accidents in the first three months of this year. The minister

trots forward his statistics; I suppose you can say that I trot forward

mine.

[11:00]

[ Page 8241 ]

This should not be a game and a war of statistics. I am asking

this

government to look at the facts as they exist. If a car that is

defective is coming at you on the highway or anywhere, your chances of

having an accident, or of that car creating an accident, are far

greater than if that car was subjected to some form of mandatory

testing. I must say to the minister that I cannot understand why the

government is being so obstinate and dogmatic about this issue. I ask

the Social Credit government to put aside their partisanship on this

issue, to put aside their dogma; and I ask the minister, before we have

more and more tragedies on our highways, to take the leadership and get

his government to assist him in restoring mandatory testing.

MR. MOWAT: I ask leave to make an

introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. MOWAT: On behalf of the Social Credit

caucus I am proud

to introduce to the House today four bright, capable and energetic

young people. They are the legislative interns assigned to the Social

Credit caucus during our current legislative session: Laurie Boucher,

from the constituency of Dewdney; Diana MacGibbon, from Gordon Head;

Nancy Peck, from Vancouver South; and Brian Young, also from Gordon

Head. We've had the pleasure of working with them for three months now,

and individually and collectively they have contributed to the efforts

of this House to approach its business in an informed and analytical

manner. Their hard work and dedication indicate once again the value of

the legislative internship program. Their presence and refreshing

enthusiasm certainly remind us of a bright future that British

Columbians can look forward to as our province's young people assume

their roles in society.

I believe I speak for all members of this House in extending

congratulations and thanks to Laurie, Diane, Nancy and Brian, and in

giving them our best wishes for future endeavours.

HOUSEBOAT RENTALS ON OKANAGAN LAKE

MR. MacWILLIAM: Okanagan Houseboats last

March made an application to Lands, Parks and Housing for a permit to

develop a houseboat rental facility on the Westbank Indian reserve in

the Okanagan. The plans called for up to 100 boats to be operating on

Okanagan Lake, although the initial number, I believe, will be closer

to 50. Despite the efforts of citizens in the area, the government has

granted a one-year lease for the development in late March, I believe,

and apparently at this time construction of the facilities is now

nearing completion.

Concerns regarding the development have been growing

throughout the

Okanagan Valley. They centre around three issues that are largely

environmental.

First, there are concerns about the possibility of

environmental

damage to Okanagan Lake as a result of the rental houseboats and from

those using the facilities — the fear of damage to be done from garbage

being thrown overboard, emissions from the houseboats themselves, as

well as noise pollution from the boats and the sound systems installed

on the boats.

Secondly, there is the issue of the handling of sewage. While

the

design of the houseboats does not allow the dumping of sewage directly

into the lake, once the boats are back to the marina the plans

apparently call for the raw sewage to be pumped up onto the Indian

reserve land in an untreated state. Now I feel that this practice is

unacceptable. The question, I think, has to be asked whether the

Pollution Control Board has approved this procedure of the disposal of

raw sewage onto reserve lands.

Finally, there is also widespread concern about the lack of

regulatory control, the lack of regulations covering an operation of

this type. It means that there is little control over the hours of

operation, little control over the qualifications of the people who are

renting the houseboats, the quality of the boats themselves, and even

the compliance of the operators with the terms of the operating lease.

Since approval was granted by the Ministry of Lands, Parks and

Housing a number of things have occurred.

First, a group of concerned citizens has been organized,

calling

themselves the Ogopogo Group. Apparently they want the issuance of the

lease to be delayed, and a public review of the application. They want

to get the Ministry of Environment involved, and they want to develop a

set of regulations covering the operation of the houseboats.

Secondly, the regional districts as well as concerned citizens

the lake have formed a committee to produce a paper on what types of

regulations are needed to cover developments of this kind. I might add

that the committee is made up of administrators from south, central and

north Okanagan regional districts, administrators from Vernon, Kelowna,

Penticton and Summerland, and representatives from Shuswap-Revelstoke

regional district.

There have been two additional applications subsequent to this

application, and these applications have apparently been received by

Lands, Parks and Housing. Apparently one application, although the

initial application didn't include it when it went into Lands, Parks

and Housing, now has been submitted. The application is looking at the

provision of a float plane facility.

I think the whole issue of commercial development on Okanagan

Lake

is a complex one; there are several factors involved. So far, the major

actor from the provincial government side has obviously been the

Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing. Another ministry that should be

involved, Mr. Speaker, is the Ministry of Environment. Apparently, an

official in Lands, Parks and Housing made a public statement that the

Ministry of Environment has been directly involved; but in

investigating the matter we found that that is in fact not the case.

The ministry's present position, I feel, is still not clearly known.

Mr. Speaker, the mayors of the major communities around the

lake, as

well as administrators of the affected regional districts, are

concerned enough about the situation that they have formed their own

committee. The citizens around the lake are worried enough that they've

banded together in organized groups addressing this concern. As well,

they've drawn up a petition to the government, which apparently the

government has ignored. I understand that the petition was attempted to

be served upon the Premier, but he refused to meet with this group.

It's my understanding that the petition has approximately 1,400 names

attached to it.

The concerns expressed about the houseboat development are

largely

to do with the ecology and with the safety of the area. I think that

clearly falls, at least partially, under the jurisdiction of the

Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton). At the present time the

province has so little control over the Okanagan houseboat operations

that the Ministry of

[ Page 8242 ]

Lands, Parks and Housing has admitted

that it

doesn't have the authority to ensure the company's compliance with the

operating lease that the ministry has in fact granted. The addition of

two new commercial applications demonstrates to me the need for some

direction in this matter.

I think that properly drawn regulations which ensure

responsible

behaviour by the operators of the commercial establishments and oversee

the safety of the houseboats themselves, as well as encourage

environmentally sound practice by all parties, are in fact the

responsibility of this government. The government, I feel, should act

immediately to initiate discussions, in order to draft regulations

which would govern not only the houseboats at Okanagan Lake but all

commercial use of the lake, as well as the utilization of the lake for

the disposal of waste materials.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Just very briefly, as this

whole question of

houseboats and the permits for same can come under my ministry, I just

want to make a few comments in regard to the subject the hon. member

opposite has raised here this morning.

I want to say that yes, a one-year lease has been given to

that

company. They asked for more; they wanted a long-term lease and we

said: "No, we'll give you a one-year lease, and you must prove

yourself." We want to make sure that every opportunity is given an

entrepreneur to develop something, to invest money, to provide jobs in

the province of British Columbia; and that's what we've done in this

case. We've said: "No, you can't have a long-term permit. You've first

got to prove yourself." I think it's incumbent upon us to do that sort

of thing, to say: "No, you can't have that, because it's not going to

work without trying it." I don't believe that is the route to go.

I was very much involved in that decision. The decision was

made to

give a one-year permit. If those people don't prove themselves in a

year, then they must come to us, hat in hand, seeking yet another

permit. And, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that at that time they'll be

very, very closely scrutinized. I think that was the right decision to

make on behalf of all of the people of British Columbia, to ensure the

development was made, to be sure the money was invested, and to be sure

that the opportunity was given our citizens and others to enjoy that

particular lake.

Mr. Speaker, we're in close contact on a daily basis, if not

weekly, with the houseboat owners' association of British Columbia. We

know there are no regulations. We are asking that association to be

very careful in what they do on our lakes in British Columbia or there

will have to be regulations; we don't want that. I don't like Big

Brother government. I figure, the less rules the better. If those

people can govern themselves, good for them; and they've been told

that. They've been told: "Watch your act very closely, because if you

don't, you'll have government regulations," and my God, Mr. Speaker, I

think we've got enough government regulations already.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I was expecting a comment

from the Ministry

of Environment. However, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing gets

no argument from me in terms of the commercial viability of these

operations. That's not the point at all. The fact is, lease was granted

without public input when public input was requested. Lease was granted

with consultation with the members of the industry and the houseboat

association, but not with members of the public and the residents who

are plainly affected by these decisions. Lease was granted, ignoring

the concerns of the residents. Lease was granted without proper public

access to that decision.

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of recommendations for the

Minister of

Environment to consider, recommendations which could be enacted under

present legislation contained in the acts of the Minister of

Environment, the Environment and Land Use Act as well as the Pollution

Control Act.

Firstly, that under

section 4 of the Environment and Land Use

Act,

the minister hold a public inquiry to address numerous environmental

and socio-economic concerns related to the increase of commercial and

recreational activities on the inland waters composing the Okanagan

Lakes basin.

Secondly, that under sections 2 and 3 of the Pollution Control

Act,

the minister consider directing the pollution control board to inquire

into and determine causes of and remedies for the ongoing deterioration

of the water quality of the Okanagan Lakes basin. Also, that in

accordance with the minister's recent announcement declaring the

Okanagan an environmentally sensitive zone — an announcement which I

congratulate the minister on, because it reflects the very concerns

that I brought forward in my private member's statement a year ago —

the minister prescribe more vigorous standards regarding the discharge

of effluent or contaminants — which includes municipal, industrial,

commercial and recreational wastes — into the inland waters comprising

the Okanagan Lakes basin.

[11:15]

Thirdly, that the minister, through

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council,

consider the establishment of a regulatory authority for the Okanagan

Lakes basin, with powers to monitor and enforce such regulations and

legislation as has been deemed necessary to ensure the ongoing

environmental and recreational safety of the Okanagan Lakes system.

I make those recommendations to the minister, and suggest that

would be in the interests of residents throughout the Okanagan Valley —

residents who, I might add, are very concerned about the ongoing

quality of life in the Okanagan; that it is the responsibility of both

the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing; in fact, the responsibility of the government — to ensure that

the environmental quality of the Okanagan Lakes basin is in fact

maintained.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to

make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MRS. JOHNSTON: In our gallery this morning

we have 50 grade 9

and 10 students from Matheson Junior Secondary School in Surrey and

their teacher Mr. Mark Hunter, along with 25 Inuit guests who are

visiting us in Surrey for a few days and who certainly have taken an

opportunity to visit their own pavilion at Expo. I would ask the House

to please give them a warm welcome.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

LANDS, PARKS AND HOUSING

(continued)

On vote 56: minister's office, $208,882.

[ Page 8243 ]

MR. MITCHELL: To begin with, I think I

should thank the

minister for inviting me to his grand opening yesterday at Goldstream

Park in my riding, where we opened a box and out came his new toy,

Jerry the Moose.

But I want to say that he doesn't have the finesse and the

traditions of one of his predecessors, the present member for Columbia

River. When he opened a park in my riding, not only did he invite me,

but he invited me with the same type of an invitation that the rest of

the people had. He also had a little more finesse and a little more

dignity. He invited my wife and myself to share the platform with him.

But I notice that the present minister-maybe it's because of his

newness — lacks those little finesses that I think a minister of the

Crown should display. I'm quite convinced that when he opens a park or

displays his new toy in ridings held by members of the Social Credit

Party, those members will be treated with a dignity that was not shown

the elected member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

The minister in his earlier remarks mentioned Cypress Bowl.

For the

benefit of the House and especially you, Mr. Chairman, I think we

should review what Cypress Bowl is and the problems actually happening

at Cypress Bowl because of the present government's position. Cypress

Bowl is a class A park, and as a Class A park, all British Columbians

and all Canadians — all members of the general public — have a

statutory right, by legislation passed in this House, to enter, freely

go through that park, and enjoy the benefits and the scenery. This

government, with its so-called privatization, has taken certain

sections of Cypress Bowl — which I say again is still a class A park —

and leased them out to private enterprise. In the first announcement to

lease them out, one of the major facilities they talked about was the

ski lifts.

Now I think there is a very philosophical debate within the

Parks

ministry and among lots of people within the parks community about

whether it was a good move for provincial governments to spend

literally millions of dollars to install ski lifts for a minor group of

British Columbians, the skiers. If you invest a million dollars in this

very technical equipment, along with that goes 3 percent per year for

maintenance of that equipment. That's just to maintain it in a safe

standard and to keep it in operation. I know this isn't a great expense

in the park budget, so philosophically the minister and the government

felt that maybe some of this equipment should be leased out, and maybe

that would relieve funds going into maintenance of that equipment.

There was a certain merit in it because it was a vast sum for a small

group. I don't say that skiers are that small a group, but compared to

the 16 million people who visit parks, they are a small group.

There was another

section of that park leased that has

bothered not

only me but also a large group of outdoor people. The government leased

out not only the mechanical equipment but also the cross-country ski

trails, and these cross-country ski trails had been installed at the

taxpayers' expense. Once the trails are in — the stumps are cleared,

the land is laid out — they are basically self-supporting, and there is

not the built-in expense there is with the mechanical equipment.

Normally they cater to older people like myself, who enjoy

cross-country skiing and the pleasure of being out in the wilderness.

They are not the group that likes the thrill of going down the high

slopes — and the thrill of maybe breaking a leg and getting off work.

They are the largest group of ordinary citizens. But in its wisdom this

particular ministry, when they gave out the lease for Cypress Bowl, not

only ran a black line over the mechanical equipment of ski lifts, but

they also ran little black lines up and down the cross-country trails.

Even then, after signing the lease....

I was surprised, when I heard the minister talking in answer

to the

member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam), when he said that we'll see

how it goes, and we'll only give them a one-year lease. For Cypress

Bowl, his ministry gave a 50-year lease. But after drawing all their

lines and drawing them through the cross-country tour, there was still

a vast area of Cypress Bowl park-which again I say is a class A park —

that was allowed to remain in the park status. As part of that lease

the government gave to the company $80,000 as a subsidy to maintain and

to keep the roads open, allowing access to the public.

A very unfortunate situation is now developing, and I was

really

concerned. People who believed that they were British Columbians and

believed in all fairness they had a right to the undeveloped area of

the park, people who were hardier and enjoyed cross-country skiing, who

weren't confined to the cross-country trails that had been leased out,

have been denied access to the park.

The worst part about it, Mr. Chairman, and I say this as an

ex-policeman: this ministry and this government, and condoned by the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), allowed the operator to use the

police forces of this province to go up and arrest people whose only

offence — and I speak to you as a lawyer, Mr. Chairman — was that they

were wanting to ski on public land that is protected by provincial

statute that gives them that right. An individual was arrested.

Mr. Chairman, you know as a legal person that you do not

arrest

Canadians indiscriminately. This is not a police state. There is no

legislation that allows the government and their arm — the policemen —

to go out and arrest people whose only offence is that they want to ski

on public lands. The minister may lack the finesse of parliamentary

traditions of recognizing MLAs, but I never thought that he would

support the use of police to terrify Canadians. Maybe the minister has

never had the opportunity to see people who have been arrested for the

first time, who have been confined to a police car, who have been taken

to the jails. What was his only answer when there was a group of people

representing all British Columbians who wanted to enforce the laws of

this Legislature? His only answer was: "I don't care about that group

of troublemakers. The 44,000 people who go there and pay their way —

they're the only ones I'm interested in." Those 44,000 go there because

of agreements, they go there because certain parts of the park have

been allocated under a lease for skiing, but if it's only one Canadian

who wants to...

MR. REYNOLDS: Break the law.

[11:30]

MR. MITCHELL: ...use the rights that are

given....

You know, the member sitting beside me says that if you walk

in a

class A park you are breaking the law. I don't know why we have

statutes, why we pass legislation, why we bring in a class A park, when

we have a member sitting there who says if you walk in that park you

are breaking the law. If that person had broken the law, then he would

have been charged. He would have been charged, and he would have gone

to court; and if he had broken the law, he would have been convicted.

But there was not an offence. The state has used

[ Page 8244 ]

police to terrify people, saying that

they're going

to go to jail. They go to jail but they're not charged; that's the

worst part of this offence. They were arrested; they were taken away

from their friends; they were put in a police car; they were taken down

to a police station. The minister, instead of coming to their defence;

the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), instead of coming to their

defence; the Premier of this province, instead of coming to their

defence.... We have one of the government members sitting there and

saying they were breaking the law. Well, if they were breaking the law,

why weren't they charged? They weren't. It was used as a terrifying

tactic.

The minister failed to come to their defence. I say that is

far

worse than not sending me an invitation to his opening, far worse than

not showing the dignity of recognizing an MLA for an area. But you

never, never in British Columbia, I hope, will ever see where the

police in 1986 are used to terrify citizens without grounds. I ask the

minister what his policy is on that particular incident, and how it's

going to come up with other programs he has.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Vancouver

East.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Doesn't the minister get a

chance?

HON. MR. KEMPF: Go ahead, please.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, before the

minister replies....

I'm sorry that I...because he has priority; he's got seniority; he's

got heft; he's got moose power. I should have given him the floor.

On Cypress Bowl you gave a bombastic answer when we asked you,

and

now you've heard a speech. Part of the park, rightly or wrongly, has

been given over to a private company for their groomed ski trails, and

they can charge people. But outside of that area, you can't molest

citizens going into a class A park; not yet, under Social Credit's new

order. So why don't you spell out very simply to the public what parks

require a payment of a fee to a private company in order to use, and

what parks are for the public generally? Give them a break, eh?

Nobody's published a map that I've seen, or made any sense as

what is the right of public entry, with skis on or not, and what is for

the private company. Spell it out, instead of having people hauled off

down to the West Vancouver police station, and the Attorney-General

doing his usual thing, not replying to letters. That's hard work for

the Attorney-General. You're going to tire him out, not replying to all

those letters.

HON. MR. KEMPF: In answer to the member for

Vancouver East's

question, all parks in this province are available for the public

generally. I'll spell that out very clearly, as the member asks. But,

Mr. Chairman, I'm not here this morning to argue the estimates of the

Attorney-General; certainly that will happen in due course in this

committee. I was quite surprised to listen to the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) talk about those people who were

arrested, in regard to the Cypress Bowl skirmish last winter.

Certainly, as I understand it, they weren't charged.

MR. MITCHELL: They were arrested.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Member, in your long,

distinguished

career as a policeman, had you never taken someone down to the lockup?

Have you personally never taken someone down to the lockup that wasn't

charged? I'll just leave that question out there, Mr. Chairman.

I want to talk about parks. Because that member is the parks

critic

in this committee, I want to talk about parks. The member talked about

his invitation. I'm sorry if he felt that he should have a better

invitation to the celebration that took place yesterday in a park in

his constituency. As all members will know, I invited him publicly here

in this chamber the day before. He got a better invitation than members

on this side of the floor, who, Mr. Member, you'll be very happy to

know, didn't even get an invitation. So where else more public could I

invite the member than right here in this chamber. It was done in this

chamber and it was done with a very good feeling. Yesterday, when the

member was out at the park, I made a point of introducing him to the

crowd there and of saying that that park was in fact in his

constituency. So I don't really know what more I could have done.

Before I get to the real story about Cypress Bowl, the member

for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew earlier talked about Jerry the Moose being a TV

hype. I've got to tell you, I wish he was. I haven't yet been able to

talk anyone from the media into taking TV pictures of Jerry the Moose.

Hopefully that will happen in the very near future. Jerry the Moose

will be travelling far and wide in the province of British Columbia in

this summer of Expo 86, and hopefully beyond, to tell the good story of

what we have in parks in this province. Even the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, my Parks critic, will agree to that — I heard

him say it this morning. We have a great parks system in our province,

the best of any province in Canada. We should all be very proud of

that. I want to tell all British Columbians what it is they have as far

as that asset is concerned, and tell not only British Columbians but

also those who visit our province, because I believe it has been the

best-kept secret in this province. Mr. Chairman, I intend to see that

that changes.

I listened to the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew talk about

Cypress Bowl and I really couldn't figure out whether he's for or

against skiers, or really what it was that he was alluding to. But I've

got to tell the real story of Cypress Bowl. Yes, part of that park — a

class A park — has been privatized. I guess that's the philosophical

difference between this and that side of this House. But I'll give you

the real story. I'll tell you of the advantages. We've heard of the

disadvantages — and I'll talk about those as well. But I want to talk

for a moment about the advantages of the privatization of Cypress Bowl.

You know, we now give an $80,000-a-year subsidy to that

company in

their husbandry of that particular part of Cypress Bowl park. Had we

not privatized that part of the park, it would be costing the taxpayers

of British Columbia in the vicinity of $200,000 a year for the

operation of that park. The member for Vancouver East shakes his head.

But he doesn't know. Those are the facts. And you can knock them all

you like, you members opposite, but that's the saving to the people of

British Columbia as taxpayers. I'm proud of that.

As I told the member the other day, there are a very few —

it's just

a handful — antagonists who don't like the privatization of that park.

That's why they're doing what they're doing, not because they're being

denied access. That's not the story. The story is that they're doing it

for a purpose. That's their prerogative. They've got a purpose in mind,

and that's

[ Page 8245 ]

okay. They can do their thing.

However, thousands

upon thousands — the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell)

mentioned a figure himself — of very happy Vancouverites and lower

mainlandites enjoy Cypress Bowl. They have enjoyed it, they will

continue to enjoy it. Literally thousands of very happy people, some

even in the area represented by the member for Vancouver East. Happy

constituents you have, Mr. Member.

There's a small handful of people who don't like the

privatization,

and so are doing their thing. That's their prerogative because this is

still a free country, thank goodness. Because we in this ministry

realize that they too are British Columbians, we're working very hard;

before the next season comes along at Cypress Bowl, we'll find means

even by adhering to the wishes of those people. They too are citizens

of British Columbia, and regardless of their political stripe or their

methods or reasons, they too will be listened to. It's incumbent upon

this ministry to do that.

Mr. Chairman, the privatization of Cypress Bowl is good for

the

taxpayers of British Columbia. It's certainly good for those thousands

of people who enjoy Cypress Bowl for skiing in the wintertime, and it

will be good for that small handful of people too.

[11:45]

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I just have to

say a few words. I

was sitting in my office when I heard the member for Esquimalt–Port

Renfrew get up. I wanted to say some things about Cypress Park and put

some things on the record, and thank the minister for the great job he

has done since he became minister in dealing with a few people — not

just the dissidents that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew talked

about, who purposely go up there to try to get themselves arrested to

create a TV story, but some other people who had concerns about the

privatization of the park and the way it was being operated. I met with

those people in my office and solved their problems. The minister is

going to come up with a formula that is acceptable to people who aren't

concerned about getting their pictures on televisions and creating a

political story, but those who really want to get the full use of the

park.

It's quite interesting. The gentleman who got himself arrested

happened to appear on a hotline show in Vancouver, and the host said to

him: "Have you been to see your MLA yet?" He said, "No," because that

wasn't his purpose. He's a member of the other side, of their party. He

was on Dave Barrett's show, who is obviously a member of that party. I

think Barrett asked the question innocently, hoping he would say: "Yes,

and he did nothing for us." But when the guy said he hadn't been, he

had to say: "Well, for God's sake, man, you'd better go and see him." A

lot of that group had been to see me, but they weren't the kind of

people who wanted to create an arrest situation just to get some

publicity.

The other thing that disturbed me, Mr. Chairman, is the member

for

Esquimalt attacking the West Vancouver police force. I'm obviously

biased because I live there, my children have grown up there and gone

to school there. I think it's one of the finest police forces on the

lower mainland, certainly well respected by the people in West

Vancouver. For that member, who's a former policeman himself, to say in

this House that the government had anything to do with telling the West

Vancouver police force to go in and arrest an individual.... I think he

should apologize to the West Vancouver police force, because they don't

operate that way. I'm sure it wasn't an easy decision for that

policeman, but if you watched it on television as I did, he was being

intimidated by a man doing what the policeman thought was breaking the

law. As the minister mentioned to that hon. member, many a time as a

policeman he's arrested somebody and the prosecutor has decided not to

prosecute. Maybe the problem is going to be resolved — and I'm sure it

will — to the benefit of all the people.

Cypress Bowl is a tremendous cross-country ski area. The job

being

done by the corporation that took over is fantastic. Tens of thousands

of people are using that hill, paying a small fee for the use of a ski

facility close to a downtown core. The letters I've received from those

who support what we've done far outnumber the other side. A lot of

those letters are not from members of any political party; they're just

British Columbians who appreciate a well-groomed ski hill, and one that

doesn't cost the taxpayers any money. The minister mentioned the

$200,000 and somebody said: "What about after revenues?" That was the

cost to this government after revenues to keep that hill open every

year. Now the government receives money and doesn't have to worry about

those losses. The taxpayer of British Columbia is the beneficiary of

what we did in privatizing that park.

I wanted to make sure that that was spelled out, but mainly to

thank

the minister, who I think is doing a good job. There is a problem

there, but he's solving that problem. We don't need televisions and

people intimidating people. Sit down in his office. I found in dealing

with this minister that that's the way you can solve problems, and I'm

sure if members of the opposition had a problem in their constituency —

whether it be a park or any other area under his capacity — if you went

to see him, he'd solve your problem. He's interested in doing things

for all of British Columbia, not just whether you're a Socred or a New

Democrat.

MR. MITCHELL: When I listen to some of the

speeches in this

House, I often wonder how we have progressed as far as we have in

British Columbia and in Canada with rights. We mentioned these West Van

police. I also know a lot about that particular case, and let's go back

to another case that was before the West Vancouver police, and went

also before the Crown counsel, who works under the direction of the

Attorney-General. That was when other skiers were skiing on the area

outside of the leases and were harassed by employees of the company

that has the park. For anyone who knows anything about skiing, when

someone comes along and threatens them and stands on their skis so they

can't go ahead or backwards, that's harassing, and it's not something

you laugh at. When those people went to the police to lay a charge of

harassment and assault, it was not allowed to proceed with the....

Because of instructions from the Crown counsel, the police would not do

an investigation and would not lay the charge.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Matters

involving the park are

relevant. Matters involving another ministry and the actions of the

courts or the Attorney-General's ministry are not relevant. To the

Parks vote, please.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I'll rephrase

what I said. I'm

talking about the actions of employees in exactly the same situation

that the previous speaker mentioned. The

[ Page 8246 ]

reason that there was the high

publicity to get the

evidence that was denied, because it was back in the bush, was to get

the evidence of assault or trespass or anything else right before

witnesses. To make fun of TV cameras.... There's not a better way of

getting evidence than to take pictures of it. But I am glad to hear,

and I hope, that there will not be harassment of people who want to use

the rest of the class A park that this government hasn't given away.

What I am leading up to is the new policy that the minister

has

brought out in Wells Gray Park. There is a new plan for Wells Gray

Park, and part of that is the development and the commercialization of

it. Part of it calls for the provincial government and the parks branch

to put in trails to open up various parts of that park, which I say is

excellent. I say that if we have a wilderness park, we should have some

areas that are accessible for all the public, not only those who are

the more athletic type. There should be some trails in for safety and

for development. But my big fear — and this is the fear that I

mentioned with the cross-country trails after they were put in — is

this: is this minister going to draw a line up and down those trails

that were put in at public expense, that are self-supporting like the

trails that were put in at public expense for the benefit of hikers and

cross-country skiers and the older people like myself and the

non-athletic types who want to enjoy the outdoors? Is there any danger

that this minister and the parks branch and the Social Credit

government, will they then lease out these trails to those who own the

commercial venture either at the beginning of them or at the end of

them?

If you want to walk up trails that were put in there, is that

going

to cost you $4 to go to a lake or a glacier or some other viewpoint?

There has been a very dangerous precedent set by this ministry in

Cypress Bowl, and I want some assurance on behalf of all the people of

British Columbia that we are not going to expend taxpayers' dollars in

developing parks and then lease them out on 50-year leases, because

this government will not be here for 50 years. It won't even be here

for 50 months, but they are selling the assets of this province with

their agreements to their friends under the guise of privatization.

We want some assurance that if there is any development in any

parks, they won't use the same precedent that this government was

hoodwinked into giving at Cypress Bowl in the park. We want that

assurance that that mistake will not be made in any other class A or

provincial park.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, if the member

is asking me to

make a commitment that no further privatization will take place in

parks in British Columbia, the answer is no. I won't give that

commitment, because as we have seen at Cypress Bowl and as the member

from the area who just spoke said, the people are enjoying that

facility more now because there is more of a facility there. As I said

before, it is costing the taxpayer of the province of British Columbia

less. So I think whenever that is possible, whenever you can get a

better service at less cost to the taxpayer, certainly as government

and as a minister of the Crown, that is the direction in which you

should go.

But that member misses completely the point in regard to

Cypress

Bowl. I told the member that 99.9 percent of the people using the

facility — and they are literally in the thousands-are very happy with

the way the facility is being operated. They come back time after time

after time to enjoy that facility. Yes, as I said twice already in this

chamber this morning, there are a very few — a very, very, very, very,

very few — people who, for their own reasons, don't like the

privatization of the park and make a big thing of not being able to get

beyond Cypress Bowl into the wilderness area of the park. But even

those my ministry has recognized, and we are at this very time working

very hard to ensure that by the time the next season rolls around,

there will be an alternative for those people to be able to get beyond

Cypress Bowl and utilize that area of the park which they wish.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know how I can make it any clearer than

that.

I give my undertaking to that. But I am certainly glad that the member

brought up Wells Gray, one of the jewels of our park system in British

Columbia. Yes, we have a Wells Gray master plan. I've got to tell you

that an awful lot of input from the citizens of this province,

particularly those living in the area of Wells Gray, went into the

Wells Gray master plan. We think it is a good plan.

No, it isn't etched in stone, and nothing should be, because

times

change, people change, wants and wishes change. We are constantly

changing, and I think this ministry, particularly in the area of parks,

has to be willing to change with the times. However, we have in place

the Wells Gray master plan, and it is heralded in that area as being

one heck of a good plan. Yes, the plan will provide increased public

recreation opportunities, such as the construction of new trails. That

was asked for in public meetings by the public, and that was given in

the Wells Gray master plan. I believe it will enhance the usage of that

park, and particularly in this 75th year.

I would ask that the member visit that park for the first

time. I

would plead with him that he do that, and not only that but that he go

back to his constituents and plead with them to visit Wells Gray Park

in this year of the 75th anniversary of parks in this province,

particularly when Jerry the Moose visits Wells Gray.

[12:00]

MR. GABELMANN: I want to make a few brief

comments about Strathcona Park this morning, but before I do there are

a couple of other matters.

I think that these estimates should not pass without some

reference

to the late Jim Boulding of Campbell River, who died a few days ago, as

I am sure the minister knows, just days before he was to receive an

award called the Heaslip Award awarded on a joint basis to Canadians by

the United Nations and the National Survival Institute of Ottawa.

This year, Jim Boulding was the only recipient of that

particular

award. Normally four Canadians are eligible, but in 1986 it was decided

that Jim Boulding's special work and special place in parks and

environment-related issues in Canada deserved mention and deserved the

unique honour of being the only person to receive the Heaslip Award

this year. Unfortunately Jim died on a Wednesday, and the award was to

be given on the following Saturday. His wife Myrna was able to attend

in his place.

Jim was 54 years old, and I think most members of this House

have

met him at one place or another over the years, as he and his wife and

others have developed the Strathcona outdoor educational centre on

Upper Campbell Lake just outside Strathcona Park. Jim spent his life

working for a better environment and working to promote and enhance

Strathcona Park, to try to get the many changes that were and are

needed in respect of that particular park and that area in central

Vancouver Island. I say on behalf of many, many

[ Page 8247 ]

British Columbians that Jim Boulding

will be missed. He died too young, too soon.

His wife said it was ironic that he would, in his last days,

be the

recipient of this particular environmental award, because he lost every

environmental battle he ever waged. In one sense that was true, yet in

another sense I think Jim Boulding's legacy will be the enhanced

awareness and value that we all place on our environment and on our

parks system in general, and on the particular beauties and values in

and around Strathcona Park and the Buttle and Campbell Lakes system.

In a moment or two, I want to talk also a little bit about

Strathcona and some of the things that Jim was trying to achieve and

those of us in that area would like to see achieved. Before I do, I

just want to get a couple of other smaller parks-related issues out of

the way.

The first relates to Cape Scott Park on the northwest corner

Vancouver Island, a park that has been designated essentially as a

wilderness class A park. Cape Scott is essentially the most important

tourist attraction on northern Vancouver Island. It's not certain how

many visitors it attracts each year, but estimates are that last summer

some 3,000 people or so hiked out the one or two days — depending on

how fit you are — to the beaches on the coast. Unfortunately the park's

budget is still insufficient in terms of maintaining the trails in that

park. The $50,000 it is allocated is just not enough to do sufficient

work. On occasional years the park is able to benefit from assistance

from the Holberg armed forces base, where young soldiers, armed forces

personnel, go out and do some park trail maintenance. Unfortunately

that's not a guaranteed thing. The budget is just not sufficient to

maintain a trail in an area that's subject to pretty high rainfall, as

a result of which the trail can be impassable most parts of the year.

Last year was an unusual year. It was passable for most of the summer

because of the unusual dryness. But for the most

part it's very

difficult. It needs a greater budget than it now receives. I just want

to stress that people in all walks of life in northern Vancouver Island

recognize that Cape Scott is potentially, if not already, the major

tourist attraction on northern Vancouver Island, and it's a very

important element in their tourist promotion strategies. So that's

something that I hope the minister can look at with a view to enhancing

that trail maintenance budget in particular.

I also want to say that I pointed out to a couple of senior

officials in the parks branch just the other day that tourists coming

to B.C. who pick up a copy of the parks branch map of park facilities

around British Columbia can look at the map and on it they will see red

dots and black dots. The red dots indicate places where there are

camping facilities or facilities for recreational vehicles to pull in

or whatever. If you're sitting in Vancouver and say to yourself that

you'd like to go to northern Vancouver Island, when you pick up that

map you will see that north of Mohun Lake, which is just outside

Campbell River — which is half of Vancouver Island physically — there's

only one red dot indicating a camping spot. That happens to be at

Schoen Lake Provincial Park, which is pretty well inaccessible by

anybody other than those in a pickup truck or a four-wheel-drive. The

road in there is pretty rugged. You're not going to get in there with a

camperized vehicle unless you've got a rugged pickup with a camper on

it that you don't mind driving through the bush. The road is rugged,

the campsite's overgrown and it's really off the track. So essentially,

with that exception, there are no government indicated campsites in

northern Vancouver Island. Yet there are a great many. The regional

district spends $194,000 a year on parks and campsite-related

facilities in northern Vancouver Island. The parks branch spends

nothing, outside of the little bit they spend on Schoen Lake and Cape

Scott. And forest companies all have campsites up there. But tourists

would have no idea that they could go up there, because there is no

indication that there are any campsites.

The ministry can rectify that in two ways, in my view. One is

establishing several places in the northern part of Vancouver Island

where people can camp. Taking over one of the highway rest-stops just

south of the Nimpkish valley would be one positive way to accomplish

that goal. And there are other areas up there that could be developed

or perhaps taken over from the regional district. In addition, the

ministry might consider indicating on its maps where there are other

camping facilities operated by forest companies — or by regional

districts, as is the case up there. So I just want to make the point

that when you look at the parks map of Vancouver Island, you would

think that there were no places to camp in northern Vancouver Island.

That's a real inadequacy in terms of development. If we really do

intend to try to develop a tourist industry in connection with our

parks and recreational and environmental areas, then we've got to deal

with that.

I want to go back to Strathcona Provincial Park itself. There

probably no park in B.C. that has more public concern expressed about

it than Strathcona. People in the Comox Valley, people in the North

Island area and people all over Vancouver Island view Strathcona as a

very special area and a very important part of their lives. I do some

hiking in that area and have been into various parts of the park, and

in the summer on a weekend it's like walking down Main Street in

Vancouver, there are so many people using that facility in the summer.

Interestingly, there are all kinds of people from Europe. Many of the

people you meet are from Germany, Switzerland and other parts of

Europe. It is a major international attraction, and should be promoted

more vigorously than it is at the present time. But we've got some

serious problems with that park. The boundaries are inappropriate in

many areas. When you drive across Vancouver Island from Campbell River

to Gold River, you go into the park and out of the park and back into

the park again. You would never know. You see signs saying, "Strathcona

Park boundary," and you don't know whether you're going into it or out

of it, because there's logging on both sides of the boundary line and

no indication. It's not the fault of the sign; it's the fault of the

fact that the area really isn't a park for practical purposes. It's an

industrial area. Mining and logging go on in that park in a very active

way, and it's most inappropriate. But certainly there's not much we can

do about it- it has happened. There needs to be a rationalization of

those boundaries so that the area around Buttle and Campbell Lakes and

Elk Mountain is included in the park. There needs to be a

rationalization so that the boundaries don't follow straight lines on a

map, but rather follow some of the contours and some of the physical

features that should be included.

What I want the minister to respond to is what process he

intends to

embark upon to make the decisions about the particular boundaries of

the park, and what his intentions are in respect of the interior of

that park. Some suggestion is being made that it should be changed from

a class A park into recreational status to allow industrial activity,

such as mining and whatever else. Is the public going to have an

opportunity

[ Page 8248 ]

to have full input into the

discussions that relate

to the changes, both in boundary and in categorization of areas within

that area? Is the public going to have full opportunity to discuss that

and to be involved in that, and how much value does the ministry place

on that particular public discussion? I know that there are any number

of people, in the hundreds and probably thousands, on Vancouver Island

who want to participate in the discussions about how that park can be

enhanced and how it can be protected, and I just wonder what the

procedures will be and what the timetable will be for the

decision-making process.

I want to close by saying that there is a great deal of

concern

about the potential for even more mining in that particular park. A

decision was made in the mid- to late sixties to allow Western Mines —

as it was then known; Westmin Resources now — to go in and set up a

mine in the middle of one of the province's greatest parks, a decision

that everyone in that area regrets. I certainly do, but it's done and

we can't do anything about that now. But we can do something about

making sure that continued desecration of that park doesn't continue. I

hope that the master plan, when it's presented to the public, will come

at that issue from the point of view of trying to enhance and protect

the park values that do exist in that area, because that actually in

the long term will serve as a greater generator of jobs and employment

than all of the industrial activity that could ever take place in that

park.

HON. MR. KEMPF: I thank the member for

North Island (Mr.

Gabelmann) very much for his very logical debate in my estimates

regarding parks. I must say, and I admit, that I know nothing of the

tale he tells about Jim Boulding. I too, after hearing the story, am

very sorry to hear that anyone should pass from us at the age of 54

years. I would appreciate very much if the member would make available

to me particulars of that situation.

[12:15]

Cape Scott: as far as the trail maintenance is concerned, as

the

member knows, I've only been in the ministry for slightly over three

months and I'm not totally familiar with all parks and all park

situations. That's why I talked earlier, though, of more of a parks

awareness in our province. I feel very strongly — and I said it earlier

— that our parks in British Columbia are our best kept secret. I think

we have to make our citizens aware of that resource, make them very

aware of what it is they have in parks, how those parks could be used

and where they are. I find, too, Mr. Member, that many people don't

realize the very vital resource that we do have. I think once we make

people aware of what it is we have in parks in our province, they too

would be very willing to expend more taxpayers' dollars in the area of

maintenance and upkeep and development of those parks. I intend, in my

term as the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, to make people of

this province more aware, and to seek additional funds for those

purposes.

The parks map: again, I guess we're talking about parks

awareness.

Certainly we should be promoting all parks in our province, whether

they be municipal or regional district parks, or whether they be parks

in the private sector. That's why I've extended to the private sector

an open-door policy whereby they can have input. That input will be

recognized by us, and hopefully, maps such as that of which you speak

will come out in the future, showing all of our parks. I see no reason

why municipal parks can't be in our parks map so that visitors to this

province and citizens alike are aware of just what we have in parks —

in all areas, not just in the northern half of Vancouver Island, as the

member has pointed out.

Strathcona Park. I accept the member's concern. Again I say I

am not

as enlightened as I would like to be about all of the parks in British

Columbia, and certainly in the months ahead I will attempt very

diligently to find out what problems plague our parks, and in

particular Strathcona, as it is one of our largest provincial parks and

certainly needs to have a lot of attention. I think all of our parks in

the system need more rationalization.

When you talk about what will or will not be done in our

parks.... Certainly I agree with public discussion. On a recent

open-line program in Burns Lake, in my own constituency, wherein live a

lot of people who are very concerned about our largest park in the

province, Tweedsmuir.... They were concerned, and I was too.

With all due respect to my colleague the Minister of

Environment

(Hon. Mr. Pelton), I very strongly felt that that Wilderness Advisory

Committee should have met in other areas of the province, particularly

Burns Lake because of its closeness to Tweedsmuir Park. It has been

suggested in the Wilderness Advisory Committee report that some logging

should be done in Tweedsmuir. I've polled the people living in the

vicinity of Tweedsmuir, and I've got to tell you that that's the last

thing that they ever want to see.

I take my direction from the people of this province, Mr.

Member, as

I think every elected representative should. I'm talking now of the

majority of the people. I will be doing that in regard to discussions

on Strathcona Park as well as Tweedsmuir Park and others in this

province. I agree fully with public discussion, and there will be

public discussion when changes are considered in our parks system.

MR. GABELMANN: I appreciate the commitment

that there will be

public discussion in respect of possible changes in Strathcona. Can the

minister give me some idea as to when that might happen?

HON. MR. KEMPF: I'm sorry, I can't do that.

I'm very new on the job. As soon as possible, Mr. Member.

MR. MacWILLIAM: First of all a general

question, or perhaps

some observations I've made with regard to B.C. parks facilities and

some general recommendations to forward to the minister. I don't know

if the minister has had an opportunity to travel through the province

recently, or at least since he's become Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing, or if he has had direct experience in utilizing a lot of the

provincial parks system. I bring to the minister observations that I

made last summer, when I went on a kind of a busman's holiday with

respect to my responsibilities as opposition debate leader for Tourism.

As the minister can well appreciate, the B.C. parks system and tourism

go hand in hand.

I draw my observations from an extended trip that actually

went down

the west coast from Port Angeles all the way down to the California

border and then looped back through the interior of Washington and

Oregon, up into British Columbia, through the Okanagan into the

Rockies, across from the Rockies into the Cariboo area and into the

northwest area of the province, over onto the Island, down the Island

and then back up through the Hope-Princeton. It was a fairly lengthy

trip, but I took the opportunity to look at the park

[ Page 8249 ]

facilities, and what was and wasn't

available,

talked to people, both visitors and local tourists and also compared

the facilities with what is offered in some of the northwest states.

Some of the observations I made.... I must admit that they are

more

mental notes than anything else, but I think they are valid even now.

When I went down through the U.S. states, particularly Oregon, which

has an excellent state park system, I found that what people demand —

at least what a lot of the U.S. tourists pretty well demand — is the

facilities to accommodate RV camping or tenting or whatever, those

facilities being washroom facilities, hot and cold running water, the

facilities to allow one to take a shower, amenities for washing

clothes, washer and dryer facilities. Pretty well when you travel down

through the States, you find that those are part and parcel of the

state park system. U.S. tourists pretty well demand that kind of

service when they travel.

I talked with many of the U.S. tourists travelling through

British

Columbia, and that is the comment or criticism they have of our present

park system. The park facilities themselves, the natural surroundings,

can't be argued with. We have a beautiful park system in terms of the

natural environment. Their criticism seems to be that although we've

got these great parks, and the initial facilities are well developed,

they don't have access to hot and cold running water to do their

laundry and stuff like that. I think it is a criticism that has to be

taken in terms of what we can do in the future to accommodate what is

becoming a more discriminating traveller, whether it be an RV traveller

or somebody even tenting. They are becoming more discriminating in what

facilities are available for their utilization.

A particular concern that I had, especially with the small day

parks.... When a tourist drops off to one of these day park facilities

and uses, for example — and I am totally serious with this — the

washroom facilities, in many cases they are in a deplorable state,

truly a deplorable state, where you can't really even walk in there

without almost choking on the air. I think that this is totally

unacceptable, in trying to offer what has been heralded as one of the

best tourist areas in North America, that we have such deplorable

conditions in our washrooms and the facilities in the day parks that

are available for our motoring public. I think — and I mean this in a

serious manner — that although it might seem a small problem, that when

a tourist comes to British Columbia and faces that kind of a facility,

it really turns them off; and we may not be getting the return visits

that we could be getting by encouraging them to come back. Perhaps the

minister would like to make some comments in that regard.

I think maybe I'll leave it at that and let the minister

comment. Then I've got some other things that I'd like to go over.

HON. MR. KEMPF: I thank the member for

Okanagan North for his

thoughtful debate. Yes, I guess, as one that was born and raised in

British Columbia, I've travelled the length and breadth, if you like,

of this province and have seen a lot of our parks. Not only that, Mr.

Member, I too am very familiar with Route 101, particularly that part

of it which runs through the state of Oregon. I've got to tell you in

this House that the state of Oregon probably has one of the finest

parks systems in the world, and they are to be congratulated for that.

It is a fantastic parks system, particularly on Route 101. Certainly it

is my wish, as the minister, to assure the people of British Columbia

that we, too, will work toward having that kind of parks system in

British Columbia.

I think we have to be very careful. You talked of running hot

and

cold water and those kinds of facilities. Certainly there are some of

our parks that have those kinds of facilities now, and there are more

that I wish to see have them. I think we've got to be very careful

though, Mr. Member. As you realize, the weather in Oregon and the

weather in British Columbia, particularly the northern two-thirds of

British Columbia, is a little bit different. There is a difference in

the length of season, etc. I think we have to be very careful. One of

the things that the ministry watches very closely when considering

upgrading a park to running water or whatever is that we don't go in

direct competition with a private operator. It's one of the things we

have to be very careful of. I don't intend to use taxpayers' money to

upgrade a provincial park if it follows that a private operator a mile

down the road goes out of business. That's not the intent of a parks

system, and that's certainly not my intent as the minister responsible

for parks. There are, however, many parks that could be upgraded to the

kinds of facilities of which you speak, and certainly we are taking a

look at that and do take a look at that at all times.

As to the cleanliness of some of our parks, yes, we do have a

problem, but it's certainly not the intent of the ministry or those

working in it that we have those kinds of conditions. We do, Mr. Member

— and I've heard this from a number of our people — have a very serious

problem with vandalism in the province of British Columbia where that

relates to our parks. I think it was just this morning I saw a

newspaper

article — not of one of our parks, but of vandalism that was

done in a park in this area, I believe. I just forget the particulars.

We do have a very real problem with vandalism. However, that's not to

say that we shouldn't be keenly aware of the fact that we may have

cleanliness problems in some area. Again, if you can bring that

information to me, certainly I'll talk to my people about it, and I can

assure you it will be rectified.

[12:30]

MR. MacWILLIAM: I could bring that

information to you and

will attempt to do so, because there are a number of specific instances

that come out very clearly in my mind in terms of unacceptable

standards. I appreciate the minister's comment in that regard. I don't

argue with the minister that there are many parks right now that do

have hot and cold running water, but I don't recall in my travels — I

might be wrong — staying in any provincial park that offered laundry

facilities. As a recommendation, perhaps you should look at this,

because that was certainly one criticism that came, again, particularly

from the U.S. travellers that I talked with. This is something they'd

really like to see. I'm sure the minister will take that recommendation

in the spirit in which it was given.

Moving on, and this is with one park in particular. To refresh

the

minister's memory, this is a letter written to the minister, I guess,

shortly after he became Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, under the

signature of Ms. Annette Devlin, who is the secretary of the Fauquier

community club, Fauquier being a small community on the east side of

the Arrow Lakes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Near Needles?

[ Page 8250 ]

MR. MacWILLIAM: Right across from where

Needles used to be,

except a little higher up. To refresh his memory, the letter is fairly

short so I will read it into the record.

"As concerned citizens of the Fauquier

community club,

we are inquiring as to who is responsible for the Fauquier provincial

day park. The park was constructed by the parks branch, but is not

being maintained. That is, there is no garbage pickup, no

grass-cutting, no washroom or picnic table maintenance. As there is no

campsite in Fauquier, the park is being used as one, therefore the

problem is twice as bad. At the same time, a boat ramp and breakwater

that were constructed are also in need of maintenance. Your cooperation

in remedying these problems would be appreciated."

I did contact Ms. Devlin and I asked her at that time if the

minister had responded and to forward the minister's response. Now the

lack of accompanying correspondence from the minister indicates that he

may not have, and perhaps he can clarify that. But I think more

important and to the point is, is the minister aware of this ongoing

problem and has he sought a means of rectifying the problem, as the

upcoming tourist season is basically now upon us?

HON. MR. KEMPF: No, I am not aware of the

Fauquier provincial

day park situation. I am sure I would have remembered it had it crossed

my desk. Maybe it just happened at that time when I was coming into the

ministry. But, Mr. Member, if you make a copy of that available to me

after the House rises, I can assure you that I will certainly look into

it.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, I will make

that copy available

to the minister. I ask that he deal with this matter as soon as

possible, because I know that the residents of that area are concerned

about that problem.

Another local problem — and I know the minister is aware of

this,

because I did get a response from him — involves access to Kalamalka

Lake Park, which is a class A park that was established some time ago.

As the minister is probably aware, he received a number of letters from

individuals who have summer cottages on the east side of the lake,

where the only access to those cottages is through parkland. The only

other means of access would be, of course, by water.

Now they had written the minister asking for assurance that

the road

would be kept open, because the road was basically an access road given

by permission of the former owner of the property — Coldstream Ranch, I

believe. The minister had given assurance that the road would be kept

open, but he did not, at least in his reply to my questions, mention

anything in terms of maintenance of the road facility. Now it's not a

public road, inasmuch as it would not come under the responsibility of

the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, and there is a problem

with maintaining the road. The residents had requested whether the

minister could assure them that there would be scheduled maintenance or

an attempt at maintaining the road, as it causes quite a few problems.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I trust that

the area the

member is talking about is that which is a little complicated, as far

as the property on the lake is concerned, in that the land belongs to

the Land Commission. Is that the same property we're talking about?

MR. MacWILLIAM: It's my understanding that

the land which the

road accesses through is actual parkland, so it is within the park

boundaries. As a matter of fact, the cottages are within the park

boundaries. The minister has given assurance that the road would be

kept open for access, but in a letter, if the minister would like to

peruse his files of March 7, 1986, I had written him directly asking

for confirmation as to the status of the road and plans for its

maintenance. The minister did respond by saying the road would be kept

open — those were his words — but did not respond in terms of the

question of maintenance. I wonder if he could do so now.

HON. MR. KEMPF: I remember the issue of the

road itself. But

I didn't realize, when sending the letter to the member, that there was

a problem with the maintenance. Having brought it again to my

attention, I will look into the matter once again and apprise him of

what can or will be done in regard to the maintenance of the road.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, to go back to

the minister on a

point that was raised during statement periods, and that is the present

problem, as perceived by local residents, with the leasing of Crown

foreshore to Okanagan Houseboats Ltd. along the Westbank area, I would

like to ask the minister, actually remind him, of a statement that he

made earlier in the discussion when the minister said that he takes

direction from the people of this province. I ask him why the petition

and why the opportunity for public debate of this matter was not given

to the residents who had voiced their concerns regarding the permit of

lease.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, this issue

came up and

apparently was going on prior to my becoming minister; and it came up

very early in my tenure as minister. The decision was made, and I

believe rightly so. Possibly there should have been more input, but

certainly I can assure the member that there's been an awful lot of

input to me since the decision was made to give that organization the

one-year lease.

Twenty-twenty is perfect hindsight, Mr. Member, but a one-year

lease

has been issued to this company now. That lease has been signed. As I

said earlier, they wanted more, a much longer lease. It was decided,

and I think rightly so, that they would be given a one-year lease. I

can assure you that they will be very, very closely scrutinized in

their first year of operation.

It's a one-year lease, and if they don't do things the way

they

should do them or the way the majority of the residents in and around

that area think they should be doing them, then at the end of a year

we're going to have to consider seriously what will have to be done

after that.

MR. MacWILLIAM: The land for the

development is apparently

claimed by both the Westbank band as a whole and also the band chief, I

believe, a Mr. Ron Derrickson. Was the minister aware at the time of

granting the lease that the ownership of the land itself was in

dispute? I'm talking in terms of the federal Indian land involved.

HON. MR. KEMPF: The answer, Mr. Chairman,

is no. We in this

ministry were involved, as I understand it, only with the foreshore

lease. It had nothing to do with the privately owned uplands land.

[ Page 8251 ]

MR. MacWILLIAM: Was the minister aware of

this situation,

which is presently before the federal House, and apparently a situation

that is involved with an ongoing RCMP investigation? Was he aware of

this at the time the lease was granted?

HON. MR. KEMPF: No, I was not. Again I say,

Mr. Chairman,

that there was no reason for me to be. We were concerned only with the

foreshore lease.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I mentioned earlier today

that there have

been two additional applications for commercial development on Okanagan

Lake. Those applications have been received by the Minister of Lands,

Parks and Housing. Apparently the first application — from Sundance

Estates Ltd. — calls for moorage facilities to be built on the lake

near Okanagan Mountain Park. The development is apparently to cover 17

hectares and 5,000 feet of frontage. The moorage is to be for 25 or 30

boats initially. Has the minister made a decision on this application?

HON. MR. KEMPF: The answer, Mr. Chairman,

is no. I can assure

the member that it and any other applications that may come before us

will be very closely scrutinized.

MR. MacWILLIAM: The second application made

is also an

application which impacts on the Westbank Indian reserve in Westbank

Bay. The application calls for a five hectare development at the bottom

of Gellatly Road in Westbank on a site which was previously a class C

park before being turned over to the Westbank band as part of a land

settlement. The plans outline a 15-site campground, a marina with fuel

and dock facilities and a float plane service centre with aviation fuel

sales. Was the minister in receipt of an application which included the

float plane centre with aviation fuel sales? Did the original

application contain this as part of the commercial plan?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. KEMPF: I am not aware of this

application as yet.

But I can assure the member that any such application will be given

very close scrutiny in view of the very rapid changes that are coming

about in the houseboat industry in the province of British Columbia.

MR. MacWILLIAM: For the minister's

information, the original

plan submitted to his ministry did not in fact contain provision for a

float plane centre. The plan that has been submitted to the Regional

District of Central Okanagan does include provision for this float

plane centre. Obviously there is a fairly significant discrepancy in

terms of the plans that have been submitted to the different offices.

The minister preempted me on a point that I was going to make:

the

fact that the number of commercial applications presently coming up

with regard to recreational activity on the lake are obviously having a

major impact in terms of the quality of life in the area. The minister

has said previously that he listens to the people. Will the minister

recognize the requests for a public inquiry or a process of public

hearing before proceeding any further with those applications?

[12:45]

HON. MR. KEMPF: Well, I will first have to

see those

applications before making such an undertaking. But I can assure you

once again, Mr. Member for Okanagan North, that there is concern in the

ministry as well for this very fast developing industry in our

province. It is being very closely looked at.

MR. D'ARCY: Fairly quickly, I too want to

stress a point made

by the member for Okanagan North, and that is the condition of some of

the roads leading to parks and right in the parks. In my constituency,

where the road has been black topped or paved at some point, it's in

pretty good shape. But where the roads have not been black topped or

paved, they are in very poor condition. Even the word pot-hole is

unreasonably bland. I would say some of the roads in campsites, such as

at Syringa Creek Provincial Park, are filled with — they are more like

chasms than potholes. There are other areas where in rainstorms you

certainly wouldn't want to drive too fast through some of those — I

won't say sinkholes — large ponds in case you damp down the

distributor. That's if your vehicle's of an age to have a distributor.

So anyway, I would hope that there would be some maintenance.

What I

would like to see is single-lane black topping. I think that would be

permanent, because where that has been done it has been permanent. You

don't get heavy traffic in parks. When I say heavy, I mean you don't

get logging and gravel trucks; you have campers and passenger vehicles.

So black topping lasts almost indefinitely, if the roadbed has been

done properly.

A second accessed area is Kokanee Glacier Park, the principal

road

being from the west arm of Kootenay Lake, with other access roads up

Lemon Creek and South Fork Creek. All are in very poor condition. These

roads were not built by Parks or by Highways. In most cases — I think

you would relate to this — they were built by mining companies. They

have reasonably good grades, but because it's mountainous country

they're subject to sudden runoff. The culverting and the ditches are

not, say, up to highway standards, because they were built for

industrial purposes. Certainly these roads need to be improved. They

give ordinary vehicles, including some four-wheel drive vehicles at

times, a very rough time in getting into these parks, which are very

popular, from a hiking and mountain-climbing point of view, especially

the west arm road into Kokanee Glacier Park.

Believe me, when you do get up on top there, the glacier does

look

just like the label on the beer bottle. You have to be right up there

to see it, but the person who did that graphic did capture it.

I want to reiterate what the member for Okanagan North (Mr.

MacWilliam) said regarding the hot-water facilities for showering in

parks. This is something that both the public sector and the private

sector in this province have really fallen down on. I get complaints

from boaters that there is no place to tie up. They're not looking for

something free, by the way; they don't mind sticking in quarters to get

a shower — a lot of quarters in some cases. The fact is that these

facilities simply are not available to people who travel by boat or

people who travel by vehicle.

In some areas, I think the minister would find that the

private

sector has looked after this to some degree. In other areas it hasn't,

and especially if the park is far removed from a commercial core. I

would like to see, as we have on the Prairies and in the states to the

south of us, facilities where needed where hot water is available,

primarily for showers

[ Page 8252 ]

and also as a secondary consideration

for doing

laundry. I agree totally with the member for Okanagan North that if we

want people to come and stay here and come back, we're going to have to

allow them the normal requirements of personal hygiene and laundry

hygiene.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to

make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. REYNOLDS: Up behind me in the gallery,

I think just

filing in, are a group of grade 11 students from the Pemberton

Secondary School and their teacher Dan Williams, and I hope the House

will make them welcome.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Just briefly to the member

for Rossland-Trail — and I take his comments in regard to roads to

heart — there seems to

be a bit of a grey area in some areas in regard to the roads to parks,

as to their maintenance. I'm beginning to find that out more and more.

Certainly, as I said to the member for North Okanagan, if you have some

particular road that is really bad and that needs immediate

maintenance, please make that available to me in writing so I've got

something in my hand that I can go to others with and find out what can

be done.

As far as Glacier Park is concerned, Mr. Member, if that's

where the

Kokanee is, certainly we've got to build a good road to it. But just

generally on roads in the Kootenays, I have undertaken as soon as is

humanly possible — hopefully soon when the House rises — to do a tour

of parks in your area and other areas in the Kootenays to find out for

myself. Certainly I will find out for myself what the roads are like.

I, too, have a concern for the building and upgrading of roads to our

parks system, because I feel that — and as I said earlier — it's a

forgotten resource, and we've got to make people aware of it. We've got

to make people want to visit our parks system. As far as the upgrading

of facilities, yes, where they aren't a threat to a private operator in

an area, certainly upgrading of facilities will be considered.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, just in summing

up, I think what

has made my job as debate leader in Parks easy is the neglect that has

taken place in the last five years. I sincerely hope that I do get some

assurance from the minister that there is going to be some upgrading,

that there is going to be some forward programs for the development of

parks.

If he is reviewing some of the past history of the parks

branch, one

I would ask him to really look at, and again it helps youth and it

creates jobs, is the revitalization of the youth program where students

were hired through the summer to do trail building and to give a

presence in the park doing some of the jobs. Maybe they are saying

they're saving money by contracting out, but it is important to protect

the parks, to stop the vandalism, the terror that takes place in some

parks in some of the out-of-the-way places, by having a presence there.

The youth group gave a lot of people jobs. It was good. Granted it was

part of the NDP policy of the conservation corps concept, but it's

still a good idea, and I hope that the minister does realize we have an

asset there with which we can build jobs, we can build progress, and we

can look at other future growth in our parks system.

I have a couple of local programs that I would like to bring

to the

minister's attention; I won't demand an answer right now, but I will

send it in letter form. One is the CN