1985 Legislative Session: 3rd 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 30, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6335 ]

CONTENTS

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 45). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 6335

Oral Questions

Japanese drift-net salmon fishery. Mr. Hanson 6335

Respect for the law. Mr. Reynolds –– 6335

Fair wages legislation. Mr. Reynolds –– 6336

Mr. Skelly

Export of fresh water. Mr. Lockstead –– 6336

Timber appraisal. Mr. Williams. –– 6336

Social assistance rates. Mr. Barnes –– 6337

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985 (Bill 42). Hon. Mr. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 6337

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing estimates. (Hon. Mr.

Brummet)

On vote 53: minister's office –– 6337

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. MacWilliam

Mr. Williams

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Passarell

Mrs. Dailly

THURSDAY, MAY 30, 1985

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Among the visitors in the gallery today is a

gentleman who has been in meetings with representatives of the Ministry

of Finance through the day. I wonder if the House would welcome Mr.

Mitsuaki Yahagi, associate director of Japan Centre for International

Finance in Tokyo.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to introduce my second

cousins from Scarborough, Ontario: Ben and Marie Bower. They are in

your gallery this afternoon, and I wish the House would make them

welcome.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I would like the assembly today to welcome the mayor of Prince George, Elmer Mercier, who's sitting in the members' gallery.

MR. MICHAEL: I'd like the House to make welcome another guest in the House today: the mayor of the city of Vernon, Lyall Hanson.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the assembly to welcome 35

students from the Zion Lutheran elementary school in sunny Cloverdale,

home of the world famous Cloverdale Rodeo. Would the assembly make them

welcome, please.

Introduction of Bills

FINANCE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

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

a bill intituled Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1985.

Bill 45 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Oral Questions

JAPANESE DRIFT-NET SALMON FISHERY

MR. HANSON: In the absence of the Minister of Environment

(Hon. Mr. Pelton) with his responsibility for fisheries, I wish to

direct a question to the Premier. The United States government is

holding bilateral talks with Japan this week and again next Tuesday in

Seattle to reduce the high volume of Alaska salmon, approximately 12

million pounds, intercepted by the Japanese high-seas drift-net fishery.

Despite being a signatory to the international North Pacific Fisheries Convention

with Japan and the U.S., our government has declined an opportunity to pursue

a similar reduction in the interception of B.C. salmon by the Japanese drift-net

fleet. My question is: what steps has the provincial government taken to pressure

their federal counterpart to amend the 1952 treaty with Japan and the United

States to protect millions of pounds of B.C. chum, chinook and steelhead salmon

now taken by the Japanese? Will the Premier demand that Canada participate in

next Tuesday's meeting?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Inasmuch as any discussions would take

place with our Ministry of Environment, I'll take the question on

notice for the minister.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, a new question. As the Premier is

aware, surely, the technology of high-seas drift-net fishing as

practised by Japan, Korea and Taiwan is extremely destructive, killing

many species of fish, porpoises, whales, seals and seabirds. It is

closer to deep-sea strip mining than fishing. Every night these nations

set more than 3,000 miles of drift-net in the North Pacific....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. HANSON: My question, Mr. Speaker: what steps has the B.C.

government taken to pressure the federal government to include other

Asian nations in the North Pacific treaty and to regulate the drift

fishing more carefully?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Again, Mr. Speaker, any discussions that

took place between the federal and provincial governments would be

through the Ministry of Environment. The minister is not here, and I

will take this question and any other questions that follow the same

line as notice.

MR. HANSON: A new question, Mr. Speaker. I am assuming that

the Premier is the leader of the government and is aware of the general

policy directions of this government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, this is question period, and the member must state a question at some point.

MR. HANSON: My new question, Mr. Speaker, is: the Premier

will visit Japan and Korea next month. Has the Premier decided to

include on his agenda talks with these governments on including them in

the treaty in protecting B.C. salmon?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, my trip is trade-related, to

do with specific industries, and no meetings such as this have been

scheduled. However, ministers from the government in conjunction with

their federal counterparts make trips of this nature from time to time,

and I'm sure the Minister of the Environment would respond as to

whether he has prepared with the federal government to hold any such

discussions.

RESPECT FOR THE LAW

MR. REYNOLDS: I have a question for the Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Smith). I asked him a question yesterday with regard to

statements made by the Leader of the Opposition. I would like to quote

that statement again. He is quoted as saying: "Because the principle of

democracy is not simply respect for the law. It is based on respect for

the law but not blind obedience to bad laws." Can the Attorney-General

advise this House if it is an offence under the Criminal Code to

advocate disobedience to bad laws in this province?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, having received this question, I

tried to trace the source of the quotation, and I looked to see whether

in fact it was a speech made in Nicaragua or whether it was made in

Vancouver. But I guess I

[ Page 6336 ]

would first of all say that it probably was a remark reported out of context, because he is quoted to have said in the Times-Colonist :

"Because the principle of democracy is not simply respect for the law.

It's based on respect for the law but not blind obedience to bad laws."

The answer to the member's question would be no, it's not a criminal

offence, however reprehensible it might be to advocate the disobedience

of laws. It is not a criminal offence. If it was a counsel to advocate

the change of government by force, it would be seditious; if it was to

counsel the disobedience of an order of the court, it would be contrary

to the Criminal Code. But even if correctly quoted, the statement does

not offend the criminal law.

FAIR WAGES LEGISLATION

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, another question for the

Attorney-General with regard to the NDP farm team on the city council

in Vancouver: can the minister advise, in view of the action taken by

that council on the fair wage on contractors bidding for contracts...?

To protect the taxpayers of Vancouver, has the Attorney-General looked

into this action taken by this council in view of the Charter of Rights

of Canada?

[2:15]

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I have not, Mr. Speaker, but I will look

at that from the standpoint of the equality

section of the Charter of

Rights to see whether or not in fact it would amount to a

discrimination against a class or group of persons by reason of their

not being members or being members of that class. I would certainly

look at that. But I would think that my colleague the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) might be interested in the policy

from a different standpoint.

MR. SKELLY: Supplementary. Has the Attorney-General

considered repealing the B.C. fair wages legislation, which is very

similar to that passed in Vancouver?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I haven't given that consideration, but

most certainly that would be another representation that the member

could make to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty).

EXPORT OF FRESH WATER

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing. On May 15, 1985, the minister issued licence

of occupation No. 232354 to Coast Mountain Aquasources. Will the

minister confirm that the purpose and effect of this lease is to export

fresh water from British Columbia by tanker from the Freil Lake Falls

near Jervis Inlet?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Not having an infallible memory or

remembering all of these leases by number, I would like to take the

question as notice. I can bring back the correct information.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: To the same minister, a new question. In view

of the strong position of the local citizens, the Sunshine Coast

Regional District, several local organizations, myself and many other

people living in the area who opposed the issuance of this lease, why

did the minister issue this licence in secret, without the benefit of

public hearings?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Again, when I bring back the other information I will be able to answer the rest of the member's question.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, a new question to the same

minister. In view of the local tourism industry and the rapidly growing

mariculture and aquaculture industry in the area, has the minister

decided to table the environmental studies he has conducted into the

possible effects of this operation? Have there been any studies, Mr.

Minister?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Again, I will try to bring back to the member a complete answer on the whole issue when I respond to the first part.

TIMBER APPRAISAL

MR. WILLIAMS: A question to the Minister of International

Trade and Investment. With respect to the group of congressmen who were

in Vancouver earlier this week meeting with the Council of Forest

Industries and others on the question of more protection in preventing

our lumber from crossing the border, and their concern about empirical

evidence that suggests we underprice our timber by our stumpage

methods, and in view of the fact that the Ministry of Forests is

considering even more beneficial systems for the companies, has the

minister asked the other minister to forgo the decision with respect to

changing our valuation system as the companies have requested in view

of these problems that are on the horizon?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, I'd

have to advise him that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland)

and I have consultations almost daily on a number of issues. I thank

the member for being so concerned.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's my understanding that the new system,

which will be more beneficial for the companies and more threatening

for British Columbia as exporters, in fact is in the works and is

scheduled for October of this year, despite the minister's earlier

statements. In view of your many consultations, have you convinced the

minister to change his mind with respect to that?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Again, I appreciate the member's question

and your concern and state that the Minister of Forests and I have many

consultations over a wide variety of subjects relating to the forest

industry, international trade and a number of other issues. I would

hope that we will continue to have that cooperation that has existed

among all cabinet ministers on this side. I appreciate your question.

MR. WILLIAMS: And I appreciate the answer. But the crux of

the matter is: our low-price stumpage system, a new one designed by

industry, threatens us in terms of the American border more than ever.

Does the minister take that seriously? Has he urged the minister to

stop forthwith the decision with respect to a new system more

beneficial to industry which is to be in place in October of this year?

[ Page

6337 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question,

I would like to say that both the Minister of Forests and I, and all our cabinet

colleagues, are concerned about international trade, and we're concerned

about investment. That is why we were so happy when the federal government turned

FIRA, an agency against investment in Canada — which was supported by the NDP

caucus in Ottawa and the NDP opposite in this House.... We were chastised for

bringing in foreign investment. That's why we were so pleased when the new

federal government changed the Foreign Investment Review Act and turned FIRA

into Investment Canada. My colleague the Minister of Forests and I have had

many consultations on that very subject.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE RATES

MR. BARNES: A question to the Minister of Human Resources.

During this month of May more than 14,000 bags of groceries have been

given to needy people in the lower mainland; 85 percent are registered

with your ministry on social assistance. Hundreds more were turned

away, after hours of waiting in line, when the food ran out. Donor

generosity and the help of volunteers has been outstanding. But does

the minister realize that social assistance rates are deplorably

inadequate for even the barest of accommodation and diet?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the member

has said in the

preamble to his question, I understand that figures are

not kept as to whether or not the recipients are income assistance

recipients or not. The efforts of the food bank organizations, which

are voluntary efforts.... Those records are kept by them. We have no

knowledge of them. However, I am told by others that no record is kept.

But it is totally a voluntary organization and one I cannot respond to,

because it does not come under the aegis of the provincial government

or my ministry.

MR. BARNES: I would suggest to the minister that whether it's

85 percent, 50 percent or even 10 percent, those rates are nonetheless

inadequate. I wonder if the minister has considered reassessing the

effectiveness of the rates in light of the fact they have been frozen

for the past three years.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, in order to assist those

people who have come to us in need during a very difficult recession,

we are spending more today on income assistance than we have ever spent

on income assistance. I might say that people who come to us in need

are given the assistance consistently.

Introduction of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1985

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

a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985.

Bill 42 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply: Mr. Strachan in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

LANDS, PARKS AND HOUSING

On vote 53: minister's office, $195,365.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like to make a few remarks before

we get into the detailed analysis of the estimates. I'm certainly

pleased to present these estimates to the House for the 1985-86 fiscal

year.

I would like to indicate that the focus of our budget for this

coming year is on increasing, wherever we can, the business

opportunities which will enable the private sector to produce more jobs

in the province in support of the government's economic renewal drive.

In our parks we are expanding private sector opportunities to provide

visitor services; we are, of course, retaining ownership and control of

the parks. We are inviting the business community to come forward with

proposals for the productive use of Crown land, and in the housing

areas we intend to increase private sector competitiveness to provide

both regular and subsidized housing. Last year the ministry

successfully privatized three ski hills, released the UEL golf course,

and contracted with the private sector to provide all the services in

60 parks, in addition to awarding 75 contracts for the private sector

to provide a variety of specific services in other parks. The level of

services provided was consistently high, with a cost saving of about 30

percent achieved through these measures.

During the coming year we intend to increase the number of parks

that will be totally serviced by the private sector. This will result

in new jobs being created, especially in the smaller communities

located near the more remote provincial parks. With that type of

service we can get better service and maintenance in those smaller

parks. We are retaining the operations in the larger parks ourselves.

To ensure our parks are well equipped to handle the anticipated

inflow of visitors during 1986, we're proposing to double the amount of

money spent on park maintenance as compared with 1984. These funds will

be spent on renovating buildings, upgrading water systems, repairing

trails and bridges, grading and resurfacing roads and improving

existing facilities for boaters and canoeists to meet the increasing

popularity of water-oriented recreation in our parks. To fund this

increased capital maintenance program, $3.8 million has been allocated

in our vote, and Treasury Board has approved an extra $3 million from

the Crown land account.

I'm also pleased to advise the House that for the first time in many

years $3 million has been allocated to develop new facilities. These

funds will come from the Crown land account and will be used in those

parks where visitor demand is heaviest. It will also help to keep more

British Columbians vacationing in the province, as well as attracting

visitors coming to British Columbia.

All of these plans reflect the government's commitment to our

provincial parks not only to meet the recreational needs of our own

growing population but as a magnet to attract visitors to our province.

We expect these expanded facilities will play a significant role in the

economic growth of the province's tourist industry. I believe the time

has now come to progressively promote our parks — their incredible

scenic

[ Page 6338 ]

and recreational opportunities, which I think are unsurpassed anywhere in the world.

With the international focus in 1986 on Expo, there's no better time

for us to promote our parks as part of our contribution to the economic

goals of this government. My staff are working closely with the

Ministry of Tourism to develop a promotional program for our parks

which will be integrated with Tourism's overall marketing strategy for

the province as a whole. The promotion will be aimed at increasing the

level of awareness among British Columbians about the diversity of

things to do and see in our parks. In this way we are hoping to convert

all British Columbians into potential salesmen for their province and

their parks.

I know there may be some criticisms about an imperfect system, but I

would hope that all British Columbians, including the members of the

opposition, would help us to promote our parks for the wonderful

recreational values that they present. Recent studies have indicated

that about 40 percent of the visitors to the province are coming to

stay with friends and families residing here, so by turning our British

Columbians into salesmen for our parks we expect them to encourage

their visitors to stay a little longer and to enjoy these amenities.

Turning to the Housing area, the home ownership market appears to

have stabilized over the past year. Prices are down and interest rates

have moderated, as everyone is aware. This is particularly gratifying

to me. When we introduced the B.C. home program three years ago,

interest rates were high and the program was introduced to help people

with their mortgage payments over those difficult times. This program

has paid out over $95 million to some 52,000 home buyers so that they

could afford to keep their homes. Obviously that was a lifeline to

those people.

We are also currently processing about 500 applications a month for

the B.C. second mortgage program — up to $10,000 on moderately priced

homes. This program will continue. I'm sure the House will be pleased

to know that it is now completely self-funded through repayments of

earlier mortgages. This program is particularly useful in smaller

communities where adequate financing may not always be available. We

are proposing to fund 200 housing units for senior citizens, to be

constructed primarily in smaller communities over the next year or two.

This construction activity is expected to result in about 210 man-years

of private sector employment and, of course, will provide good

facilities for the seniors where the need is the greatest.

[2:30]

Housing for seniors will also be encouraged during the year by the

private sector, where there are opportunities to make land available

for construction of seniors projects. My ministry will be providing

society with examples of how this can be achieved without the need of

government intervention or subsidies.

In addition to the seniors program, we intend to fund about 150

units of housing for the disabled this year to continue our efforts

towards independent living in their own communities for this needy

group of people.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I want to take the opportunity to give

public recognition to those members of my ministry who worked so

diligently and creatively last year to ensure that people being

relocated from the Tranquille institution had homes to go to in their

own communities, and that this was achieved with a minimum of

disruption to those being relocated.

My ministry is continuing its efforts to ensure that social housing

is well targeted and cost-effective. Federal-provincial negotiations

are continuing, to ensure that housing affordability problems are

addressed through income support, reserving a supply of subsidized

housing for those with the combined problems of affordability and

housing adequacy, such as seniors and the disabled. Our concern to

ensure a supply of serviced residential land remains, but we have found

that this goal can be achieved by the private sector with less

government intervention.

The ministry is now engaged in a review of its pricing policies for

Crown land and the methods used for determining land values in order to

establish appropriate rents. New rental rates and purchasing prices

have recently been announced to help agricultural leaseholders complete

the development and purchase of farmland. We have announced a new

policy which is a more rational basis for assessing lease and rental

fees to marinas and fishing and tourist resorts. We have managed to

simplify dramatically the trapline licence and trapline cabins, and we

have rationalized and put out new policy for the oil and gas lease fees

which has been well accepted by the industry. The intent of the reviews

is to ensure that a fair return to the Crown for the use of public land

complements the development and the expansion of business opportunities

for Crown land.

I'm sure that there will be some questions, and I'd be very pleased

to provide that information as the estimate debate continues here, Mr.

Chairman. I'd just like to say that in our Crown land disposition

program we anticipate disposition of about 2,500 parcels of land to

individuals and corporations in British Columbia for industrial,

commercial, agricultural and recreational uses. One of our emphases

these last couple of years has been to simplify and expedite land

dispositions in the province, and I think we are achieving some results.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the members of my

ministry for the excellent support that they are providing to make new

policies work and to assist us in expediting land or dealing with

problems and in providing new land dispositions. My assistant deputy

minister, Mr. Andrew Armitage, will be here to assist me, and hopefully

we can answer any of the questions that members may have.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I think what I would like to put

on the record to begin with.... I think it's not your fault and it's

not the minister's fault; I think somewhere along the line it is the

House Leaders' fault that they consider the debate in this Legislature

in such an offhanded manner that this morning we had three ministries

that our caucus was informed were going to be coming up for debate, and

at 11 o'clock I was told that Lands, Parks and Housing was coming up in

15 minutes. I think we should put it on record, because if we're going

to have an intelligent debate on the resources of this province, there

should be some orderly planning, in advance, of what debates shall come

up, and it shouldn't be thrown in at the last minute.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, to the estimates, please.

MR. MITCHELL: I know the minister is under attack on this.

So to get on to the most important part of this debate right now.

This is, I believe, the lack of policy on long-range programs in the

park branch that has taken place under the

[ Page 6339 ]

present minister and during the last two or three

years. I am convinced, Mr. Chairman, that the park branch of this

province can be the foundation for a new industry that will provide

jobs in every community. But without some longrange programming, some

long-range planning and some proper promotion with a policy that is

going to lay guidelines down that will be maintained.... And I think,

if we go back, three years ago was the beginning of the erosion of the

services in the parks and the beginning of the cutbacks that took place

within the Parks ministry that started a deterioration of the services

and a deterioration of the industry as a whole. I know the minister and

all his deputies will agree that there is a real drop in the morale of

those people, those very competent planners, foresters and staff

people, who for 30 years have laid down some programs to develop parks

in British Columbia — the different types of parks, the wilderness

parks, the parks closer to the cities, and some of the sophisticated,

high-investment ski-lifts. Maybe the minister and I share the belief

that a lot of money was put in the wrong places by past Social Credit

governments; and maybe that drained a lot of money out of the Parks

estimates for services that should not have taken place. But I won't

get into that particular part of it at this point.

I believe that if we are going to develop a parks system that we can

sell to the tourist industry, we must provide a number of services. I

believe that the minister shares this with me. If he reads the

documents and the studies done by a lot of competent people in his own

ministry.... They did surveys of a cross-section of the 15 million

people who use our parks throughout a year, and one of the most

important requests, demands or suggestions was proper security in the

parks system. We do not have a security system that can only be given

by a properly developed park ranger program. It's easy to say that

we're going to spend $1 million to develop a wilderness park and

encourage people to come into that area. Individuals and families are

coming into rural areas, the local citizens come down, there are

parties, there are drunken brawls, and there is no sense of security.

No one coordinates things in the park, to either bring in the police or

to give protection.

Parks are being allowed to deteriorate. The minister and his staff

realize that. They're cutting back on the number of people available to

service parks. The staff have been cut back. The auxiliaries have been

cut back to the point that park personnel are travelling from one park

to another, and consequently the resident park security people needed

to give that sense of security that a park ranger program would ensure

— and I think that has to be a part of what you are promoting.... We

are in hard economic times right now. All of us who have anything to do

with rural camping, with park camping, know about the high number of

thefts and the huge amount of vandalism that have taken place in every

area where you keep cutting back the park staff and the park support

groups needed there.

Instead of cutting back, instead of decentralizing all the services,

it is important that we not only supply the basic parks but also

provide — and expand — some sort of park ranger program, which has

never been put into operation in British Columbia. In the past there

were more people working in the parks branch; there were more people

staying in parks on a regular basis. But today.... I believe it started

three years ago with the collection of fees. They come in in the

morning, run around and collect them, and then move on after they've

emptied a few garbage cans to go to another park. That's taking place

all across British Columbia, and if you manage to get in early and keep

moving, you don't pay your fees.

I'm not saying that it should be done solely to collect the money.

But I think that if you're going to promote throughout North America

and even throughout British Columbia.... I say a tourist is anyone who

is 50 miles away from home. If he's living in a tent or a trailer, and

he's involved in camping with his family, he is a tourist, and he

should be given that security.

Another program that I think the minister was aware of when they cut

it out is the youth employment program, which was very effective in

British Columbia. It was effective for a number of reasons. It created

jobs for 15-to- I 8-year-old students between July and August. They had

an opportunity to go out and work under the direction of the parks

branch people. They were given an opportunity to understand the need of

the park, the need of the services in the park, the development of the

trails, the identification of the various trees, and also the

identification of the natural resources in that part of British

Columbia where the park was developed.

[2:45]

I think that if we're going to look at our park system, if we're

going to look at our tourist system, if we're going to look at all the

major development of British Columbia, we must look at it not only from

the jobs position; but we are developing an industry. The minister says

that the industry of tourism is going to be one of the major economic

needs to be developed in B.C. to create employment. I believe that with

a proper parks policy we can create something that is going to be

long-lasting; and it's going to give B.C. the shot in the arm. But

there have to be some policy guidelines. So many times the policy

guidelines seem to change; the goalposts seem to change. I think the

minister will agree with me that they change from month to month, year

to year. They'll spend a million dollars one month, and the next month

they will change their whole direction and do something completely

opposite.

I think the biggest example of that blunder, of lack of policy, was

Manning Park. The minister in question period earlier this week stated

that they spent $350,000 to install a new generator in Manning Park.

They spent another large sum in upgrading the ski lifts and the

facilities in the motel end of it. They did all that, and then they

changed the policy. They changed the policy and said: "Well, we're

going to sell it. We're going to get out of the ski lift industry and

the motel industry." And they sold an asset that the minister says

could be replaced for $12 million, but if you go through all your

estimates and budgets over the last 30 years that Manning Park has been

here. the investment that's gone into Manning Park is close to $20

million. You can take the figures, but still they gave away an asset

after spending taxpayers' money on that asset to the tune of $1.5

million just recently; then they sold it away for two and a half cents

on the dollar.

This is the problem: the ministry does not have any direction. It

doesn't seem to react to what I think this asset could be. That asset

is a wonderful resource we have in British Columbia. The parks can be

the foundation of developing more jobs and developing more industry.

It's easy to say we're going to privatize; that this is going to

create new jobs; that we're going to put it all out to local

businesses. Really, what the minister is trying to say.... The

philosophy of the government and the philosophy of the Fraser Institute

is to get rid of public servants. I don't think

[ Page 6340 ]

the minister, when he goes through the estimates of

what it costs to provide services in the park.... I don't think they

are going to be any less. But what you're going to see happen is that

because of the desire for employment people will be putting in bids to

provide a service in the park: to maintain it, to clean it up, or to

provide firewood, or to pick up the garbage, or to go around and

collect the fees. You can always get somebody who will put in a price

that is cheaper than the person last year. Any one of us who has worked

in construction, or any of us who has been in the business community,

knows that if price is the only criterion. there is always somebody who

will sharpen his pencil just a little finer. But what happens? They cut

back on the service that they are giving. This is natural. It's a

natural part of the economy. If you cut down the quality of the

product, you're going to cut down on the service. I know the minister

will say, "Yes, if they cut down on the quality, they won't get an

opportunity to bid next year," but that really doesn't work. What

happens within the bureaucracy is that there is another group that

comes in with another set of sharp pencils, and they will put in a

price that will cut back.

What's happening is that you're going to erode a park policy that

has grown since the late forties, through the fifties, sixties,

seventies. You're going to erode the policy that established B.C. parks

as one of the finest park systems in North America. We were so far

ahead of many jurisdictions in the quality of parks services and park

development that we either took the position that we could mark time

and let it go back.... Because the government had certain other

priorities, they were going to cut back on the money that went into the

park ministry. The minister, who is one of the biggest, the most

athletic and the most bombastic, should have fought a little harder. I

think he kind of wimped out; he's just going along with whatever are

the priorities of the government. I feel sorry for him.

I feel sorry that he would back off, that he wouldn't fight to

maintain something that was there. He took the easy way out and said:

"We're going to privatize it. We're going to lay off all the

auxiliaries. We're going to cut back." In my own riding they cut back

one of the finest workshops which produced some of the highest quality

park equipment. Over the years it has proven that their prices on the

products they turned out were cheaper than the people who came in and

competed to provide the tables, the outhouses, the signs. The workshop

was developed under previous administrations — very competent. The

parks branch had very competent personnel — well trained, strongly

dedicated, and they were doing something. They were allowed to proceed

with direction, but they didn't overrun.

Somewhere along the line there was, I believe — I'm quite sure the

minister is aware of it — a division of how much money should go into

sophisticated ski facilities and how much into wilderness parks. As a

person who cannot ski, I was cheering for those who were going to

develop more trails, more wilderness parks, more camping facilities.

For every million dollars, I'm sure they could have put in more park

facilities. They could have enlarged the availability of parks closer

to the major cities, which I think there is.... People who come from

Prince George, from the Peace River, don't want to go to a wilderness

area. They would like to come down to the cities — Vancouver, Victoria

— to enjoy the sights of the bright lights. The park facilities could

be enlarged and made available to British Columbians.

I know there's always a certain amount of complaint from the hotel

owners who say that it's unfair competition, when people come into the

major cities, if they don't stay in hotel rooms and pay their $50 and

$60 a night; that it's unfair competition when British Columbians come

down and enjoy some of the park facilities that their tax dollar has

been spent on — facilities outside Trail or Chase or Kitimat. There is

a need to provide services to British Columbians. I get kind of sick

and tired when I listen to the Minister of Tourism go around and say:

"We're going to privatize everything; we're not going to have

competition against the existing motels." The majority of motels that

grew up around provincial parks grew up to take the overflow. They

moved in there because the previous park policy was to develop these

resources, to develop the areas in the wilderness and various sections

of British Columbia. Tax money went in there to develop that area, and

then the overflow was taken up by the private developers, the private

campground operators and the motels.

A lot of people want to go to those areas but they don't want to

camp out in the wilderness. They want to visit the lakes, the

mountains, and they would rather have the motels. But what I feel is

happening with this attack on the parks by certain people in the motel

and campground industry is that they are zeroing in on the parks as if

they are the villain, the unfair competition. All these parks were

developed by previous administrations with their tax dollars — not to

compete but to develop facilities and services for the people of

British Columbia. They are attacking the goose that laid the golden

egg. I think that the minister, through his policies over the last two

or three years of cutting back on the services and cutting back on the

money that is spent in maintaining an asset of this type, is maybe

playing into the hands of the private park owners. The people he is

letting down are the citizens of British Columbia, the families who

want to take their children out to camp in safety in parks and camp

with some of the facilities we have.

I know another study that was made by the parks branch. It called

for improvements in some of the facilities available. After security,

the need for flush toilets and hot showers topped the list. When you

look at what we have.... We have an asset there. We have a lot of

active children and families, and we have people coming and going. We

are going out to encourage people from all over North America to come

and view British Columbia, to come and share some of the beauty and the

resources that we have. We're not inviting them.... I don't think we're

doing it from a benevolent point of view; we are doing it because it's

good money. There's good money in the tourist industry, and there is a

need to bring in tourist money to develop this new job concept.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Along with providing the proper security, jobs for youth and

reinstatement of the youth program, providing hot showers is not asking

too much for the millions of dollars that B.C. taxpayers have invested

in developing our parks. We have an investment. It's not something that

grew there. When you go back over the many budgets that the parks

branch has had, there are millions of dollars that have gone into

developing those assets. I think any contractor or any developer will

tell you that you're going to put in anywhere from 2 to 3 percent just

to maintain the asset in what was developed. An extra 1

[ Page 6341 ]

percent not just to maintain it, not allow it to

erode, but to improve it is just good economic common sense that

somehow this free enterprise government has failed to practise.

"We're going to cut back, we're going to privatize, we're

going to sell our assets." This is stupid. Is that an unparliamentary word,

Mr. Chairman? If it is, I take it back, but if it's not stupid it's

bad economic planning and it's bad for the tourist industry.

[3:00]

These are the approaches that we have to take. I say "we" as members

of the Legislature. There is so much that we can sell. I was really

disappointed that the minister didn't give any long-range objectives

about what we are going to do. There was nothing on what the

government's policy is on the development of the Cascade wilderness

area. When you go in to study the history of the Cascade wilderness, we

have in that area some of the historical trails that were put in by the

old British engineers, by the gold rush people, by pioneers that

developed British Columbia. These are historical trails. If we don't

preserve them.... And I think the Minister of Parks has a

responsibility to the people of British Columbia, not only the present

generation but the generation that is coming after us, and the

generation that is coming after them. We must — and I say we, because

after the next election I think there's going to be a change in the

minister's position — preserve those particular trails, and we must

have some program that is going to ensure that that area is developed

to its fullest economic potential. There have been many studies, and I

know the minister and the cabinet are fully aware of them all. The

harvesting of what little timber there is in that area is not going to

produce the amount of revenue that really would justify the destruction

of a lot of the historic trails in there right now. When you

realize.... It's not that I think anyone in the forest industry would

go out there and deliberately destroy the trails for any feeling of

vandalism or destruction.

If you study it, all those trails follow the lines of least

resistance. They all followed the easy routes through that area. It

didn't matter if it was the original gold rush people, the original

settlers, or the British engineers who put the roads through; they

followed the lines of least resistance.

HON. MR. GARDOM: All trails lead to Rome.

MR. MITCHELL: I didn't know Rome was up in the interior.

What happens when you turn that area loose — and you say you're

going to log it — the same engineering policies as the initial ones....

They're going to try to follow the same roads when they put their

logging roads into that area, and they're going to destroy part of

history.

I was disappointed. Of all the long-range parks programs that we

must have in British Columbia, that was one.... Nothing came from the

minister to give us any direction as to where we're going to go. Those

hundreds of people and those thousands of dollars that have gone into

the study of the Cascade wilderness park, and not a word has come out.

Where is the government going to go? More important, what is the

minister recommending to the government?

I see my light is green. I've covered a number of topics, and I would wait for the minister's answers.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I must say that I'm in a bit of a quandary as to how to respond to what the member has said.

He talked about the drastic and dramatic cuts that have been made. I

guess it's his philosophy that if somehow or other it isn't done

in-house or by public servants, then it can't be done properly. So he's

talking about cuts. Would the member please refer to the estimates

book. This year our amount for parks and outdoor recreation in the

basic budget is up from last year. Then there is another S6 million for

capital maintenance and new parks development.

The member must not have been listening to my opening comments,

because I referred to the fact that in the past year we have added

parks, wilderness areas and campgrounds, and we have developed them.

We've done a great deal of that. We have, through privatization.... If

the member recalls my opening remarks, the savings in the same

operations are in the range of 30 percent. With our budget at the same

level, we are able to have our trained parks people doing more in their

capacities. I find nothing strange about having someone else, if they

can do it cheaper, provide the wood, check the toilets — clean the

toilets and provide the toilet paper — collect the fees and that sort

of thing. I have no problem with someone else doing that so that our

parks people can do their job better, and that's what is happening.

As for the morale that the member is talking about, I'm not quite

sure where he's getting his information. As I travel around, I find

that our people are pleased that they don't have to do some of these

tasks and that they are doing more parkstrained professional functions.

Where the member is getting that....

He's talking about a lack of policy in Parks and a lack of orderly

planning. I'm sorry, I can't accept either one of those. Our

philosophy, our policy for parks remains the development of

recreational opportunities and the preservation of wilderness areas,

because those are the things that attract people to the outdoors.

As far as some of the park development in or near urban areas that

he's talking about is concerned, if people want to camp there and use

these closer to the facilities.... In the last few years we have given

free Crown grants to municipalities and regional districts all over

this province — I think it may be in the range of $21 million to $30

million worth of land. We don't see the need for us to be trying to

manage from a distance a park that is of primarily local interest.

We're allowing that. We're providing that. We have purchased land. We

have provided free Crown land to these areas. There are a lot of

community and regional parks that have been developed all over this

province by the regional districts, by the municipalities. Just because

we don't hire a bunch of people and send them in ourselves and step on

the municipality's toes does not mean that this is not happening. We

are supporting them. We are helping them. Our people can provide that

type of support.

The member says something about surveys about security in parks. I'm

not aware of that survey, and certainly I get a lot of correspondence

on our parks, and I get complimentary letters about our parks. So when

you're talking about attacking the park system, Mr. Member, I would

suggest that you're the one that's attacking it. I and my staff are

supporting and trying to develop the parks. There have been security

problems and vandalism problems in our parks. Our people now can do a

much better job of that.

Getting back to this business of privatizing the operation of these

parks, we're getting more money or more value for the taxpayers'

dollars. In the surveys that we've seen, informal surveys and letters

that I get in the office, we're getting

[ Page 6342 ]

people saying that they don't notice any difference

in the operation, or that it's a better operation. Not in our major

parks; there our staff is on duty, and they're doing

interpretation and

so on. But in the smaller parks, in the rural parks. we're finding that

if someone takes on the contract to deal with this, they can drop in

for an hour in the morning, an hour in the middle of the day, an hour

at night, as it suits the purpose, and they are doing a much better

job.

Whereas when we had to send people in from a distance, they might

get there one day a week to look at this. These people are looking

after it on a continuing basis, so actually the maintenance of the

parks in many cases is very much better.

Perhaps I should dispel the Manning Park issue. Again, I don't know

where the member gets his information. I had agreed with the member

that there was some money spent on a generator, but I didn't have the

exact particulars. The $350,000 figure comes from him or from wherever.

But it certainly.... We were operating Manning Park, so we continued to

keep the equipment in operating condition. That's the type of thing

that we spent. I don't know where this claim comes from.

The only significant work performed at Manning Park at the

generating plant involved a $30,000 expenditure on the generator that

services the ski hill at Gibson Pass. This work was performed in the

fall of 1983, and it was necessary to ensure safe operation of the ski

hill for the winter of 1983-84. This was the first season of a private

operation in which we gave a one-year permit to Mr. Cook and Mr.

Wilkinson to operate the ski area. We can't very well give them a

permit to operate a ski area with a generator or something that isn't

working. You generally turn over a working operation. So $30,000 was

spent on the generator. The only other one that I could think of was

that in 1978 a 600-kilowatt generator was installed at an approximate

cost of $130,000. That was when we were operating the park.

The other thing is, the member works up his figures from past

estimates. That probably included operating costs of Manning Park.

Certainly that is one of the reasons we have privatized it, because we

were losing $400,000 to $500,000 per year of the taxpayers' money to

keep a ski hill in operation, and to keep a restaurant in operation.

Now we find that the private operators can operate these, and we get a

percentage of their gross revenue. So we get money instead of spending

taxpayers' money on it. The park remains there. It's a park use permit.

We still can retain control of the park functions. That's what I've

tried to say to the member: that we are trying to operate parks, not

ski hills and restaurants at far greater expense than the private

sector can do it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. You will all have your opportunity to stand in the minister's estimates.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: As I say, it's difficult to counter or to

discuss cuts when the cuts haven't happened. We have upgraded our

system, added parks, added wilderness areas, capitalized on every works

program that is going to get people working in our parks. We can

quickly generate jobs in our park system, and we have, on any of the

programs. We've gotten trails, we've gotten all of that. We have, in

the last while, the Mackenzie heritage trail. We're working on other

trails. We've got the trails and corridors policy that has come into

effect since I've been the minister.

It's easy enough to pick a particular area of conflict between

logging and trails and say that there should be trails. But I can

assure you that we have done a lot for multiple use, for preservation,

for corridors policies, and we will continue to do so. Our objective

and policy and philosophy is very clear: that there is a very great

value to preserving recreational wilderness values in the province.

[3:15]

I know one of the comments the member made is: "What development is

going on in this wilderness park?" We don't want to build roads and

parking lots in our wilderness park; we want to preserve the wilderness

aspect. That is what is their main attraction. We will build the parks,

the campsites, the roads and that somewhere else, and let the people

enjoy the wilderness. So if the member is criticizing me for not

wanting major development in our wilderness parks, then he's perfectly

justified in that criticism, because I don't want to see major

development in our wilderness parks.

MR. MITCHELL: I appreciate that. It maybe was a poor use of

the word "development," but what I'm saying, getting onto the Cascades

park, is that they are considering allowing logging in those wilderness

areas. They're allowing the development of logging roads in the area

and over the historical trails that make that particular area a

heritage wilderness area that should be protected.

It's not because I think that the logging companies are going to go

in there to do it solely to destroy it, but they are going in there.

The government is encouraging or allowing the small amount of

timber.... The studies have been made on the timber that will be

harvested in the Cascade wilderness area. If it's harvested with any

proper forestry management, there is very little money to be made in

it. It's uneconomical timber, unless they go in and do what they did in

the Queen Charlotte Islands: go in there and high grade it. If they go

in and high grade it and use the same logging road system, they will

destroy the historical trails in that area.

I'm not saying that I am the authority on the Cascade wilderness

area, but there is a large group of citizens who know that area inside

and out. They have studied it; they have done economic studies on the

forestry, the wilderness concept and the potential for that area to be

developed in the future as a tourist destination point. We have to play

with figures, and we have to look at figures. We have to look at what

is the best potential for British Columbia: the short-term potential of

going in there and highgrading the logs with logging, or whether we are

going to do some preservation.

I think the minister is right, and I was wrong when I said

development. It should be the preservation of that wilderness area. But

there has to be some development. I know he's going to say that I'm

using that word "development" again, but there has to be some

development of plans to make the wilderness available and some

promotion of it as the destination point for tourists. I say tourists

from all over British Columbia; if they're 50 miles away from home,

they're tourists.

The minister said that I quoted from a document from his ministry,

and he didn't know anything about it. So if he would like to write it

down, it's the provincial park survey technical report prepared by

Sharon Jernoski and Robert Conry, of Horizon Research and Evaluation

Affiliates, for the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, parks and

outdoor recreation division, dated March 1983. I didn't invent it. I'm

just quoting from some of his massive material that he sends

[ Page 6343 ]

out to me. I appreciate if maybe be doesn't read it

all or maybe he just selectively reads it, and I use what I want. I

didn't invent it and it was....

This is what a lot of people who are in the outdoor communities, who

are in the wilderness hiking clubs, who are families.... My

constituents write me letters, and they tell me these horrible stories

of going into provincial parks and having nothing but drunken parties

and people running around. It terrifies them. I know the minister and

I.... We're both big and tough, and we would snarl right back, but

there are a lot of people out there who are not used to confrontation.

They're not used to the noise of drunks staggering around and kicking

their garbage cans and throwing beer bottles at their table.

They're not used to that, and this is why I think there has to be,

in every park, some kind of policy so that we can say in British

Columbia that we do have a park ranger policy of security. It would

attract another five million tourists to British Columbia if we could

say that, and it would be true. It's not something where I'm just

trying to create jobs for policemen or something, but it is a need.

The minister didn't answer my question as to why they cut out the

youth employment program, which did provide jobs. I'm sorry that the

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who knows, in her

ministry, of the thousands and thousands of young people coming out of

school who are out on the street in the summer, without any hope of

getting a meaningful job or getting an opportunity to participate in

some kind of training facility....

I think the parks branch did have that service. They did an

excellent job, over many years, of developing their youth employment

program. But for some unknown reason, they would rather cut that money

out and use it for a half-a-million-dollar party at Expo. I don't know

why they would cut that out and spend the money somewhere else. Because

it did two things. It made a better park; it opened a lot of trails

that were not there. The regular park employees cannot maintain....

They have enough problems maintaining the existing park. It was used to

develop parks, it was used to increase the facilities in those park

areas, and it gave youth an opportunity to get out in that area. I've

talked to many of them; some went through the program and continued to

work for the park branch. I talk to one on a regular basis who spent

two summers there, and went on to another profession. But he still got

bitten by the bug of the wilderness area: the hiking, the canoeing, and

everything that.... I guess you'd call it, for want of a better word, a

disease that he caught because he worked in part of the youth

employment program. I think it was a good program.

I ask the minister to read this report. Read some of the

conclusions. If we're going to have a development of a park industry,

we have to remember that the major users of our parks in British

Columbia are families; that's why they want that security of a park

ranger program. They want the security of safety. Not only does it

provide jobs in the local area — when the family goes in, they buy food

in the stores, they go to the restaurants, they buy gas at the gas

station — but before they go, they're part of creating other jobs.

There's an economic spinoff. They're buying new tents, new trailers,

new sleeping bags. This is an industry. It's not only the pleasure of

going out into the wilderness and camping, but it's the economic

spinoff that we have to develop to create jobs throughout B.C., in the

retail trade and in the service trades.

This is something that with a good policy within the ministry, with a good promotion....

I was happy to see that he said he was going to promote parks. There

has been a kind of a drift the last few years. I say that we have to

promote them. We have to give the additional basic services. I think

that, as I said before, it can be a foundation of a whole new industry.

I'm afraid there has been a period within the parks branch — the

cutbacks — where they appeared to think that it's a kind of a dying

industry, because there were higher priorities where the money would

go. So these are the important parts.

We talked about Cascade Park. We talked about Manning Park. We've

asked questions. The figure of S350,000 for a generator was put to the

minister, and he was going to come back to this House so we would have

the actual figures. He never brought back, from the question period,

how much money was spent on the upgrading of Manning Park before they

gave it away — pardon me, sold it — to the highest bidder. He never

came back with those figures. You're now saying that $30,000 was spent

for a generator to run the ski lift. But in 1968 he spent

$100,000-and-some-odd for a generator for something else. In answer to

my question.... Was the only money that was spent in the last year

before Manning Park was sold the $30,000 generator for the ski lift?

And there wasn't a larger generator, there wasn't more money spent on

upgrading it. I'll repeat the question that was given in the question

period: how much money was spent in upgrading the hotel and the

facilities for the park prior to its being sold? I believe you took

that on notice; I hope that you have it available for your estimates.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, I challenge the quorum.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I now count a quorum in the committee.

[3:30]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'd like to thank the member for really

supporting our parks program, parks plans, parks operations and parks

objectives. That's what you're talking about, but you imply criticism

about it. That's exactly what's going on in many cases where we are

trying to develop the parks. We have spent more money on them; we've

upgraded them; we are improving the maintenance. We are doing all of

these things. So if he means.... And in the promotion of parks, I have

a bit of difficulty there, because we are continually promoting our

parks through brochures, pamphlets, that sort of thing. We are

continually criticized by the opposition for putting out brochures and

spending money on printing and advertising and that sort of thing.

Which way do you want it?

Certainly we would like to spend more money on it because we think

it's a good investment, but we have to get that advertising money from

other areas that some people consider more critical. We do the best job

we can in promoting, and I'd like to commend all of the people in our

ministry for the wonderful job they do in promoting the parks system by

the service they give, and by the encouragement and welcome they give

to the people who come to our parks. We do a great deal of promoting.

If you mean how much money we spend on promoting, we spend as much as

we can as long as it's a good investment, without taking away from

other more critical areas.

[ Page 6344 ]

The other thing: I would doubt.... The member said he's getting

letters from constituents who say there is nothing but drunken parties

at some of our parks. I would like to see one of those letters if you'd

care to send it to me. We have had letters, and as you know — all of us

know — there have been drunken parties at some of the parks. There have

been acts of vandalism. There have been acts of, as we might say,

stupidity in some of these parks. But we do have people who patrol

them. We have locked gates in many of the parks after a certain hour.

We don't necessarily call them park rangers, but park employees go

around and provide that security. I would certainly welcome specific

complaints that the member has so that we can deal with these. We

certainly try to respond in any way that we can.

The member referred to a report. I think in almost any report.... I

could write one myself that says we should do a little more here, a

little more there, and we would like to see this happen. But I don't

think that's a condemnation of the park system. I think the member

himself said that he was selectively picking material out of that; I

guess it's important to be a critic. But I think actually you are a

supporter of the park system and the parks programs that we are

engaging in.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Certainly, let me again emphasize that this year, in addition to a

slightly higher basic budget over last year for our parks and

recreation program, we have in these times another $6 million: $3

million for parks capital maintenance programs and $3 million for new

developments. We are adding parks, campsites, facilities; we're paving

campsites. We're doing all of that upgrading. This is why I find it so

difficult to counter the claims about cuts. I don't know where you get

this. Show me where the cuts are. We have cut back some of our

full-time-equivalent employees. We have contracted out the work. The

work is being done, and our people are the supervisors who are seeing

that it's done correctly and that our high quality park standards are

maintained. I really think our trained people can do a better job there.

As for the youth employment program, I think it's something like

four years ago when that got changed. The employment programs under

government were put under sort of an umbrella, and they were the youth

employment programs. I tried to tell the member that we have tried to

capitalize on every Provincial and federal program in our park system.

We've got a lot done in our parks by using these people. So it's maybe

in a different form. It changed some four years ago; I didn't change

this last year.

As for the member's final question, I believe, on how much money for

upgrading at Manning Park, prior to privatizing that, to selling off

that equipment and facilities, we did not do any major upgrading other

than perhaps standard maintenance on a grader or something so that it

was in safe operating condition when we turned it over. I think that's

fair. If you want to go back over three years, five years, ten years —

whatever you want to go back over — and say how much money was put into

upgrading the facilities, I'm proud to say quite a bit. But those

facilities are now in place. We will be getting, I believe, 2 percent

in the Manning Park operation. We get 8 percent in some areas, but

we'll be getting 2 percent of the gross revenues that those people take

in, instead of paying out half a million dollars to keep it operating.

I don't know whether you understand that or not.

MR. COCKE: A $20 million giveaway and you're standing there....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, I'm sure that the member for New

Westminster would buy a boat, lose a million dollars a year on it and

keep operating till it sank, but I'm not prepared to do that.

MR. MITCHELL: I often think maybe our minister is a little

paranoid. I'm trying to give you positive cooperation. I'm trying to

give you positive ideas. I'm a debate leader, not a critic. You don't

even listen to our Leader of the Opposition when he renamed us all.

We're giving cooperation to you; we're debate leaders; we're positive

upfront.

You never quite answered the question I asked you. Was $30,000 all

you spent on a generator last year? Now that's the question I asked.

Also, before you get up and talk about it.... Not three hundred and

some-odd thousand. You're saying — and I know it's going to be recorded

in Hansard — that you

inferred that if you don't get up and say yes that it was $30,000,

that's all we spent, and we didn't spend any $300,000.... You know,

that's all I'm asking. If that is the figure, I wish the minister would

get up and say yes, $30,000 is the only figure that we have spent.

There's one other part. We talked about the Manning Park loss of

half a million dollars a year. As you said, you wouldn't buy a boat

that lost half a million dollars a year before it sank. What part of

the cost of Manning Park...? Now when you go back, and I know your

staff can get you the information, part of the cost of Manning Park was

the building of the roads, the maintenance of the roads, and everything

in the park. Can you confirm that the road system within Manning Park

has been taken out of that operation, and that they have been gazetted

and are now coming under the Highways ministry for operation and

maintenance?

Is this one of the money-losing parts of that operation? Was it a

major money-losing operation or cost that you've now taken out? You've

very conveniently taken it out so your political friends — and I'm not

being paranoid — can make a....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Any imputation of a

dishonourable motive against another member is frowned upon. The member

will withdraw any such imputations.

MR. MITCHELL: Well, if political friends are unparliamentary I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Please proceed,

MR. MITCHELL: But I have a lot of political friends. I hope they never think that I've been unparliamentary.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, where will this ever end,

this business of things being out of order? "Political friends" surely

to heaven isn't out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair heard an imputation; the member has

withdrawn. If the Chair wasn't in order the Chair apologizes, but the

withdrawal has been made and the member continues.

[ Page 6345 ]

MR. MITCHELL: I withdrew, Mr. Speaker, because I didn't want

to get thrown out and be charged $250 a day if I'm not here. It was

very selfish on my part. My wife wouldn't stand my losing all that

money. My mortgage couldn't afford it.

This is getting back to the question to the minister. Could he

confirm the $30,000, and could he confirm the cost of what it took,

under the old parks branch, to maintain and look after and build the

roads that were part of the package of Manning Park? But the

information that I have received is that this cost is going to be taken

out and picked up by the jovial Minister of Transportation and Highways

(Hon. A. Fraser), and it's no longer a cost of those who have bought

the facilities or are leasing the facilities or whatever took place for

half a million dollars. Does that mean that we're going to get a higher

percentage than 2 percent? What is the reason for it, and what are the

actual figures?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The $30,000 that I referred to for the

generator was to fix it up, to repair it, to make sure that it was in

working order. I cannot say that that was all that was spent on that

generator in the last year, because they put oil in it, and they

probably spent some time tightening bolts and that sort of thing. But

that I consider part of the operation. As far as any capital amount

spent is concerned, to the best of my knowledge, according to all the

information that I have, that was all the money spent in upgrading it.

This is why I say it's difficult to answer that. What are you talking

about? Every bit of ongoing maintenance that keeps the generator

running while we were out operating the park? There are ongoing costs

that are part of that. So I hope the member can be satisfied with that

answer.

As for the highway to the Gibson Pass ski hill, yes, that has now

been gazetted under the Highways ministry program because it is a

public road. As a public road, it had to be. While it was entirely in

our jurisdiction it didn't matter whether we paid it out of the Parks

or the Highways budget. There it is, and it's being maintained by the

Highways ministry because it qualifies as a public road. We're still

talking about the money that we lost on the ski hill and restaurant

operations. I don't know how else we can treat a road that is in effect

a public road, except as we do in other areas. If we did not do it that

way, then the operators could in effect close it down at the bottom of

the hill and say: "It's our road." So they simply took that portion of

it from us. In exchange for that, of course, we get some percentage of

their operating revenue — of their gross operating revenue, not their

net.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: So as not to break the thread of this

particular debate, I should inform the minister — through you, Mr.

Chairman — that approximately six weeks ago I was invited to a speaking

engagement in Princeton and toured Newmont Mines — with a very gracious

host, by the way. While there, a group of former employees of the park

contacted me and a person accompanying me to discuss this matter with

me. We met for several hours. They are former employees who were laid

off when the park was privatized.

Just as a little aside on this issue, those former employees were

never hired back by the current owners. In fact, local people in the

community are not even hired to work at the parksite, because the new

owners are paying the absolute minimum wage that they can get away with

and will not allow a union in that area. That's not my purpose in

getting up to explain this to you, and I'm sure you're very much aware

of that. In other words, it's union-busting, in my view — paying people

the absolute minimum wage; and local people can't even get hired.

Former employees will not even be considered as potential employees at

the location because it's feared they're going to bring the union into

that location.

I listened very carefully to the minister's answers in this regard

during question period and this afternoon during the course of this

debate, and what I'm about to tell the minister is not based on

fantasy, because one of the people whom I met with was a former

accountant of the operation with the parks branch — during the height

of the season there were sometimes nearly 200 employees working at that

operation. First of all, when my colleague from Esquimalt asked a

question about the generator.... I toured the site, spent some four and

a half hours with people who knew every inch and corner of that park —

knew the boundary lines, what was sold and what was not — and visited

the generating plant. The plant has three generators. I don't want to

get onto this for too long, but I want to tell you that a brand-new

generator was installed, at a cost of $350,000, prior to the sale of

that facility — along with the two older generators, which are still in

shape. I was talking to the person who paid the bills. I know you don't

have this information directly, but please don't stand in this House,

Mr. Minister, and give us the $30,000 maintenance fee.

[3:45]

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Am I too loud? Oh, sorry.

That is one point. Another point is that the major reason the parks

branch was losing money on that operation — in fact, I don't think they

were, because the people who worked there at union wages all paid

taxes, assisted in local employment and all of these things....

Nonetheless, we'll accept the minister's figures, through the annual

reports, that the park was losing money: fair enough. Not that much

money, by the way; not that much money. But the major portion of that

loss was for the maintenance and upkeep of the road system within the

park, which is quite extensive. The road to the ski lifts alone.... I'm

just going from memory here. There were some 11 or 12 miles that

required maintenance, the main cost being snow removal.

Prior to the park being privatized and sold to the private owner....

I have here in front of me the names of the company and the directors

of the company. In spite of that.... Well, I'll stay away from a

political remark for the moment about the company itself. The major

cost to the parks branch was the snow removal and the maintenance of

the roads and highways within that facility. Prior to the sale, the

government had agreed with the potential buyers.... I'm not sure that

they were the highest bidder, but I'll accept the minister's response

to that that they were the highest bidders. I can hardly believe it —

$500,000 for a $12 million facility, utilizing the minister's own

figure. A certain accountant I spoke with tells me, in fact, that he

valued the assets of that park at approximately $18 million. I have in

front of me as well, Mr. Chairman, a list of the assets. So don't tell

us about $12 million, but I'm accepting your figure.

AN HON. MEMBER: Such a deal you can't refuse.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Of course.

Mr. Minister, that deal was struck so that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways...so those roads would be

[ Page 6346 ]

gazetted. Those roads are now part of the

provincial highways and the road system of this province, and every

taxpayer of this province is contributing to that private facility —

what is now a private facility — to maintain those private operators in

business. Worse than that, Mr. Chairman, although I can't prove it at

the present time, I was reliably informed by a number of people that

there are some discussions underway for this company, headed by Mr.

Rossi, whom you know quite well, because he is and was chairman of the

Yale Lillooet Social Credit Constituency Association and is still a

director.... But that's beside the point. I heard your answer in the

House the other day. Anybody from any political party can forward

tenders to the government when tenders are issued. There's nothing

wrong with that. But it seems to me that somebody has some inside

information.

Renovations to the lodge, which originally cost.... In 1972 the cost

of construction of that lodge was approximately $1 million. It is now

valued at over $4 million. Just prior to the sale and privatizing of

that park that lodge was renovated at government expense — another

major item. Don't tell me it's not so, because it is so.

One other major item.... I've got a list here as long as your arm,

but I just want to talk about one other major item. Those two monstrous

ski lifts.... There are three actually: there's one tow rope and two

very fine ski lifts in the area — nice facilities that were operated by

the parks branch. They were completely overhauled at taxpayers' expense

not too long prior to privatization. I'm telling you in this House, Mr.

Chairman, that it's my view that that private buyer had private

information, prior to submitting his tender, that this work would be

done. I'm very angry about it. You call yourselves good businessmen.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Who is kidding who?

I have a lot of other items relating to this transaction. I just

wanted to tell you, Mr. Chairman, and to let the minister know, that

I've been listening to his answers very carefully. I didn't want to

break up the line of debate of my colleague over here, but, Mr.

Minister, I was there. We met and spoke with people who are prepared,

if necessary, to submit affidavits to this House plus, perhaps,

documents that.... I didn't ask for the private documents that they had

in their possession; I didn't ask for them. They didn't offer them, but

I bet you if I made a phone call this minute, I'd have them down here

in two days. I bet you they would, but I would expect the minister

would accept my explanation on it.

Look, this was a bad, bad deal for the people of British Columbia.

You gave away approximately $17 million to $18 million worth of assets

for $500,000, and it may be in the process of being flipped at this

very moment. Mr. Minister, you just think about that for a while.

I have all kinds of other information. I see that my colleague from Esquimalt

is out of the House for a moment, so I have another little item which I may

as well raise while I have the floor, Mr. Chairman. That relates to the questions

I posed to you this afternoon. I accept your explanation in question period

today that you didn't have the answer, that you were not familiar with this

operation. Perhaps the questions were not posed as well as they might have been.

I'd like to give the minister some more information. I know you always come

back to this House. Perhaps even during the course of these estimates you may

be able to answer the questions I'm about to pose to you before the end

of your debate in these estimates.

Mr. Minister, your ministry issued a licence of occupation, file no.

2401290, lease No. 232354, to Coast Mountain Aquasources, located at

Hotham Sound in Jervis Inlet, the area known as Freil Falls. It's one

of the most beautiful falls in all of British Columbia. Tourists visit

the site, usually by boat. It's visible if you're travelling on the

ferry from Saltery Bay to Earls Cove. Tourists and local people say

it's a very beautiful sight. You may recall that about a year and a

half ago — perhaps a bit less — I wrote to you and requested that that

area be placed under park reserve so that it could never be alienated

from public use. But the fact is that on May 15 of this year, in

secret, over the objections of the Sunshine Coast Regional District, a

number of environmental groups, a number of sports fishing groups, a

number of tourist groups, hundreds of local citizens, a number of other

groups.... I have the file here; you're welcome to read it, but I know

you have it all in your office anyway. Most of the letters that I have

were actually sent to you, with copies to me. They objected to the

government leasing this area for the sale of fresh water out of British

Columbia by tanker to this or any other company in British Columbia.

In fact, when the representative of this particular company came to

visit me, I suggested they perhaps should look at Ocean Falls, where we

have a lake ten miles long called Link Lake, with deep-sea port in

place, beautiful fresh alpine water. But no, they persisted. You have

in your office somewhere all of these objections that were sent to you.

On May 15 of this year your ministry secretly issued a licence of

occupation to Coast Mountain Aquasources, without any reference to the

regional district. They merely received a letter stating that this had

been done, period. This lease is for a three-year period, at $2,892 per

year, with an option to renew for a further seven years.

Furthermore, I'm asking you right now: were any environmental

studies ever done prior to the issuance of this lease? It is my

information, in checking around this morning, that no environmental

impact studies had been done prior to the issuance of this lease.

Another major factor: we're informed by the senior officer of this

company that these tankers, when they come back from their overseas

sailing, have to come back with ballast. We're informed that this

ballast will be released in Georgia Strait. Also, knowing something

about the shipping industry, Mr. Chairman, these tankers often pump

their bilges out at the same time. So there's another fact that the

minister should take under consideration.

I'm very angry about it. This area, Mr. Chairman, is one of the

prime aquaculture, mariculture, fish-farming areas. It has the greatest

potential in all of the world; not British Columbia, the whole world.

Literally millions of dollars of government money, plus private money,

has been spent in that area to promote these industries.

I must take my seat. I only meant to be up ten minutes, but once I

get going.... Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll have further questions in a

few minutes.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: A great deal, I guess, is how you interpret

the figures. At Manning Park the ski lift was overhauled every year

between seasons. A prospectus was put out to potential bidders stating

the state of all the equipment, and proposals were invited. The

assessment was done by a consulting firm who made the recommendation on

the

[ Page 6347 ]

basis of the proposals that came in — their

evaluation of it. So I do resent the matter of implying that it was a

special deal for special friends. It was put out there and evaluated by

a consulting firm. The ski lifts and generators were maintained every

year. I indicated that to the best of my knowledge $30,000.... Now what

the member is talking about on the $350,000 generator I don't know, but

if that is the case and I've been misinformed, then I will certainly

apologize to that member.

When you say "prior to," I don't know what you mean by that, because

there were a lot of things that were built there prior to the sale — a

year, two, three, five, ten. If the member has that information, by all

means I'd be willing to accept it. I can say that the prospectus was

put out, that it was evaluated by a consulting firm, that their

recommendation.... They did the analysis, it was open to everybody,

your caucus I believe asked for the information. We sent you a copy of

all that material, the agreements, all of it. It's available for you.

So I do resent the business of the secret deals. You've asked for it;

you've got the whole package. The reason we don't duplicate it is that

it's that thickness when you get all of it together. So you asked for

it; you've got it. You can evaluate every single clause in it and take

a look at it and see what you can come back with.

[4:00]

As for the licence of occupation at Freil Falls, I haven't had a

chance to get the exact particulars since question period. It is not

unusual in the ministry to issue a licence of occupation which is a

short-term tenure so that a person can say.... If they can prove up on

everything else, then they can go ahead with a project. Before they can

go ahead with the project, they do have to meet all the environmental

concerns and all of the objections and must overcome them and deal with

Environment, with the other ministries and that sort of thing. So I

don't find it unusual, even though I don't have the particulars, to

issue a short-term licence of occupation for a minimal amount to give

them some indication that if they come up with a project that is

acceptable environmentally, will work and so on, they have some

security of tenure.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to respond on the

Freil Falls situation. This company has been after that site for well

over two years — closer to three years. I have the whole file in front

of me, as I said. I cannot accept three years, with an option to renew

for a further seven years, as a short-term licence of occupation. I

understand your ministry and I generally have no objection. As a matter

of fact, I praised your ministry not very long ago over legalizing what

people were doing illegally in a sense in Pender Harbour where some

450, at an acceptable rental fee.... I have no objection to that. That

is not the point at all. The point here is that a licence was issued

without any public hearings whatsoever, behind closed doors that nobody

knew about, on May 15 of this year. We didn't even have a chance to

state our point of view on the issue, which has been stated previously

anyway. It's one of the most beautiful areas of the world, with great

potential, and here we're going to have these tankers steaming in

there. This company is going to build deep-sea port facilities of a

type so ships can tie up and load up with this fresh water coming down

these beautiful 200- or 300-foot falls — whatever height they are. The

beaches in the area will be alienated because it's a great.... I have

the figures here somewhere; I think it's some 6.2 hectares.

Three years is not short-term. Mr. Chairman, I'm looking for one note here. I'm sorry. I can't seem to find it.

I'm just making the point that we're very disappointed, that you're

going to get a great deal of protest. One other point in this whole

thing I should point out to you is that the Sunshine Coast Regional

District board has sent to Dr. Pearse, who is carrying on a royal

commission on Canada's water supply across this nation, as you well

know.... They have sent a brief to the commissioner regarding this

particular falls, the preservation of this area. and the question of

how we should be shipping water. I should tell you I am not opposed,

where water is dropping straight into the ocean, as it is in Ocean

Falls, where there's no fish-spawning of any type taking place, or

where we can transport water out.... I have no objection to that. It's

the site I'm talking about. The federal government, as you may well

know, has not come up with a concise policy at this time, and they will

the government of the day. They view the whole thing very skeptically,

and I can tell you this from firsthand experience. I've been involved

in this now for the past ten years.

Nonetheless, it's the site that I am concerned about, not the

philosophy of shipping fresh water out of British Columbia. A number of

good projects have been put forward, and I wish these companies the

very best. As I mentioned before, we have deep-sea loading facilities

with entirely clean, fresh glacial water at Ocean Falls. Nothing is

happening there. Mr. Williston is running around the country trying to

find some operation to put in there. Actually. I think cabinet is

probably going to shut the place down in the next two weeks, but that's

another story.

In any event, I'm telling you and asking you now to reconsider the

issuance of that lease, because you haven't heard the end of it. There

are other things happening.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: To respond briefly, they do not have a

lease; they do not have the authority to build a deep-sea dock there;

they do not have any of that, as I tried to indicate. They must meet

all the environmental concerns before they get approval to develop

that. I don't think I should have the right as a minister to say: "You

do not have the right to investigate whether a business opportunity

exists there, or whether there's any potential for the sales, or

anything of that nature." And that's why we use the licence of

occupation to say you have... Three years to put together financing and

marketing and get approvals for all of these things is a very short

term in that world.

The member says he has a complete file of all the correspondence and

everything, and then in the next statement he says that this was done

in secret with no knowledge by anyone else on anything. I have a large

file on it myself. The licence of occupation I don't have in my file,

because it's a standard procedure to allow the person to investigate

and to see whether approvals will in fact be acceptable. So you have

assurance; you'll have lots of say in it before any final approval goes

in there. That's the way it works.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I'd like to bring a couple of things to the

attention of the House, but before I do that I'd like to briefly

comment on the fact that I'm very concerned with what's been happening

in the whole thrust of estimates, debates, and the lack of adequate

forewarning in terms of which debate is coming up next.

[ Page 6348 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a matter for the Committee of Supply, hon. member. To the estimates, please.

MR. MacWILLIAM: In preparing for the estimates of the

Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, which I wasn't aware were coming

up today until not even, I guess, an hour ago.... It doesn't give one a

great deal of chance to prepare a logical and reasoned assembly of

information in order to present the case. I'd just like to bring to

their attention that cooperation works both ways, and if you're wishing

a logical debate on issues...

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the estimates, please.

MR. MacWILLIAM: ...please give us some forewarning on this.

I'm also angry because of what I've seen has happened in regard to

the sale of Manning Park. I'm extremely concerned about what this

government has done to a resource owned by the people of this province.

A park worth an estimated value of $20 million wasn't even sold; it was

given away. It was given away, because you cannot consider a

half-million dollar sale on assets worth $20 million to be any kind of

sale. It was a giveaway, and it was a breach of public trust.

If you call this good financial management, Mr. Minister, I call it

a financial disaster. A sale of prime assets owned by the people of

this province that amounts to five cents on the dollar — if that's good

financial management, I'm afraid we're in very, very bad straits. This

government has been elected with the responsibility of being a steward

of our natural resources, and I think in this case it's definitely

abused that mandate in lining the pockets of private individuals in a

giveaway of a public resource. I think they should be ashamed of

themselves — $500,000 for $20 million worth of assets.

In the sale, the company receives a 33-room lodge containing

meeting-rooms, a 150-seat restaurant, 15 cottages each capable of

sleeping 8, a workshop, a power plant, and ski-lift facilities:

$500,000 for a $20 million facility. It's a giveaway.

What really concerns me is that it's not known whether this "deal,"

as we can call it, will prohibit the new owners from flipping this real

estate asset — whether or not two weeks down the road they can make up

perhaps $15 million in clear profit from this giveaway. I think the

minister has abused his responsibility in that regard, and I'm very

concerned with what has happened here.

I want to move on to another concern in terms of a local issue in

the North Okanagan area which concerns the Silver Star Recreation Area.

The Silver Star Recreation Area, including a cross-country ski area and

a snowmobile area, has been developed largely through the initiatives

of private organizations, the Vernon Snowmobile Association and the

North Okanagan Cross-Country Ski Club, as well as other community

groups. It's been developed through their efforts. Concern was raised

earlier this year in terms of what may be happening to that facility.

I cite a study that has been conducted for the parks and outdoor

recreation division by J.S. Peepre — I guess — and Associates. It's a

survey asking people who use that facility a number of interesting

questions. Some of the questions read: "If fees for trail-grooming were

started, would you be prepared to pay, or would you go elsewhere? If

fees were started, how much would you be willing to pay? Would you

object to this trail area being managed by a private contractor?" The

focus of those questions indicates very clearly to me that what is on

the mind of the ministry which is responsible for this facility and

this area is the intention of privatization of this facility.

We have received through my office in Vernon a number of letters

from associations in the North Okanagan, as well as from private

individuals, outlining their concerns about the privatization of the

Silver Star ski area. I'll read into the record a letter sent to me

which is a brief on the Silver Star Recreation Area sent by the North

Okanagan Cross-Country Ski Club. To paraphrase the main focus of it, it

is trying to relate the concerns of that association toward the concept

of privatization. It says: "Commercial development would tend to result

in exploitation rather than orderly development.... 'The trails are

being quite well maintained by the private operators, but it has been

noticed that the usage of the trails by family groups has dropped

considerably."'

Sorry, I missed out part of that. This is in regard to what has

happened with privatization of other facilities. What they are saying

here, to paraphrase it, is that when those facilities are privatized,

it's noted that the fees that are assessed tend to cause the use of

these facilities to drop drastically. It goes on to say: "We are very

concerned at the possible implications of a private operator taking

over the area, particularly in its present state of development." The

letter makes, I think, a number of very well-addressed concerns.

I would like to ask the minister what the intention of this survey

is, and whether the minister does intend to privatize this facility — a

facility that, I repeat, has been developed at the expense and

initiative of local community groups. Does the minister have in mind a

plan of privatization of this facility, or is this simply an attempt at

establishing the pattern of usage of this park?

[4:15]

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

If privatizing is in fact on the agenda, I would ask the minister

what possible advantage, other than the simple profiteering of the

group that would operate that facility, can it have to the community at

large? I'll sit down now and let the minister answer those.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I know the member also made an allegation,

implicitly at least, about Manning Park. The facilities are there;

they're in place. The land that they sit on is under park use permit,

so they are available to the public. It's simply a matter of turning

them over to an operator to operate. Any transfer requires the approval

So I don't know what you mean by flipping. I would think that, I

suppose, if someone could make a lot of money on those facilities.... I

don't see how they could take the lifts and the buildings away. If they

become very valuable, that means that the operation is blossoming under

privatization and might be good. But I have my doubts about that,

because it's not going to be a heavy profit-maker, I don't think. I

hope the people do make some money at it. But I can assure you that any

transfer must be approved in accordance with the agreement that the

present operators have.

As far as Silver Star is concerned, I think that's one of the areas

that we are very proud of, in that the cross-country people and the

snowmobile people started out with conflicts there. Through the

assistance of my ministry and a lot of local

[ Page 6349 ]

effort, these people got together and found out how

to coordinate their activities so they both benefit. That's one of the

examples that I sometimes use with other groups who have conflicts. At

Silver Star, the people were able to get around the same table and sort

it out so that the cross-country skiing and snowmobiling are

complementing each other rather than conflicting.

As far as the survey, I'm not personally familiar with this exact

survey. I do know that since I've been in the ministry, some of the

groups and organizations have come to us and said that they would

gladly pay a fee if the trails were better maintained for that sort of

thing. This may be just to get an indication of how the people feel

about it in that area.

As for the accusation that the usage of cross-country skiing has

dropped where they've been privatized and fees have been established,

we have no evidence of that. It certainly seems that the use is

carrying on. The trails are being maintained, and in the areas where

this has been done, there have been a few conflicts where people have

said that to get through the area they're being asked to pay a fee. I

guess we're trying to sort that out. How do you get through the area to

the park without utilizing the trails which people are paying to

maintain? We're trying to sort that out in a couple of the parks,

Seymour and Cypress in the Vancouver area, where conflicts have come to

our attention. Certainly, other than that, we have no evidence that the

usage has dropped. We have people who have said that the trails are

well maintained, and they're pleased with it.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I guess the minister and I agree to disagree

on that because the information that I have at my disposal does

indicate that usage has dropped when fee structure is imposed.

One thing I might make clear to the minister is that the groups that

maintain the Silver Star Recreation Area wish to maintain that area as

a community development area. They don't wish to see it privatized.

They do feel that they do an excellent job at maintaining the trails,

and I can confirm that because I've used the trails quite often myself.

I don't think that there is a need — at least there's no defined need —

to turn this over to private operators. I think that would have a

negative impact on the usage of that area.

I'd like to turn to another area of concern, also in the North

Okanagan area, and that is Kalamalka Lake Park. In refreshing the

minister's memory on this — although I'm sure that he is well familiar

with it — Kalamalka Lake Park is a class A provincial park of about 700

or 800 hectares or so. It was purchased by the New Democratic

administration in the mid-seventies and set aside for recreational

development.

There has been an extensive debate in the community in terms of just

how this park should be developed. As a matter of fact, the debate has

gone on for a decade. There have been a number of reports submitted. A

report was submitted by the Kalamalka Lake public advisory committee

about a year ago now. That report was accepted by the minister. The

report recommends a plan of development. The report shows a detailed

plan for management of the park, and the report provides

recommendations for the marketing and advertising of the facility.

The minister suggested as far back as last June that the plan

appeared acceptable and that work could in fact begin last summer if

funds were available. I guess that's the rider: if funds were

available. The situation is that nothing has happened with the park.

We've submitted a plan. The community has gotten together and agreed

upon the most reasonable mechanism of development of a low-impact

development of the park that will allow multiple use of the park and

yet not destroy its natural amenities.

The communities agreed to that. The minister has agreed to that.

Everybody's happy. but nothing is happening. I think the community

needs to know the answer as to why nothing has happened. The plan has

been devised and approved. No action. I think Kal Lake Park, if it is

developed, could very well prove to be one of the most significant

additions to our park system in British Columbia. Certainly in an area

that is highly dependent upon its tourism industry, the development of

such a tourist generator, the development of this infrastructure, would

assist the local tourist industry significantly in attracting visitors

to the north Okanagan, particularly to the Vernon region, as a

destination point rather than just a passing through of the tourist

dollars. This is something that's gone on for too long. We've been at

it for ten years. Surely to heaven we can, now that we've made

agreement in terms of developing the facility, proceed with it. If we

can find $375 million for the Coquihalla, $100 million for the

extension and $100 million for the Annacis Island bridge, surely we can

find some funding to start a low-impact phase-one development of Kal

Lake Park. I would ask the minister why he's dragging his feet on this

issue.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, as the member may be aware, if he's

gone back into the history, yes, it was purchased. It was not purchased

for development; it was purchased to preserve that area in its natural

state. That was the main reason that the money was spent to preserve

it. Then there was a movement by many citizens of Vernon to try to

develop it into paved parking lots and trailer campsites and that sort

of thing, which seemed to me to go against what it was purchased for.

We did get that sorted out so that it remains in its natural state.

There is some development planned for its use. There is a

development plan that has been accepted, and it's a matter of getting

funding for that and getting a priorization. Right now under our parks

capital maintenance and development program we are trying to

prioritize. I can assure you that it's on the list, but so are hundreds

of other places on the list. The member seems to feel, as I guess each

individual member does, that surely if there's money available for

something else, then this little amount, which is what — $250,000 or

$350,000 — that's proposed for that development.... But I have also

from around the province everyone saying that surely this $250,000,

this quarter of a million, this half million, etc., is available. I

only have $3 million available, so how do you fit $40 million worth of

requests into a $3 million money allotment? So we try to prioritize as

to where the greatest demand is, where the greatest need is this year,

and keep them going.

It may or may not be developed this year. I have a particular

interest in that one myself because I've been involved in it and would

like to see it developed and will do what I can, but the list is not

completed yet as to the priorization.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the minister wonders how he can

find the money for this. He says that the original intent was to simply

acquire the land and keep it in its natural

[ Page 6350 ]

state. I'm not so sure that the minister knows that

at the time I was responsible for acquiring those lands from the

absentee British owners who had had it all of this century. It is the

largest amount paid for private land for a provincial park in the

history of British Columbia, and it was bought by an NDP administration

in what was then a Social Credit riding, because it was perceived as

one of the most unique pieces of land in private ownership that should

be a part of British Columbia — perceived by the staff and by the

government of the day.

So we spent millions of dollars on this site in Coldstream Cosens Bay, Twin

Bays; they're magnificent. They're among the most beautiful freshwater

sites in British Columbia. Millions of dollars we paid, yet it sits idle. The

government sits on its hands. The minister sits on his hands and then says:

"How can I find $300,000?" Does the minister know what economists

call opportunity cost — the whole question of paying that kind of money and

then seeing it lie fallow, when all you're talking about is $300,000 in

terms of an agreed-upon development plan? That's nothing short of incompetence;

that's a kind of mismanagement. It doesn't make sense if we spend millions

of dollars on a piece of land and then let it lie fallow. That's what you've

done.

You're talking about a region that has close to a 20 percent

unemployment level. We're talking about a region that depends on

tourism as a big chunk of its economy in the Okanagan Valley. This is

the most beautiful waterfront site, by a country mile, of anywhere in

the Okanagan Valley — by far. It's part of the grand old Coldstream

Ranch. It makes no sense whatsoever to sit on your hands. Three hundred

thousand dollars is a modest amount to boost the economy of that region

in terms of expanding tourism, and it only makes sense in terms of what

has already been expended.

I would, if I had to try to put today's value on the best thousand

acres of the old Coldstream Ranch.... My God, the mind boggles at what

it's probably worth. I would say it's worth a minimum of $20 million —

that piece of land. A $20 million piece of land sitting fallow — $20

million and you don't think it makes sense to spend $300,000 to make it

readily available. That's the old.... You've mismanaged the economy on

a grand scale, you've blown it in northeast coal, and away we go. But

even on a smaller scale you mismanage the assets that you have. This is

a mismanaged asset as it now sits. You're adding to the unemployment

problem of a region that doesn't need it. It's a grand land asset in

one of the most beautiful regions of the province, and you still can't

find the money to make it work, to make it tick in terms of use. That's

par for the course for this administration.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It is a beautiful piece of land. It is very

good. I don't know whether the member is familiar with the plan for the

development there. He sounds as though he would like to see the Kal

Beach crush moved over into Cosens Bay, which I don't want to see.

That's why I think there should be limited access there. There is

access. It is not sitting idle. People are going in there and seeing it

in its natural state. Everything is done to try to preserve that, so

perhaps members should refresh yourselves about what the actual

development plan is. As for his statement that that was the highest

amount paid for any land, with the reputation he had for spending

taxpayers' money I could readily believe that.

[4:30]

MR. MacWILLIAM: We mentioned the roughly $300,000 development

cost needed for Kal Lake Park, and my colleague has pointed out the

necessity for developing the proper infrastructure for tourism

development in the Okanagan. One of the real problems that the Okanagan

has, although it has great potential as a tourism area, is that we

don't have the facilities for people. We don't have access to the

lakes, we don't have proper camping grounds, we don't have enough

camping facilities. Here is an opportunity for the development of a

low-impact recreational-use area that will significantly enhance that

area as a tourism destination point. Three hundred thousand dollars is

a negligible amount. I suggest you take the $500,000 you just collected

on the giveaway of the Manning Park and plug it into Kal Lake Park, and

let's cut your losses.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Obviously the member sees it as for the

tourism development, this $300,000. What he doesn't seem to accept is

that that is the same argument for every park development throughout

the whole province. I did not say it was not going to be done; I simply

said that we tried to set priorities to spend the money in the best

possible way this year. There are some places that are completely

without any facilities. This park is accessible now and usable now. So

I may have to be in a position to decide that if I only have so much

money, I should provide access to a new area instead of additional or

better access to this one. As far as your comment about camping

facilities goes, I will not, I hope, ever approve camping sites and

vehicle mobile facilities inside that park.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, the minister implies that I was

saying that we need camping facilities and mobile facilities in the

park. That wasn't the point of my comment at all. What I'm saying is

that, as an area, we lack a number of these amenities that are required

for tourism development. We simply haven't got the darn things. The

park, according to the phase one development plan, is supposed to be a

low impact development. But it is possible on the land around the

periphery of the park that camping facilities could be instituted, if

even on private land. But let's get access to the park. Let's get the

park developed for the use that the community wants. Let's allow it to

expand to its potential as a multi-use recreational area. Let's get

something done with it.

I would like to ask the minister if he has set priorities; and

obviously he has, because he's as much as admitted it. Then where does

Kal Lake Park lie in terms of those priorities? Are we looking at next

year or the year after, or are we looking at another decade down the

road? Where are the priorities, and what is higher priority than this

park? Can you define those for me?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: If the member is talking about development

of campsites and camping facilities outside the park, then I'm not so

sure, if there's that great a demand for it, that that shouldn't be

done by the people who then can compete with the other operators who

have developed campsites, rather than by government going in there and

sticking in some campsites. I don't want to develop a bunch of

campsites either. But we can discuss philosophies on that one.

As far as its priority, I've already indicated that it's on the list, which means that it's way ahead of a bunch of others.

[ Page 6351 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: We're discussing the minister's estimates. He

has told us that $3 million is available for this kind of capital

development. I think it's incumbent upon the minister to advise the

House how the $3 million will be expended. That's what legislatures are

about. That's what estimates are about. It's the right and privilege of

the opposition to be advised how the public's money is expended. Will

the minister kindly tell us how the $3 million will be expended, and in

what areas and in what parks, so that we can then reflect on his choice

in terms of priorities?

If the minister wants this Legislature to grind on till September, he's doing very well in terms of setting that up.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: You know, millions of dollars were spent on

this park in the Okanagan. The park sits idle. He tells us there are

higher priorities. He has an obligation to tell us what those

priorities are and what lands will get the benefit of that money.

Interjections,

MR. WILLIAMS: That's fine. If the member from the Peace wants us to stay here into September he's setting it up right.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: The whole business of a Legislature, the whole

business of democracy, is dependent upon this kind of process. And the

process is one of the minister being responsible and accountable to the

elected people of the province. That's what we're asking for today —

some accountability. When this man gets a question in question period

he fudges away. He never has answers. He has a faulty memory. The one

time this democracy has to deal with these matters is when his

estimates are before us.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. All hon. members

of this House are aware that in estimates questions can be asked, but

it's not absolutely necessary that those questions be answered. With

that I would ask that we have a bit of tempered debate in this House.

MR. WILLIAMS: Tempered debate indeed.

The minister has told us that there are $3 million available for

park expenditures. The opposition holds the view that this is one of

the most important parks in the province, and it has sat idle. Millions

of dollars were spent on it. We want to know what priority it has in

terms of their funding. That's reasonable. At the very least the

minister should advise the House how the $3 million that he has will be

used. That's not too much to ask. Will the minister advise us where the

$3 million is being expended?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: As I indicated earlier, the $3 million will be spent. It'll be spread throughout the province.

We are looking at a multitude of proposals, narrowing down the list

and trying to come up with where the best value will be. Some of these

are in the northwest, others in the northeast, southeast and southwest

of the province, or on the Island. We do not have the list put together

or the prioritization done.

I can assure the member that I'm quite aware of their emphasis on

Kal Lake Park as the top priority, because that is the top priority of

the member for North Okanagan. It's on the priority list, and so are

more projects than the money will allow. I'll do the best I can to

respond to the member's concern for Kal Lake Park. But I will also have

to consider that in terms of the best for all of the others that we're

dealing with,

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. MacWILLIAM: This debate has taken a rather interesting

convolution in its logic. The minister said at first that priorities

were established. I simply asked for him to recount to me where Kal

Lake Park is situated in the prioritization. Now he's telling me that

the list hasn't been drawn up. I'm wondering: is there or isn't there a

list of priorities? The people in the North Okanagan have been.... I

repeat, it's been a decade now that this thing has been in the planning

process. We have a report that has been submitted and accepted. The

minister said it could go ahead last year. We still have no action on

this. I'm told that it's on the list. The minister doesn't know where

it is on the list. The people in the North Okanagan want to know where

it is on the list. The chamber of commerce wants to know where it is on

the list. The municipality of Coldstream wants to know where it is on

the list. The municipality of the corporation of the city of Vernon

wants to know where it is on the list. The regional district wants to

know where it is on the list. I want to know where it is on the list.

Where is it?

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, again, I think it reasonable that

the minister share with the House what's on the list. What are the

other parks on the list? There might well be some consensus about those

priorities. But until we know, it's not reasonable. Come on! I know

that the standard briefing book is there. I'm sure the deputy has the

standard briefing book and all of the likely potential capital

expenditures. All you have to do is pull it out of the loose-leaf

document and read it and make it available to the rest of us. That

information is there, I'm satisfied.

The list may be amended, it may be adjusted, even on the basis of

the submissions of the member for North Okanagan. It may be adjusted,

well and good. But it's not unreasonable for us to be aware of what

those expenditures are. When I asked the Minister of Environment (Hon.

Mr. Pelton) what likely lists there were in terms of diking

expenditures, I was given the list of the likely expenditures from the

loose-leaf document. It was a reasonable gesture; he's a new minister.

There you are, a new minister not privy to the system that the old dogs

abide by. But, you know, it's a reasonable request. I think that it

would benefit the House if he simply provided us with the information.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I take it that what they're asking for is

what order it is on the list. I don't have the list in order — number

one, two, three, four type of thing. The list is far more extensive

than the money available. We're still

[ Page 6352 ]

sorting through it, looking at it and trying to

decide how far the money will go, where it will get the best value for

the taxpayers, where we can open up new territory and where we can

develop existing territory. So that's why I can't really answer which

place on the list it is. It is on the short list, if you like, which is

far more extensive than the $3 million.

MR. BLENCOE: I want to go back to the Manning Park fiasco,

the latest

chapter in Socred incompetence, gross incompetence in this

province, one that we have not heard enough about. The people of

British Columbia want some answers. They see incompetence and

mismanagement in terms of the Manning Park Lodge.

Mr. Chairman, we hear the minister today and other days whimper in

this House that he called tenders, and therefore he had to sell this

park at a giveaway sale, a fire sale of half a million dollars. We know

what they'd do in the private sector, or what any competent government

would do: they would not sell it. They would take another look. We have

an asset here in excess of $18 million, and this minister, for whatever

reason, decided to give away such a valuable asset for half a million

dollars.

In the private sector, if that minister was a director or the head

of a board of directors, and he sold $20 million worth of private

assets for half a million dollars, do you know what the shareholders

would do to that person? They would fire that person. They would demand

a resignation. They would say he was totally incompetent and that he

mismanaged the affairs of that company.

What we have here is mismanagement and total incompetence, and the

people of British Columbia cannot stand by and allow this to go on. It

is the latest

chapter in this Socred government's mismanagement of the

affairs of this province. In the private sector it would not be

tolerated, and they would demand accountability, and they would demand

answers, and they would say that that board of directors and the head

of that board of directors should go.

You don't sell unless you meet what the assets are worth.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: No, you don't. These assets belong or did belong

— to the people of British Columbia. That is the critical issue. That

is the issue this government is covering up. They belong to the people

of British Columbia. They were valuable assets, and they belonged to

the people of British Columbia, and you gave them away. You had a

responsibility. You were entrusted by the people of British Columbia to

manage that asset properly. They supposedly had confidence in you to

manage that asset properly. And what have you done? You have broken

that confidence, you have broken that public trust, and for whatever

reason you decided to sell. And we all know who bought that facility.

[4:45]

Mr. Chairman, this is the latest example of Socred mismanagement and

incompetence in this province, and it's about time it came to an end.

The people of British Columbia are fed up with it. Giving away valuable

assets is totally unacceptable. It would not be allowed to happen in

the private sector, and this government keeps saying: "We want to do

business like the private sector." Well, you've lost the faith of the

private sector, and those involved in the public sector and those who

trust you in the public sector have lost faith too.

There should be shame upon you for selling that asset, for giving it away at basement sales, Mr. Chairman.

Public trust, tha