1979 Legislative Session: 1st

Session, 32nd 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)

TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1979

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 955 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill

31). Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 955

Oral questions.

ICBC policy. Mr. Cocke –– 955

Homeowner grants for Vancouver housing

co-ops. Mr. Barber –– 955

B.C. greenhouse tomatoes. Mr. Stupich –– 956

Floorcraft Floor Covering Ltd. Mr. Levi ––

Granville Island Waterfront Theatre. Mr.

Barnes –– 957

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Lands,

Parks and Housing estimates.

On vote 162.

Mr. Hanson –– 958

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 958

Mr. Gabelmann –– 964

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 966

Ms. Sanford –– 967

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 967

Mr. Mitchell –– 967

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 968

Mr. Lockstead –– 968

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 968

Mr. Hall –– 969

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 969

Mr. Stupich –– 970

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 970

Mrs. Wallace –– 971

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 971

Mr. King –– 971

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 972

Mr. Skelly –– 972

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 973

Mr. Hanson –– 974

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 974

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Municipal

Affairs estimates.

On vote 169.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 975

Mr. Barber –– 976

Mr. Lorimer –– 980

TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, with us in

your gallery today are five individuals from that great northern

constituency of Omineca. From the village of Fort St. James are Mayor

Jim Togyi, Alderman Peter Rosin, Alex Mitchell, Al Jarvis and the

clerk, Don Spink. I ask the House to make them very welcome.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

In the members' gallery today are two constituents from that great

constituency of Saanich and the Islands. I refer to Alderman John

Lapham of the district of North Saanich, and Mr. William Powell. Would

the House welcome them.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I am very

pleased to have with us in the members' gallery four representatives of

the beef-producing industry in the beautiful desert country of the

Nicola Valley. Will the House please welcome Guy Rose, Paul Chutter,

Gerard Guichon and Yves Bajard.

MS. SANFORD: I would

like to introduce to the House Reverend Ron Attwell and a delegation

from the B.C. Conference of the United Church who met with our caucus

today to discuss six important resolutions passed by the conference, as

they related to provincial government jurisdiction and responsibility.

I'd like the House to make them welcome.

MR. STRACHAN:

I would like the House to welcome two friends of mine: one is Mrs. Jan

Pooley from Prince George; and on behalf of myself and Joan McLatchey,

I'd like the House to welcome Ron Rucette, president of the Prince

George South Social Credit executive.

MR. SEGARTY: In

the Speaker's gallery this afternoon are three young people from

Ottawa: Mary Gleason, Laurie Smith and Marie Nugent. I would like the

House to welcome them this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, after consultation with both sides of the House, I have

given permission today for still pictures to be taken. The newspapers

only have pictures of the previous parliament, and we'd like to update

them. I trust that meets with everyone's approval.

Introduction of Bills

FINANCE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented a message from His Honour the

Administrator: a bill intituled Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1979.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I ask leave to move that the said message and the amendment

accompanying the same be referred to Committee of the House having in

charge Bill 31.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Oral Questions

ICBC POLICY

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I have some difficulty deciding whom I should ask this

question. I'll ask the Minister of Human Resources, who is in charge of

ICBC: does the minister approve of the statement made yesterday by her

colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm),

with respect to the six points around ICBC?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I believe

that question is clearly out of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I can't understand how the minister can say that question

is out of order, other than because she is trying to avoid answering

it. Was she aware that the Minister of Municipal Affairs was making

statements with respect to the six points? Can the minister confirm the

cabinet policy put forward by the Minister of Municipal Affairs

yesterday around ICBC?

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Obviously they had a cabinet

meeting.

Mr. Speaker, is the minister still in charge of ICBC?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I cannot accept

that question, because it is rhetorical. Further questions, please.

MR. KING:

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I appeal to you that question is not

at all rhetorical. There could have been a bloodless coup during the

night.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, hoping for a little

more light in the darkness, I will ask the Minister of Municipal

Affairs a question. Will he table the cabinet documents on the six

points that he showed the press yesterday?

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Premier. In view of the

statement of the Minister of Municipal Affairs with respect to ICBC and

the six points contained therein, I ask the Premier: is this the policy

of the government?

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's out of order.

HOMEOWNER GRANTS FOR

VANCOUVER HOUSING CO-OPS

MR. BARBER: I'have a

question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and sometimes ICBC.

It's nice to see he's still walking, not talking. Look at that, he's

got his hand over his mouth! That's a treat, isn't it?

HON. MR. MAIR: It's better than having your

foot in your mouth!

[ Page 956 ]

MR. BARBER: I think that minister has some

experience with that too, Rafe.

MR. SPEAKER: May we have the question,

please?

MR. BARBER:

Certainly, Mr. Speaker. It's on another topic — the minister will be

relieved. It concerns the homeowner grant — now the Premier's relieved.

Some

seven out of the nine registered housing cooperatives in the city of

Vancouver have been cut off the homeowner grant. On May 1, and again on

May 22, the city council of Vancouver wrote to the minister — and have

yet to receive a reply — indicating that it is their

interpretation of

the homeowner grant that these particular cooperatives by some defect

in the legislation or their memo of association, are no longer eligible

to receive the homeowner grant.

My first question to the

Minister of Municipal Affairs and ICBC is: have you now replied to the

letters from the Vancouver city council?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I have

not as yet received the inquiry.

MR. BARBER:

Well, first of all, the letter was dated May 1 and was signed by the

city treasurer. Having had no answer to that, Mr. Bowers, the city

manager, wrote to you again on May 22. What the city of Vancouver is

asking for is some clarification of the minister's policy regarding....

MR. SPEAKER: May we have the question,

please?

MR. BARBER: Look, it's an important matter

to these people. Have some patience for a moment.

Is it the minister's opinion that housing cooperatives are

eligible for the homeowner grant?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Speaker, I have not as yet received the inquiry from the city of

Vancouver. I have not received the details of their complaint or

inquiry, and until I do I really can't comment.

MR. BARBER: Well, I have the correspondence

and I'll send you my copy. I don't know why you didn't get yours, but

I've got mine.

HON. MR. MAIR: Where did you steal it from,

Charlie?

MR. BARBER: I got mine legitimately.

final question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs on this question

is: would the minister be prepared, by tomorrow evening, to inform, by

telegram if necessary, both the city of Vancouver and the co-ops

themselves whether or not they are eligible for the homeowner grant

and, if so, how soon it may be reinstated? Tomorrow night they are

having a meeting, having had no clarification whatever now for well

over two months, as to whether or not the homeowner grant has been cut

off quite unfairly and quite unreasonably, for hundreds of people.

MR. SPEAKER: The question asks for a future

commitment of the minister's activities, and is not in order.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the minister was

on his feet. If he wants to answer, I will certainly defer.

MR. SPEAKER:

With great respect, hon. member, whether a minister is on his feet does

not have any bearing on whether or not a question is in order.

B.C. GREENHOUSE TOMATOES

MR. STUPICH:

I have a question to the Minister of Agriculture, who yesterday got a

great deal of advice from the Premier, so I hope the Premier is

listening as well.

My question is about Vancouver Island

tomatoes that are piling up in storage while California tomatoes

continue to come into the country. The minister promised to look into

it last week, but now there are further complaints. Coming on the heels

of a $3 million study on B.C. agriculture and the minister's own hope

that we would achieve 65 percent self-sufficiency in agriculture, I

wonder what is happening to the surplus B.C. tomatoes while California

tomatoes continue to be imported.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I

would like to make an observation to the member for Nanaimo that we are

moving toward the 65 percent self-sufficiency. We've had great moves in

that direction.

In regard to the problem with the B.C.

greenhouse tomatoes, I did have my staff research it. They advised me

the problem is not severe and that it is brought up each spring. In

effect, with the coordination of the Greenhouse Growers' Association

and the retail outlets, the problem is not severe. The tomatoes usually

move quite well.

MR. STUPICH: On a supplementary, Mr.

Speaker, I wonder whether the advice that it is not severe has come

from the retailers or from the producers. According to producers and to

the cooperative, it is severe. I wonder where the minister got the

information that it is not a severe problem.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

My staff was in touch with representatives of the Greenhouse Growers'

Association. Mr. John Arnaud is the gentleman who has raised this issue

almost on an annual basis. In checking with the association they found

it was not as severe as Mr. Arnaud led the press to believe.

MR. NICOLSON:

Is the minister aware — being Minister of Energy as well — that there

is an energy crisis in the United States? Because of this, California

producers cannot transport their produce to eastern markets, and this

year it is not a usual problem but an extraordinary problem.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was aware of that some weeks ago; and I contacted

Ottawa in regard to the seasonal tariffs on imported fruits and

vegetables. We did get a positive response in which they brought in

either a percent seasonal tariff or a cent-per-pound seasonal tariff.

Whichever is the greater will now apply. B.C. was the one that made the

moves in that direction and got the matter resolved.

[ Page 957 ]

FLOORCRAFT FLOOR COVERING LTD.

MR. LEVI:

I have a question for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Floorcraft

Floor Covering Ltd. is in bankruptcy. There is some $30,000 outstanding

in wages. Among the preferred and secured creditors are the Workers'

Compensation Board, Revenue Canada, B.C. Hydro and the commissioner of

sales tax for British Columbia. The Workers' Compensation Board,

Revenue Canada and B.C. Hydro have consented to relinquish their

position and those payments so that the employees in this matter can be

paid. Considering that the other agencies have relinquished their

claims, would the minister, because he has discretion in this matter,

be prepared to relinquish the claim of $15,000 in sales tax that is

owed by the company in order that the people may at least have some

contribution towards their wages?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr.

Speaker, this is the first I've heard of this matter, but I should

advise the member that the Minister of Finance only has certain

latitude within the sales tax legislation in terms of severe hardship

and not in terms of any particular segment of society. But I'll be

happy to look into the matter. I'm not able to commit myself as to what

the results of that investigation might be.

MR. LEVI:

I might advise the minister, Mr. Speaker, that the commissioner of

sales tax collection has indicated that he would not authorize such

payment. But the minister has discretion in this matter. Is he prepared

to use it so that instead of collecting taxes we can assure these

people that they will be able to get part of their wages, anyway, from

the $15,000 that he might be prepared to relinquish?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'll take that further

question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

GRANVILLE ISLAND WATERFRONT THEATRE

MR. BARNES:

My question is to the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker. Will the

minister tell the House his reasons for reneging on a commitment to pay

one-third — I think it was $74,000 — to the Granville Island Waterfront

Theatre? Why has that promise not been fulfilled?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, the member suggests from the floor of this House that the

ministry has reneged on a promise, that a promise has not been kept.

That is not correct.

MR. BARNES: Perhaps the minister

would care to clarify what the situation is. Mr. Speaker, I'm making a

representation on the basis of requests that have been made to me that

this inquiry be put to the minister inasmuch as the groups involved —

the New Play Centre, the West Coast Actors and the Carousel Theatre,

which incidentally the minister has made grants to in the past — have

cancelled their arrangements with the Vancouver East Cultural Centre

for space and are now unaware of what they're going to be able to do in

terms of their plays in the future, because they thought the minister

was going to make a contribution.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have a

question?

MR. BARNES: That's the question. I'd like

to know why would they make those charges if they were incorrect. Could

you clarify that?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

One thing about that member, Mr. Speaker, when he asks, I listen,

because he shook my hand in a friendly manner in the last parliament,

and it's just now recovering.

Mr. Speaker, we have a

situation in this particular instance where an organization which seeks

provincial assistance moved ahead on certain assumptions. I've checked

this very carefully because I've been similarly concerned and, indeed,

there were press reports which indicated that suddenly the government

had changed its mind. Organizations which seek provincial assistance

through this fund or some other similar capital fund surely must

understand that until they are told by the ministry concerned that a

grant is approved, they should not move ahead on the basis that the

grant may be approved.

I indicated two and a half weeks ago

to this particular organization that they had assumed that money would

be forthcoming. That's unfortunate, but I don't think the government

should be faulted for a decision which has been made by the

organization seeking the funds. Now that's the best clarification I can

give.

We have not said no with respect to that grant, but

because of press reports which are misleading, but not deliberately are

misleading, I am not about to say: "Yes, here's your money." We have

not yet reached a point where anyone associated with that theatre

should assume provincial assistance is forthcoming.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, today we had a very unusual

experience in this House. We had three ministers of the Crown refusing

to answer questions. I recognize that is the prerogative of the Crown

under very, very extenuating circumstances. However, the precedent set

today could be very dangerous for this House....

Interjections.

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

I'm anticipating a point of order.

MR. COCKE:

My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is whether there is a possibility you

will take this concern, and the precedent that was set this afternoon,

into advisement and advise the House as to how the Speaker feels with

respect to that kind of behaviour.

MR. SPEAKER:

Perhaps, out of hand, I could make an observation on the member's

comment. The standing orders are silent on any authority given to the

Chair to require an answer. As a matter of fact. I think I've said on

many occasions in this House that we can ask questions, we can even

anticipate answers, but we cannot insist on answers. If we wish to have

that changed, I think the measure to be taken is a substantive motion

to be passed by the House itself.

MR. MACDONALD: On a

point of order, the question was very simple. We simply wanted to know

whether the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) was

[ Page 958 ]

in the doghouse. We should have had an

answer to such a simple question as that.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the member is trying

to raise the question again.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Since the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) had a comment to

make, the interesting thing is that most of the questions were ruled

out of order by the Speaker, so they weren't allowed anyway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Hon. Mr. Hewitt filed the 1978 annual report of the British

Columbia Marketing Board.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

LANDS, PARKS AND HOUSING

(continued)

On vote 162: minister's office, $148,408 — continued.

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Chairman, there is some apprehension about this Minister of Lands,

Parks and Housing being the person with the primary responsibility for

parks in this province. Reading former Hansards

and reading his earlier comments on parks would lead one to feel that

the fox is in with the pigeons. He has been a Minister of Mines, and

the issue of mining in parks and logging in parks is looming again in

British Columbia.

I would like to remind the minister of a

comment that the Premier made in October 1978. I would like the

minister's attention on this, because after I've asked this particular

question, I would like to sit down and hear his clear answer. Many

people in British Columbia, within his own riding and within the

Kootenay-Columbia area, are very interested in his answer to my

question.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: I realize I won't get one, but

I'm going to try.

The

Premier said that he would prohibit speculation on Crown land and he

would ensure that B.C. citizens came before other citizens in the

acquisition of Crown land in the new program for disposition of Crown

land. In the Cranbrook newspaper of July 20 it's indicated that a large

number of Albertans are already expressing great interest in acquiring

the Crown land. Now the minister knows, because he represents that

area, that there's a feeling that the British Columbian residents there

are not able to compete for land with the Alberta dollars which flood

into southeastern British Columbia.

I know that in the Lake

Windermere area, for example, people are coming into the area and

buying very large and expensive recreational properties without

mortgages — cash on the barrelhead — and the local residents are paying

attention to that and saying: "My god, I can't compete." He knows that

the pressure from Alberta for recreational land in southeastern British

Columbia is very high. So here we have a situation where Crown land

will be disposed of and Albertans are lining up.

I'll sit

down. I'd like to hear from the minister what guarantees will be given

in the procedures for the disposition of Crown land that British

Columbians will get first crack at acquiring this land.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

First of all, contrary to the views expressed by members of the

opposition, particularly the NDP — there's no other opposition; I was

looking for a Liberal, and I couldn't find one over there — and

contrary to the misconstruction, I guess, of statements that have been

made by regional land managers, district land managers, and the

minister himself, the program of Crown land allocation is designed to

meet the housing needs of British Columbians. Housing. It's not to meet

the speculative ambitions of Albertans or anybody else. The program is

designed to make land available to people who want to build a

residence. In order to achieve title, once Crown land has been acquired

through a lottery system, it will be necessary for that individual to

construct a home on it. So that, in effect, eliminates not necessarily

entirely, but to a substantial degree any possibility of speculation on

the allocation of Crown land for residential purposes.

far as recreational lands are concerned, their release has heretofore

been by lease and available to Canadians. And I might say that the

issuance of residential land will be to Canadians only. Recreational

land, heretofore, has been available to people from other provinces,

other Canadians, but there will be a residency clause put into the

availability of recreational lands. To qualify, an individual will have

to have been a resident of British Columbia for a period of two years

before he can get a recreational lot.

MR. HANSON:

Well, with all due respect, I suggest that you advise those regional

offices through your ministry so that they can instruct Albertans what

the guarantees are going to be. With the sale of Crown land I can

assure you that if your own constituents are going to be competing with

Albertans, and the Albertan wins out, you're going to have some very,

very unhappy British Columbians writing to you. Did you want to say

something?

HON. MR. CHABOT: There won't be any

competition for recreational lots between Albertans and British

Columbians, because it will be available only to those who have been

residents of British Columbia for a two-year period. So that, in

effect, eliminates the competition.

I might say that the

statements that are attributed to the district land manager of Nelson

in a recent interview are erroneous as far as the report in the

newspaper is concerned. Albertans had better not build up their hopes

and expectations of qualifying for recreational land in British

Columbia, unless they're prepared to live in this province and make a

contribution for a period of two years prior to acquiring recreational

land.

MR. HANSON: Well, I'm very pleased to have

prompted those remarks out of the minister.

I'd like to move on to parks, because I know this is the

minister's favourite.

[ Page 959 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: This is the minister's

what?

MR. HANSON:

Favourite. You give great confidence to the staff within your ministry

when they read over your old remarks: "Too many parks in my riding,"

and "There are more parks in British Columbia than anywhere in the

western world." You did say those things — 1975 Hansard .

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, you'd better read that

statement again.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Perhaps, hon. members, I could get the member speaking to address the

Chair and ask the minister to wait his turn to reply. Everyone will

have an ample opportunity.

MR. HANSON: Okay. I'll be happy to send my

sources over to you.

would like to draw the minister's memory back to December 5, 1975, in

the election campaign. The Premier, Bill Bennett, in a telegram dated

December 5, said:

IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION FROM A

CALLER ON AN OPEN-LINE SHOW, MR. BENNETT AGREED THE FORMER SOCIAL

CREDIT GOVERNMENT HAD PERMITTED MINING AND LOGGING IN PARKS, BUT A NEW

SOCIAL CREDIT ADMINISTRATION WOULD IN CREASE PARKLAND WHEN NEEDED, AND

WILL DEFINITELY NOT REDUCE THE SIZE OF ANY PARKS.

It's on the record. I just wanted to draw that to the

minister's attention. I think it relates to my ensuing remarks.

don't think we can really talk about parks without talking about forest

management in the province and its impact on various scenarios that may

impact upon parks. The old growth that the former sustained-yield

concept was based on is not going to sustain the present level of

logging in British Columbia. It's already appearing in some areas,

certainly in the east Kootenays, and I'd be very surprised if the

minister would contradict me on this. What is happening is that more

and more foresters are looking covetously at the relatively small

proportion of forest land within parks, 3 or 4 percent of good timber.

They're looking at that, and seeing that the inevitable crunch, the

reduction of old stands, is going to come about, they're going to be

looking at both logging in parks and logging at higher elevations.

I think anyone who wants to understand the park management

position in this province has to understand that logging and the

management practices over the last couple of decades are going to have

an impact and will raise the question of opening up boundaries and

doing selective logging — taking out the so-called decadent timber and

taking out the so-called bug-infested timber and so on in the parks.

We're going to hear more and more of that. I think that if there are

any people out there listening to me, or listening to my colleagues, or

reading comments in the paper regarding the various parks in the

province, they're going to be hearing this old argument: "We must do

some selective logging. We can do it with balloons; we can do it with

helicopters. We can do it without making a mess. We can do it because

the bugs are going to get it anyway." We're going to hear that more and

more. If you follow that back, what it leads into is that the

forest-management practices in the province have to be looked at very

carefully. They have been pointed out in both the Pearse report and

also in smaller reports by Alan Chambers and various other people who

have done studies on the forest reserves in the province.

I would like to, at this particular session, alert British Columbians

that they're going to have to be watching very carefully, because this

minister, this fox among the pigeons, as I described him, as a former

Minister of Mines is going to be suggesting that more and more access

be got from the parks. I think there is a better way, and here is my

proposal on this particular question.

I think some of the

pressure that is exerted on our parks system, because it is seen as a

recreational facility, could be diverted by opening up, in a very

orderly, controlled and well-managed way, some of the forest licences

of the province. I think the forest industry and the Forest Service

could cooperate and do much more in opening up recreational areas in

the province. I'm not talking about complicated, expensive facilities

or complex camping and recreational facilities; what I'm talking about

are managed, overnight-camping little holes-in-the-bush places where

people can camp and do a bit of fishing. I think that would tend to

relieve some of the pressure on our parks system.

At the

same time, I'm not talking about backing down on the development of our

parks system either, but much more along the American model could be

done. The Forest Service in the United States takes a far greater role

in offering recreational options to people in the forests, and I think

this is something that really could be looked at very carefully. I

realize a recreational forester has been hired recently, but that's

really peanuts. The Forest Service spends very, very little money on

recreational options in the forest. So I would like the minister to

respond on that question as to what sort of leadership he's prepared to

give in terms of getting the industry and the Forest Service together,

in conjunction with Mr. Waterland, and opening things up for the people

of the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. When

referring to members who are sitting in the House, one refers to them

by the portfolio they hold or the constituency they represent rather

than by their personal names.

MR. HANSON: The point is well taken, Mr.

Chairman. Mr. Waterland is the Minister of Forests and I will not refer

to his name.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

If you wish to refer to him, refer to him as the Minister of Forests

rather than by his name. It's in our standing orders and I'd just like

to take this opportunity to point it out.

MR. HANSON: Thank you.

Now

just to comment on parks, I think the minister mentioned in his opening

remarks yesterday that some acquisitions have been made, and I

understand that acquisitions have been made. But in general I think the

parks budget — and I would be surprised if his deputies would disagree

with me — has been more or less static for about the last two years. I

don't think there has been much commitment there to really expand and

really do some innovative and creative things in the parks system.

first question is regarding Princess Louisa Inlet. Princess Louisa

Inlet, which is just off of Knight Inlet, is one of the most scenic

marine parks in the world, and it just so happens that MacMillan

Bloedel has the tree-farm

[ Page 960 ]

licences

adjacent to the park. More and more small boaters are going up to

Princess Louisa, as it is a real gem of a marine park. It could be a

real disaster if the logging is done in the wrong place, if at all. So

I would like to know what the logging plan is for Princess Louisa Inlet

and what steps are being taken to protect the scenic integrity of this

particular beautiful park.

I will go on to one other park

and then I will sit down and ask the minister to respond and then I'll

go on to a couple of other parks, because I think we're seeing

basically the same pressures exerted on the ministry to free up the

regulations and free access onto the land to deal with some of the

conflicting resource values within the parks.

I'd like to

talk about Bowron Lakes. As many people know, Bowron Lakes Park,

located east of Quesnel, is one of the finest examples of a

semi-wilderness park. It's a canoeing park, with a linking of six

lakes. I think three years ago there was an exceptionally high wind

that resulted in a blowdown of some trees, covering about 1,000 acres.

On the face of that, that sounds like a fairly large area, but in

actual fact it's not 100 percent blowdown of the trees; it ranges

between 35 and 50 percent blowdown of this old stand of timber. Now

5,000 acres were blown down immediately adjacent to the park, and that

wood was turned over to various mills in the Quesnel area.

Once

they logged that wood off, they started looking into the park again, at

this 1,000-acre blowdown site. As I say, that particular area is not

100 percent fallen down; it's 25 to 50 percent blown down. Most of the

wood on the ground is quickly losing its value, in terms of lumber.

They're really looking at the trees still standing. This blowdown site

is in a particularly scenic part of the park; it's called Devil's Club

Mountain. As you come into the park, there are various tourist

facilities.

The entire side of the mountain would be

stripped away; obviously that would be a visual scar. The old argument

is: "Let us get in there and cut that wood down, because it is a

dangerous fire hazard." But the fire record in the area is

non-existent. The argument that all that wood is going to become

infested with bugs and that they will, in turn, infest the adjacent

forest is nonsense. The federal entomologists — the people who study

these kinds of things — have indicated that the level of infestation in

the wood within the blowdown area is less than it is in the logged area

nearby. The argument that "if we don't get it the bugs are going to get

it" doesn't make any sense either.

Mr. Ahrens, the deputy,

wrote a letter some time ago to the president of the Association of

B.C. Professional Foresters, outlining very clearly all of the

arguments about insect infestation, fire hazard, and so on. After

weighing up all of these possibilities, it was Mr. Ahrens' conclusion

that the Bowron Lakes blowdown should not be logged. I would like the

minister to tell me about Princess Louisa Inlet, about the Bowron Lakes

blowdown area and about what the plans are for those areas.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Chairman, the member has asked a great number of questions. He has

even told me what my attitude is vis-à-vis parks. Of course, he's

basing his information on some erroneous reports he's read in the

newspaper. I come from an area that has more parks than any other area

of British Columbia. There are three national parks: Yoho National

Park, Glacier National Park and Kootenay National Park. There are three

large Class A provincial parks: Mount Assiniboine Provincial Park,

Hamber Provincial Park and Bugaboo Provincial Park. To the south of us

we have the Top of the World Provincial Park. Recently there has been

large expansion to the Top of the World Provincial Park. In that great

constituency, which is the most beautiful part of British Columbia,

there have been an additional two provincial parks established since

I've been minister. In addition to those parks I mentioned earlier, we

have created a couple more: Whiteswan, a Class A provincial park, and

Athalmer Beach Provincial Park. In the Columbia River constituency we

have the largest wilderness conservancy in all of Canada.

For

the member to say that the area is devoid of parks because of my

attitude and because of statements attributed to me is false. He

doesn't know what he's talking about.

MR. MACDONALD: What about the McNaughton

Plan?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

You backed it. This shows the inconsistency of that party. In 1963,

when McNaughton was in full bloom as the head of the IJC, he was

supporting the plan that would have put that valley — which is made up

of parks today — 60 to 70 feet under water. The NDP were in full

support of the McNaughton Plan to put that valley 60 to 70 feet under

water. Oh, but they changed their minds in 1979 prior to May 10, when

there was a little election: they wanted to preserve that valley; they

were sensitive to the ecosystem and the economy and the environment of

that area, and they wanted to preserve it. They had forgotten their

position in 196 when they had wanted to bury that valley 60 to 70 feet

under water. Oh, how they twist and turn! I've been around in politics

long enough to remember the inconsistency of that party, of how they

twist and turn and take different positions from day to day.

Now let's get back to the question. [Laughter.]

There

is no concerted attack by the forest industry to log within our parks

system in British Columbia. Since I've been minister they've never

received an approach by any forest company or anyone interested in

logging in British Columbia suggesting timber should be removed from

class A parks of British Columbia. There is no reported shortage at

this time of timber in British Columbia. The Ministry of Forests is

carrying out an analysis of the various regions of the province to

determine the timber supply. They have found there is a shortage of

timber in Fort Nelson. Prince George has an additional 15 percent of

timber availability, and as they press on we will come to some

conclusion as to the status and availability of timber throughout

British Columbia. So you may attempt to portray the forest industry as

a villain waiting to pounce upon the parks for the timber within those

parks. But that's not true. I have never received an approach. In fact,

the forest companies of this province have made quite a contribution

toward the construction and maintenance of trails within tree-farm

licences and other Crown forests. They provide 997 campsites in British

Columbia — more than does the parks branch. All are free to British

Columbians, and visitors. So they are making a contribution to tourism,

and to British Columbia.

The member talked about

acquisitions. Last year, I might say, Mr. Chairman, was one of the most

active years as far as the acquisition of private lands is concerned

for the establishment of parks in British Columbia. In view of your

[ Page 961 ]

interest in this subject matter, I'll

just give you

a list of some of the properties we have acquired, and some of the

people who have helped us by making financial contributions to British

Columbians in acquiring parkland.

First, near Kootenay Lake, we acquired 295 hectares — 13

hectares of waterfront. We acquired additional property in Tweedsmuir

Park, and in Montague Harbour, Galiano Island; Ruckle property,

Saltspring Island; Lenny's Bear Lake Resort, Prince George; Mount

Seymour; Smith property, Adams River; Cabbage Island; Gulf Islands;

Tribune Bay; Hornby Island; Surveyors Lake, East Kootenay; Winter Cove,

Saturna Island; Monte Creek, Kamloops region; Cominco property at Adams

River — it was a land exchange; the Flaument property at Adams River;

Kitsumkalum Lake in the Terrace area — a land exchange with Can-Cel;

F.H. Barber Estate, Fraser River — this was a donation; the Bergen

property at Burns Lake; Isle-de-Lis Marine Park.

There

were contributions in our acquisition program by organizations

interested in the acquisition of parklands. We received from the Nature

Conservancy of Canada — which we appreciate very much — $50,000 for the

acquisition of Cabbage Island. The Devonian Foundation of Calgary

contributed $413,837 toward the acquisition of property at Tribune Bay.

In the acquisition of the property at Surveyors Lake in the East

Kootenay they contributed $258,200. In the acquisition of property at

Winter Cove they contributed $262,000. The Second Century Fund of

British Columbia contributed $145,000 in the acquisition of property at

Adams River. The British Columbia Heritage Trust made a contribution of

$41,000 in the acquisition of land at Monte Creek. So we British

Columbians should be grateful to these organizations for their

financial contribution in acquiring private land to be preserved as

parkland in British Columbia. That is along with contributions made by

the province as well in one of the most active years of land

acquisition ever recorded in British Columbia.

MR. HANSON:

Well, the minister certainly demonstrated that he can read. But he

didn't answer my question. My questions were: what is the logging plan

of Princess Louisa Inlet, and what are you going to do about the

blowdown area in Bowron Lakes Park?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Didn't you ask a series of

other questions that I've just responded to, or did I miss some?

MR. HANSON:

You listed a catalogue of acquisitions, but you didn't answer my

questions. My questions relate to Princess Louisa Inlet and the Bowron

Lakes blowdown. That is a question about logging in parks which is

under advisement by your ministry, and I would like you to tell the

House and tell the people of the province whether you're going to log

in the park.

HON. MR. CHABOT: In all fairness, Mr.

Chairman, I think that the member asked me a series of questions about

my attitude towards parks. I've indicated to him that I come from an

area of large parks, an abundance of parks, in the east Kootenays. I

have advocated and have been instrumental in creating additional parks

in the great riding of Columbia River. If that suggests that I have a

negative attitude towards parks, well, the member had better start

thinking a little straighter than he's been thinking. The acquisitions

that we've made since I've been minister, and the expansion of existing

parks as well, must be a clear indication of my attitude towards parks.

For

the member to attempt to construe that I'm opposed to parks and

parkland and the preservation of our heritage in British Columbia is

merely cheap, socialist propaganda. That's all it is, Mr. Chairman. I

never thought I'd see that new member come in here in his first session

in the Legislature and start to play games, play cheap, political

games. I expected more from you than that.

On the question

of Princess Louisa Inlet, first of all you're talking about land on

which the provincial government has no jurisdiction. You're talking

about private land which is held by MacMillan Bloedel, I believe. You

didn't mention their names, but you're talking about logging activity.

There is a logging program which has been considered by MacMillan

Bloedel. It is about 600 acres in the Princess Louisa Inlet, and the

member has attempted to suggest that the area contemplated to be logged

is in the vicinity of a provincial park. That is not correct; the only

provincial park in Princess Louisa Inlet is the Chatterbox Falls Park.

The area in which the logging program — I understand it's to take place

over a four-year period over 600 acres — is to take place is not

visible from Chatterbox Falls, and it is not visible from the Malibu

Lodge either. The only part of that 600 acres that might be visible

from the water would be approximately 40 acres of land. I have

suggested to the Forest Service that they should consider selective

logging, which is a difficult thing to contemplate, I presume, when

you're dealing with a mature forest. I think that what should take

place is that there should be an active and aggressive reforestation

program forthwith, if the logging does take place, and it will take

place over four years. Reforestation would ensure that the scar, which

would be approximately 40 acres in size, would not last for any length

of time. I might say that the log dump will not be in Princess Louisa

Inlet; it will be on the other side of the hill. I don't know if you've

been to Princess Louisa Inlet, but I believe the log dump would be in

the Jervis Inlet. So it would create a minimum scar, and one which I

have suggested, through an aggressive reforestation, would heal much

quicker.

MR. HANSON: Perhaps the minister could put

a note on his pad to include the Bowron Lakes one on the next one.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I will, yes.

MR. HANSON:

I suggest that the minister do whatever he can, and he can do a great

deal through his cabinet to ensure that the logging activity in

Princess Louisa Inlet does not degrade the fine recreational values of

that particular park.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's high up.

MR. HANSON: It's high up, so no one will

see it.

you know, the order-in-council that was passed in 1974 defining the

Purcell Wilderness Conservancy laid out, in the "whereases" of the OIC,

very clearly what the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy would be. It's

interesting that the minister issued a press release not too long ago —

I think it was July 6 — indicating to the people in the province that a

rumour was going around that the bound-

[ Page 962 ]

aries

may be

changed. What in fact is happening is just a normal review of the

potential resource conflicts, which means logging and mining, minerals

and wood. There are not many trails other than trails that are

established by people; it doesn't require much in the way of staffing.

It's a conservancy. It's a recreational wilderness area to be

maintained as a roadless tract in which both natural and ecological

communities are preserved intact, and the progressions of the natural

systems may proceed without alteration. No exploitation or development,

except that necessary for preservation of natural processes, is

permissible.

Use of recreation wilderness shall be limited to activities

which do not detract from or disturb the wilderness experience sought

by visitors to the area. These uses include hiking, camping,

trail-riding, nature study, fishing and hunting. All forms of

commercial activity, as well as the use of combustion engines for

recreational purposes, are prohibited. Any improvement or development

will be limited to that which is required to protect the environment

and to ensure the safety of visitors.

That, in my judgment,

Mr. Minister, is a wilderness conservancy. It is laid out in the

order-in-council to be protected in perpetuity as a wilderness

conservancy and not to have mineralization or timber values withdrawn

from it. The intent of it is clear, and to alter it would be a betrayal

of that conservancy. There is no need for it. There are other

mineralized areas outside the conservancies that can be dealt with in a

rational way.

So I would like you to tell me what exactly

the plans are for the wilderness conservancy. I have a copy of a letter

you wrote to a person who was concerned, and you said: "Please be

assured that the government has no intention of allowing logging within

the present boundaries of the conservancy." Does that mean you will

change the boundaries? That's what I want to know. Is there going to be

a road up Fry Creek to get into the Carney Creek wood or not? That's

what I'd like to know. I know Carney Creek is not within the

conservancy and I understand that the Carney Creek area has relatively

low recreational values and high forest values. But I would like to

know if plans are being made to get at that Carney Creek wood through

Fry Creek.

I would like the minister to answer a question on

South Moresby. I think that South Moresby, considering the high

ecological and forest values that are there and the fragility of the

soil, deserves a lot more examination than has gone into it. I would

like the minister to tell me what steps he will take to ensure that

more examination is done prior to any major decisions being made on

boundaries and recreational development within that park.

have another question about what is happening with Strathcona. I

understand that there are trade-offs in the works, perhaps trading

highly mineralized areas out of Strathcona Park in exchange for other

lands that may come in. I would like to know whether there is an

intention to add areas to Strathcona or just to scalp out the

mineralized areas and reduce the overall size of the park.

think much more could be done in marine park development. I think that

is an area that requires much more attention in our province. I think

the Desolation Sound park is an excellent park, but I think more could

be done on it.

I also have comments on the expansion of

private campsites, which I think are very good. They're offering more

and more facilities that many people want, but I see no reason why the

parks branch should reduce its own expansion program on primitive

campsites just because the private campsites are undergoing

considerable development. I would like to hear the minister's comments

on the expansion of campsite programs.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Chairman, the member wants to know whether we're contemplating the

expansion of our campsites. The answer is no. We're not contemplating

any expansion at this time. If there's any expansion it will be to

existing campsites, where the need might suggest expansion is required,

and where the private sector is unwilling to establish campsites. We do

get a lot of criticism from the private sector for being in competition

in certain selected areas of the province. They feel that it should be

in the private sector. But we're in the process of upgrading and

improving our existing campsites in the province. Where the need arises

for the expansion of an existing one that is not adjacent to an

existing private one, we will do the necessary expansion there.

South

Moresby Island. We're looking at the possibility of establishing some

ecological reserves in that area. That matter hasn't been finalized

yet, but is under current and active examination.

The next

one is the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy in that great constituency of

Columbia River. I don't know where these erroneous reports emanate

from, Mr. Member, and I'd hate to even contemplate or imagine where

they might come from, but what is taking place now is a periodic review

of most parklands in British Columbia. We're looking at the various

conflicts that are presently in place within the Purcell Wilderness

Conservancy. I'm expecting a report from officials of my ministry later

on in the year. I believe it's October of this year they'll be giving

me a report in which they'll outline what they view as a conflict with

the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy, as well as recommendations. I have

some difficulty in trying to prejudge what that report might convey to

me, so until such time as that report is in my hands, I can't tell you

what the recommendations will be.

There are mineral claims

already established within that wilderness conservancy, and that's one

of the conflicts that they're examining. They're examining what I

believe are pressures for crossing Fry Creek to get into the timber,

and at Carney Creek there's a small part of that wilderness

conservancy, or some kind of a reserve, that goes down to the Kootenay

Lake along Fry Creek, which in effect denies access across to Carney

Creek. I presume that's one; I'm not sure. I haven't had detailed

discussions with officials in my ministry, but I presume that's one of

the other conflicts they'll be examining and making recommendations on.

I'll

be glad to further discuss the ramifications of the Purcell Wilderness

Conservancy once the recommendations have been submitted to me. If

there are any substantial changes recommended to the Purcell Wilderness

Conservancy, I would certainly want to consult with the people in

British Columbia through public meetings to have their views as to the

recommendations that are made vis-à-vis the Purcell Wilderness

Conservancy. There is no logging taking place within the conservancy,

and no mining, and neither are contemplated.

The Bowron Lakes Park blowdown that you talked about is a

blowdown of about 1,200 acres in size. It's an area that has been

devastated by blowdown, and it has been

[ Page 963 ]

looked at. It has been examined with

the view of rehabilitating that portion of the park that is

impenetrable by man or beast at this time. The blowdown is very severe,

and any rehabilitation that might take place would be done with a view

to improving the environment in that particular small corner of Bowron

Lakes Park. If it does take place — I'm not suggesting for a moment

that it's going to take place — there would be an active reforestation

program after the rehabilitation program, by the planting of

non-commercial trees. So it has been contemplated, and there's a

possibility that the rehabilitation progam will take place.

MR. HANSON: The blowdowns and infestations

have occurred

since time immemorial, and I don't see any reason why the park, which

is visited by people from all over the world.... People come from

France, from Australia, from all over the world, to travel that

canoeing route. To log, even selectively, on Devils Club Mountain would

certainly detract.... It would make us look like a pretty

penny-pinching bunch to have logging within that park. I think that you

have to draw the line; you have to decide at what point a park is a

park. So that judgment is going to be yours. You're going to have to

live with it politically.

I would just like for the sake of

the record to.... The minister's smiling. He knows that I was going to

retrieve some of the early Hansards

about his comments on parks. I guess they have been brought to his

attention before. But I would like everyone just to know what he said

when the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy was established.

June 2, 1975, he was talking to the former Minister of Lands. He's

wondering whether the minister would say whether his policies of

establishing and expanding provincial parks, and establishing

wilderness conservancy areas, would have a detrimental effect on people

living within the Rocky Mountain Trench.

I'm

wondering if the minister is proud of the fact that he is destroying

jobs within the area of the people I represent. What does he propose to

do to ensure that these jobs continue to exist within the constituency?

What does he propose to do to put replacement timber in the area which

he has removed by expansion of Class A provincial parks and the

superimposition of the wilderness conservancy in my area?

He goes on to list the parks in his constituency, and I'm not

denying he does list a number of parks.

You

do have parks there; but you're saying that the Purcell Wilderness

Conservancy has exceeded the line — if I can paraphrase you. You say:

"It's not a question of being against parks. I'm a great supporter.

However, I'm a great I believer in drawing the line, and we've exceeded

the line." So in your judgment the Purcell conservancy went beyond the

line; it shouldn't have been in. And that's why we have to be vigilant

with the fox; we have to watch very carefully what the fox is going to

do. I just want to point that out for the record.

I have a couple of other questions. In relation to the Nitinat

Triangle there have been negotiations with the federal government about

the tree-farm licences that are to be incorporated into Pacific Rim

Park. I would like an update on the status of those negotiations. The

former minister indicated the federal government wasn't negotiating; I

want to hear the straight goods on that.

There is another proposition looming — and I wonder if the

minister is dealing with it — to log the international boundary 50

miles long and 50 feet wide in the area south of Manning Park. This is

in the northern Cascades, and, I guess, in Seaton Park on the American

side. I understand that the American government doesn't want to take

the wood away; they just want to cut the wood and make a nice, clear

international boundary so that it looks nice and neat on a satellite

photograph or something. Do you know about that?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Where is that?

MR. HANSON:

South of Manning Park, in the northern Cascades — 50 feet wide and 50

miles long. They're not going to take the timber; it has no commercial

value whatsoever. It's just to make a nice, neat demarcation on the

map. I'd like to know what your ministry is doing about that one.

I get satisfactory answers after I sit down, I'll stay down; otherwise

I'll stand up again. In concluding I would just like to advise the

minister that the parks are not just recreational facilities; they are

gene pools for the biota, and he is the custodian of them — as

worrisome as that is to many people in British Columbia. You have a

responsibility and I hope you're going to live up to it. I'll be

watching you very closely.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr.

Chairman, I have always lived up to my responsibilities, and that's

probably one of the reasons why I've been returned to this Legislature

on six separate occasions.

That statement that you claim I made sometime in 1975 — which

is in Hansard

— is precisely what I said and precisely what I meant when I was

talking about parks. There is the need sometimes for a balance between

jobs and the establishment of park lands. You, of course, don't

remember and are not aware of what took place in the constituency that

I represent prior to the establishment of the Purcell Wilderness

Conservancy, where the former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources and czar of everything else arbitrarily added a large piece

of forest land to Mount Assiniboine Park. This extracted a tremendous

amount of timber land from the forest inventory within the area, which

had a tremendous impact on the sawmills in that area being able to

continue to cut timber at the previously established rate. The Purcell

Wilderness Conservancy was another alienation of timber volumes.

What I was suggesting at that time was that there is room for

proper balance; we have to take into consideration that a valley can be

all parks; but when there are people living within that valley, they

have to have a means of livelihood. That was the point I was attempting

to make when I talked about the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy. But the

Purcell Wilderness Conservancy is now established, it's in place, and

it has impacted on the ability of sawmills to continue to operate,

because there is an overcutting taking place within my constituency as

far as forestry is concerned. There is a need — in the not-too-distant

future, really — to cut back on allowable cut, and this is attributable

to a substantial degree to the expansion of Mount Assiniboine Park and

the establishment of the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy. That doesn't

mean that I'm suggesting for a moment that the boundaries of the

Purcell Wilderness Conservancy should be changed to improve the timber

supply in the area. I'm just saying that these are the facts of life

and these are the facts that should be considered when you're talking

about establishing parks.

[ Page 964 ]

We've had a variety of proposals in the area. The other

valley, the

other side of the Rocky Mountains: there's been a massive proposal for

a wilderness conservancy there too. I think that these other factors

should be closely considered, especially in an area that has the

abundance of parks that my area has, to maintain a proper balance.

Now,

Mr. Chairman, he asked one more question that had to do with Nitinat

land exchange negotiations that are taking place. There has been

consultation between various forest companies and my ministry regarding

the exchange of forest land for other forest lands. We've reached the

point that we will be negotiating in the not-too-distant future with

authorities in the federal government for their cost-sharing in the

acquisition of these lands for the expansion of that national park. The

dollar figures are big and negotiations should be proceeding fairly

quickly.

MR. GABELMANN: I don't believe we'll need

keep the minister very long this afternoon. I just have a few brief

comments. Sometimes when the minister interrupts with his heckling,

that has a tendency to make us less brief than we intended to be to

begin with. However, I intend to be brief to begin with.

want to talk about the three distinctive areas of responsibility of the

ministry. First of all, dealing with the question of housing, I'm not

really very clear, unfortunately, about the details of the agreement

between the federal government and the provinces, I assume, relating to

the division of responsibilities for housing, and the so-called

third-sector housing, co-ops and public housing being a federal

responsibility and the senior citizens' housing a provincial

responsibility.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

seems to me that when you're talking about public or cooperative

housing in any way, there needs to be a great deal of provincial

activity in terms of systems of land acquisition and systems of getting

the projects off the ground when dealing with provincial authorities. I

hope that the minister will make certain that cooperative housing is

encouraged.

It does provide a significantly cheaper form of

accommodation for a great many people who do chose to live in that type

of housing, and I just want to say that I hope you will give every

assistance and every encouragement to the growth and development of

cooperative housing in British Columbia.

I want to raise

some concerns about seniors' housing. I noticed, listening to the

minister last night talking about a number of projects underway.... I

reread the Blues a few minutes ago to just check that. I'm pleased

about that. That's necessary. I'm concerned that seniors' housing has

been neglected for some time.

Just out of curiosity, I

checked the projected population.... I'm not sure what the words are,

but I checked population "changes" as the years go by. We presently

have in British Columbia approximately 10.1 percent of our population

over 65. It's about 252,000 people; roughly 10 percent of our

population is over 65 years of age.

That's projected to go

up in the next ten years to 11.8 percent of our population; the

projected figure is about 350,000 people over 65. It's further

projected that 20 years from now the figure for over-65s will be 12.6

percent of our population, approximately something over 400,000 people.

With the increasing number of people who come here to retire, and the

number of years we're living increasing all the time — it has increased

significantly over the last few years — and the curves in the birth

rates, it suggests to me that there will be needed a very intensive

government program over the next few years in seniors' housing. Not

that the minister is not already aware of that change and the need for

government responsibility in seniors' housing, but I just wanted to

raise that specifically in these estimates so that the department in

its planning can take that into account. We will be watching to make

sure that they do.

Housing is, quite frankly, a difficult

ministry to either be the minister for or the critic of. Housing is

obviously one of those very basic human needs. It really doesn't matter

whether governments are massively active or totally inactive; people

will have shelter. In the Depression, people found shelter in a variety

of ways, sometimes living in an old car, or sometimes living in the

bush somewhere with makeshift roofs over their head, or sometimes under

bridges. People find shelter. It's not one of those issues where you

can say: "There is no housing." What we have to talk about is whether

it's adequate, whether it's priced right and whether it suits people's

needs.

But because it's such a difficult decision as to

whether or not housing is adequate, a friend of mine reminded me of

three lines from T.S. Eliot that I wanted to read into the record

because I think they describe so well the housing situation. I know,

Mr. Chairman, that poetry is frowned upon in this House. My colleague,

the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), was dissuaded from reading

some lovely poems from W.H. Auden. Nevertheless, these three lines from

T.S. Eliot, I think, are very apt when it comes to describing the

housing problem:

"And time yet for a hundred

indecisions,

And for a hundred visions and revisions

Before the taking of toast and tea."

think that very much describes the problem we all have — both sides of

the House, whether we are government or opposition — in dealing with

the housing situation. It is very difficult to define whether there is

a problem, and it is very difficult to define the level at which

government should get active. I want to say, through you, Mr. Chairman,

to the minister, that I believe that we — you as government members —

should be taking very serious recognition of the fact that there will

be many, many more people among us over 65. Public assistance for

housing for seniors is crucial. I think we should also take note of the

desire on the part of many people for cooperative housing, and that

should be assisted — despite the fact that I understand that the

federal government is now taking greater responsibility. That is all I

want to say about housing in general.

I wanted to raise a

couple of specific problems that have been raised with me. One of

these, I believe, will be partially solved by legislation in the

omnibus bill, and that is the whole question of the home purchase

assistance grant. Some people have become ineligible as a result of

curious situations, which you are well aware of and which I discussed

with your deputy just the other day. We will have to talk about this

more specifically when the bill is in front of the House, but there are

people who are left out. The legislation is not retroactive and there

are probably several hundred people who might want to try to get hold

of their

[ Page 965 ]

$1,000

grant, but they are not eligible because of the way the laws have gone

on. Perhaps it is more appropriate to deal with that in the

legislation, but it is something for you to think about in terms of

finding a way to assist those people who, because of the way the

legislation was amended a year or two ago, have been left out in the

cold in terms of the assistance grant.

I don't know that

another problem has been solved, and let me just very quickly relate

the details of this one. It relates to the New West housing development

in the lower mainland, which was an AHOP program, and one purchaser in

particular. I can't speak for any more; I only have the details from

one. Let me just read my notes on this; it might be more effective.

This person bought an AHOP home through Nu-West. The homes were so

defective that after little more than a year's occupancy an arrangement

was made by Nu-West to buy them out, supposedly at no loss to the home

owners. However, this person has lost eligibility for a Ministry of

Housing grant or a second mortgage. He has inquired about

reinstatement, but, as the correspondence indicates, he is deemed

ineligible. He was in the house longer than a year. He would be glad —

I won't read all the notes on this — to pay the $200 back so that he

could then be eligible for the $1,000, but he is not allowed to.

you understand the problem without me going into more details?

Technically, I suspect, under the law he is ineligible, but that is the

kind of situation that develops. Here is a person who took advantage of

a scheme and, through no fault of his own, does not gain any benefit

from the scheme. He would be very willing to pay the $200 back that he

did gain, in effect, for the one year occupancy in the house, which was

bought back by the developer because the house was no good. If you like

I can go into more detail, but I don't really think we need to take the

time of the House for this kind of thing.

Turning to the

lands responsibility of the minister, I just want to say very quickly

that I hope we can avoid the situation that we've had over the years

when people band together to apply for rural subdivisions. It takes —

in one case I'm thinking of — five years from the beginning to make an

application for a rural subdivision. The one I'm talking about is in

Port McNeill. There has been a five-year period between the application

and the actual going ahead. I'm going to the opening this Saturday, in

fact.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that the Land Lovers

Society?

MR. GABELMANN:

That's right. It is the Port McNeill Land Lovers Society. We have some

more landlovers up there too, as the member for Comox will attest to.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I know that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair. I

realize there's some pleasant badinage going on....

MR. GABELMANN:

The situation, Mr. Chairman, simply put, is that people cannot afford

to, or choose not to, purchase developed lots within the municipalities

in those areas. They choose to live out in the bush, as it were, in

one- or two-acre parcels. Perhaps some of them are more like five-acre

parcels, but more realistically they are one- or two-acre parcels out

in the bush in an area that's appropriate for power, all of the health

factors, access and whatever.

There is an incredibly long process that they have to go

through.

There is now a group in Port Hardy, the Port Hardy landlovers, who are

attempting to acquire some land from the ministry. They've only been

going a couple of years, so they feel that they've got three more years

to wait before they'll get their land, if the past practice is any

indication. I hope those procedures can be speeded up. I know that the

minister talked about 120 days from initial application to completion

of the process. I don't know whether that's sufficient time, quite

frankly, when you consider all the problems that must be dealt with in

the course of events. But if that's possible, then let's allow this to

happen up there in Port Hardy as well.

If you let me, Mr. Chairman, I'll speak for the rest of the

afternoon on parks. It's a favourite topic of mine, and, quite frankly,

I'd love to be in my canoe right now with my hiking boots and camping

gear, somewhere out in one of the beautiful spots of my riding.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN:

I'm going to be very brief, so that I can get a chance to do some of

that camping and hiking. I think that one of the things that I was

always very supportive of in the former administration of W.A.C.

Bennett was the parks program that was developed in those days. Let me

be specific: the campsite aspect of the parks program. I thought the

campsites in British Columbia ranked among the best in North America,

and that program was excellent in many ways. I'm sure there were flaws

and deficiencies, but nevertheless, the concept and the development of

that style of campsite was really quite good. Oregon was the only place

I can think of that might have been better, but ours were very good and

the best in Canada, as far as I'm concerned.

We have changed

since the 1950s and early '60s. Society has changed since that time. We

no longer have the situation that we had then where the family would

bundle into the family car and put the tent on the roof and go out

camping. We still have a little bit of that, but what we have now — and

there are variations in between — are people who get out into the

wilderness and camp, either backpacking or canoeing or whatever else,

and people who use recreational vehicles to go camping. I don't even

consider that camping, but that's their choice. The campsite program we

have is designed really for neither one of those categories. You can

think of the campsites around this province, and none are really

designed for recreational vehicles. They are more designed for tenting,

but there's very little tenting in those campsites now. Tenters prefer

to get away from these recreational vehicles with their television

sets. What I think has happened with the very excellent program is that

it's been allowed to continue simply because it's been there. It's been

successful and highly used, obviously, but it doesn't really suit the

needs.

The one point of disagreement I have with the

minister is over the proportion of public campsites versus private

campsites. I'm very much a believer in public campsites. I recognize

the need in some cases for private campsites, but I would just as soon

have the government actively involved in a campsite program. I think

that's a very important role for government, and I applaud the W.A.C.

Bennett government for its recognition of that principle. Perhaps

[ Page 966 ]

there

should be a different kind of site for recreational vehicles. They have

different needs, obviously, and I won't go into all the details of that.

have just a couple of specifics. I was in Port Hardy at the northern

end of Vancouver Island this weekend. I might just mention that on this

weekend the road was finally black all the way from Campbell River to

Port Hardy. It's a pleasure to drive up on that new highway. The

problem is that people are driving up on the new highway, and there are

very few parks. The only parks in the area are forest company parks,

and they are very few and far between. What the municipality of Port

Hardy has had to do with campers, both in terms of the recreational

vehicles and tenters, has been to put them up on some of the streets.

There are people camping on the streets in Port Hardy, because there

are no facilities. I think the ministry staff should be taking a very

close look at the campsite and recreational vehicle campsite

requirements on the north end of Vancouver Island now that the main

road up there is complete. There is a very urgent requirement for

greater campsite development up there.

One of the things

that I think about every time that I drive over the Hope-Princeton

Highway is whether it would be possible.... I would be interested if

somebody in the ministry could perhaps have a look at this when they

peruse the debate, as I'm sure they will. Every time I drive over the

Hope-Princeton I think about the river that flows from the Hope Slide

all the way down to where it joins the Skagit River. It is a beautiful

little river that flows along the highway. It's full of snags and

whatever, but it's a beautiful, canoeable river, I suspect. It's the

kind of project that I think the ministry could and should get involved

in. Clean up the river; make it an area where beginner river canoeists

could start out. That kind of project would not be expensive, it would

employ a few people every spring to make sure the river was free of

some of the deadfalls and the snags that do exist in there. It's in an

area that's very accessible to crews because it parallels the highway.

For a great many British Columbians who are now getting into canoeing,

unlike 10 years ago, it might be a very challenging little creek, a

beginning river to teach kids how to handle a fairly stiff current in a

relatively safe environment. That's a project I would encourage you to

have a look at.

Marine parks. Last summer I did something

that very few people do: I canoed around Desolation Sound. I put the

canoe in the water at Lund, and paddled up past the Copeland Island

park area, up through Refuge Cove and that area. My problem wasn't the

natural elements; the problem was the big American cruisers coming by

and creating four-foot wakes. Every time one came by, I had to turn

into the wake. Nevertheless, canoeing was a bit risky in there but, I

suspect, it's something that's going to become more frequent as time

goes on.

The problem I found while camping on the beach in

the Copeland Islands.... Those parks are very fragile. I would think

that if two or three of us went camping each summer, within five years

we would probably destroy the environment of those islands. I was very

aware of that, in simply putting up a tent. It's a very dry area and

it's very small.

In the servicing — if that's the right word

— of the marine parks which we have, such as the Copeland Island park,

I think that there should be some concern about those who might destroy

those little islands. A large number of power boaters also tend to go

ashore and set up camps. I'm not sure what the answer is, but it's

something we need to think about as future government policy.

would hope that you would look at all the northern straits, in terms of

their acquisition for park development. For example, the Surge Narrows

area, which is off Quadra Island, is a very beautiful spot; from the

land, people can actually watch what looks like a major river pouring

through that channel with the tide. It's a spectacular sight. I would

be very, very disturbed if some of those sites were alienated to

private use. It would be very useful if the ministry could acquire some

of that land, or set it aside for future acquisition so that parks

could be established.

It's the same thing throughout the

whole northern end of the Straits of Georgia: there are a great many

beautiful islands up there. We haven't yet had the same kind of

development up there as we've had in the southern Gulf Islands. Let's

get hold of the best potential parkland now while it's still available

and while it's still relatively cheap, too, before those islands become

as alienated as have so many of the southern Gulf Islands.

That's probably all I wanted to say at this point, unless I'm

tempted to respond further to your answers.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Let's start with the marine parks. Last year we acquired lands for

marine parks at Tribune Bay, Winter Cover and Cabbage Island, and we

expanded another marine park in the southern part of the Island. At the

moment, we're looking at couple of pieces of property at Furry Creek

and Porteau Cove on Howe Sound as possible acquisitions for marine

parks. We're prepared to look at the north Island, with a view to

acquiring areas suitable for marine parks. I'm not going to suggest for

a moment that we can get you any answers overnight; it's going to take

some time. We couldn't possibly get an answer for at least a year; that

would be the very earliest. Certainly I'll ask officials in the

ministry to examine the need for marine parks in the northern part of

Vancouver Island.

The ministry, in conjunction with the

Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat, are looking at the

question of recreational rivers in the province. I can't suggest for a

moment that the river you mentioned, the unnamed river that flows into

the Skagit River, would be one that might be considered as a suitable

river for canoeing. One never knows; one has to look at the possibility

of conflicts.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's the Coquihalla.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Is it the Coquihalla?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

You're wrong, Mr. Member. We have to look at whether it's a steelhead

river. We have to be careful of the environment when we start pulling

up snags from rivers to facilitate canoeing. However, we're prepared to

look at it — with no promises.

You mentioned the question of

Crown land. Yes, it is the objective of the ministry to make Crown land

available to British Columbians, on the basis of need, hopefully by

means of an application to an adjudication within 120 days. I'm not

going to suggest for a moment that we will achieve

[ Page 967 ]

that

objective in each and every instance but, nevertheless, that is our

objective. You have to take into consideration the variety of other

reserves and other interests of other government agencies attached to

that Crown land, be it fisheries or the Forest Service. In some

instances people apply for land that is locked into a provincial

forest. Before it can be released, that has to be a determination of

the Forest Service of the province.

We have applications

from the Land Lovers of Port Hardy and Port McNeill and it's under

active consideration. The regional manager is negotiating with those

people for the purpose of making Crown land available to them in the

northern part of Vancouver Island.

You mentioned the recent

agreement that we signed with the national government. In that

agreement we became basically responsible for the provision of senior

citizens' housing in British Columbia and the federal government took

on other responsibilities which were joint in nature before. The

high-impact grant in cooperatives and things of that nature are now the

sole responsibility of the national government. The senior citizens'

housing administration comes under the auspices of the provincial

government. Of course, the reason for that is in the interests of

economy. It's a question of cutting out the bureaucracy and the

duplication and the cost of duplicating the programs that are in place.

So we've agreed to split these responsibilities, hopefully with it

being more efficient.

You mentioned the matter of senior

citizens' housing in British Columbia. I think we have a very effective

program in the provision of senior citizens' housing in British

Columbia. In the last fiscal year ending March 31, 1979, we have

completed 1,660 units; 120 units are under construction; 255 units are

not yet started but have received approval in principle in the last

fiscal year. That's a total of 2,035 senior citizens' housing units in

this province.

I think that we're meeting the need. I might

say that the need has diminished despite the fact that there are more

seniors coming on stream in British Columbia. The reason the need has

diminished is that we have introduced the Shelter Aid for Elderly

Renters program in British Columbia. In the first year of that program

we provided assistance to 16,000 senior citizens in rental

accommodation. If there is a need and if there is an interest on the

part of seniors to move into accommodations that we're prepared to put

together, we'll put it together. I might say that we are meeting the

need. There are ample dollars allocated to meet the need in British

Columbia.

I think that pretty well answers the questions

that were put to me. There's one about the Home Purchase Assistance Act

which the member put to me. I don't want to start debating the

amendments that are put in the bill. All I want to say is that in any

law it's not possible to please everybody and to be able to satisfy

every need. There are certain isolated circumstances that develop

within the application of the law. We have an appeal system — a

committee that looks at these appeals — and unfortunately some people,

maybe through no fault of their own, aren't able to meet the

specifications of the law. The committee looks at it and views the

application. In some instances they do give consideration, but in some

instances are unable to do so because of the way the law reads.

There

is no appeal and no discretionary power on the part of the minister, so

under those circumstances I have to conclude that we can't always

satisfy every person who feels he's been wronged by the law. I think it

would put a most unfair degree of pressure on the minister if he were

to have absolute discretion in the allocation of these grants. So the

Home Purchase Assistance Act, which is being amended, Mr. Chairman, is

a positive step forward in making more money available to British

Columbians in a more effective and meaningful way.

MS. SANFORD:

The minister has been giving a geographic tour this afternoon of some

parts of Vancouver Island and that general mid-northern part of

Vancouver Island. I would like to provide him with a bit more

information and to pose a question to him.

There's an island

known as Mitlenatch Island, Mr. Chairman, and it's one of two nature

parks on Canada's west coast. I don't know whether or not the staff

will be familiar enough with this island that the minister will be able

to answer my question this afternoon, but I'm hopeful that they will be

able to.

The island is a naturalist's paradise. It has 126

varieties of birds. It's a seabird colony, really. It was an island

that was obtained by the provincial government in 1963, after the

federal government wanted to purchase the island in order to make it

into a target range for bombing practice. Fortunately the provincial

government obtained the island in 1963. It was set up as a nature park,

it has all these varieties of birds on it, and, Mr. Chairman, up until

last year there were always two naturalists on the island for the

entire summer season. This year, unfortunately, there is only one

naturalist, and he's there for a period of only five weeks.

Now

the big concern of the naturalist is that next year there may not be a

naturalist. I know most people talk about the unique quality of each of

the Gulf Islands, and each island is unique in its own way. But in

terms of the numbers and species of birds that are located on this

island, the concern is that if there is no naturalist, people will

arrive by private boat out of curiosity and will do untold damage to

the nesting areas — unless there is a naturalist there to guide them

and to inform them as to what kind of problems they might create by

just trampling helter-skelter on Mitlenatch Island.

My only

question, Mr. Chairman, is: could the minister please assure us that

there will continue to be naturalists located on Mitlenatch Island?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the answer

is yes.

MS. SANFORD: Thank you.

MR. MITCHELL:

Mr. Minister, I don't want to belabour your estimates any longer than

necessary, but there is one problem that is developing in my riding

that is affecting a lot of people, and that is the closing down of some

of our trailer parks, especially the older trailer parks, and some of

the first to be established. In these trailer parks we have a lot of

older people, senior citizens, who have bought trailers or have been in

the park for a number of years. Over the years this land has become

more valuable if sold and redeveloped for townhouses.

The

problem that now arises is that people get their notice to move, and

being in an older trailer, they cannot get into some of the newer

trailer or mobile-home lots,

[ Page 968 ]

especially

those lots that are controlled by dealers in mobile homes. They have

set up mobile-home parks on Indian land and on private land, which they

are quite able to do. But when someone is forced to move, and they have

invested $15,000 or $20,000 — that is their home and they can't find

any place to put their trailer — it causes a lot of inconvenience and a

lot of hardship to some of the older people. Granted there are certain

trailer parks 20, 30 or 40 miles outside of the city, but the problem

out there is that there are no bus lines and no way they can get out by

public transit. This is a problem that is affecting a lot of them.

am asking if the Ministry of Housing has any plans to develop any

trailer parks in the greater Victoria areas. I have noticed the

Ministry of Housing has applied to take 44 acres out of the land that

they have in the Highlands area at the east end of Millstream Road and

have it rezoned into single, city-sized lots. Has the Ministry of

Housing any particular reason for having this land rezoned? What are

the plans for it?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I'm

not familiar with the 44 acres that the member suggests is being

rezoned on application by the ministry. I have no information on that,

so it is difficult for me to comment.

I recognize the

problem that some of the seniors are experiencing in some of the

mobile-home parks, which they are attempting to strata, and the

pressures they are putting upon them, and the financial difficulties

which they experience. Unfortunately I have no jurisdiction as far as

mobile-home parks are concerned. That comes under the Landlord and

Tenant Act. Even though the problem has been brought to my attention in

error, I have forwarded the correspondence to the Minister of Consumer

and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), who is responsible for the

Landlord and Tenants Act.

MR. MITCHELL: I realize

that there is a certain overlap in jurisdiction, but the problem arises

in providing a pad for the trailer, and I feel that these pads do come

under the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. Are there any plans

within the Housing ministry to make these services available? I imagine

that if it's affecting people in my particular area, it's affecting

people with trailers in other jurisdictions, and I was just wondering

if there was any future under the Housing ministry for people with

trailers.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I understand

that there is a supply of mobile-home pads in your area, in the

Colwood-Langford region. The only problem appears to be with the

quality of the pad and the area that they're on; or else the quality of

the trailer that wants to move onto another mobile-home park of

different quality appears to be the problem — the inability to match

the mobile-home park with the trailer or the mobile home with the park.

So it's a problem; but vacancies do exist and there appears to be no

justification to consider the establishment of mobile-home parks at

this time.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I'll be very

brief. But before I speak to the minister — through you, Mr. Chairman —

about the matter I wish to bring to his attention, I want to take this

opportunity to wish the minister every bit of luck; if he can possibly

make Crown land available to people in 120 days, he'll certainly get my

congratulations on that, because we've had people in my riding who have

waited up to three years for an answer. The answer they usually get

back, after three years of waiting for the yes or no on their

applications, is usually no. And how you're going to get around

Highways in terms of access and Health in terms of sewage and water and

what not is beyond me, but lots of luck.

What I wish to

bring to your attention, Mr. Minister, is something that you know a

great deal about already; we've discussed it in private, and I'm not

going to go into all the details. This is regarding Okeover Park. I

know that you're meeting with members of the regional board next

Sunday, and in private conversation you've indicated that particular

problem will be resolved reasonably and to their satisfaction, and I'm

happy — sort of.

What bothers me is one paragraph, that

highlights the whole business, in correspondence addressed to you from

the regional board, with a copy to me. I'll just quote you this one

paragraph:

"The evidence is clear that no referrals

were received by the lands branch, Marine Resources or the regional

district concerning this new park. This inadequacy in your consultation

procedure has produced a very ominous situation. It is our business to

develop the regional development plans for the district."

As you know, Mr. Minister, the park that was designated

arbitrarily by your ministry in that particular area does not conform

to the regional plan, and was not desired by the people in the area.

While that regional board has a lot of requests for areas to be set

aside as park and potential park or park reserves, in this one

particular area, where the main culture industry is at stake, I would

like to have the assurance of the minister that in future his ministry

will consult with Fisheries, with regional districts particularly, and

with the other agencies involved.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I have a

great tendency to call that park Okie-over, but I guess I'd better call

it Okeover.

Yes,

the member and I had discussions about it, and to suggest that there

were no referrals between various government agencies prior to the

takeover.... It was not arbitrarily superimposed, as you attempt to

convey, and it's not an ominous situation, as the newspaper attempts to

portray it. It's just the transfer from one government agency to

another of an existing campground. Because of the usage of the

campground, the Forest Service came to the conclusion that it could be

better administered under the parks branch. Because of the tremendous

knowledge and understanding of campgrounds that they have in the parks

branch, they felt that it was a logical progression for it to move to

the parks branch, and that's exactly what took place. Referrals took

place despite what.... What's the name of that newspaper?

HON. MR. LOCKSTEAD: The Powell River News.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Despite what the Powell River Town Crier

or the News

has to say, the matter was referred. It's a question of moving from the

Forest Service to the parks branch, and it's one where we're not

looking at the need for an expansion — it's a question of a campground

being there.

[ Page 969 ]

We're

very concerned about the possible conflict there might be with

mariculture in that region, and we certainly do not want to impact on

the potential of the harvest from the sea in that region. I'm having

discussions with officials of the regional district very soon — early

next week — at which time we'll have a full and open discussion about

how to protect the potential of the mariculture in that region. If the

regional district feels that they are more capable of managing this

area, this small — I believe it's ten acres — campground, I'm certainly

prepared to convey it to them as a regional park so that they can have

effective local control if they think that is more beneficial. However,

I'm not going to have the discussion with you, Mr. Member, and other

members in the House here, when the discussion is going to be taking

place fairly soon — 11:30 a.m. next Monday, in my office — as the

member told me.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: What started out as a very

small question turned out to be a flood of verbal information which we

already knew. [Laughter.]

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

The

point I was trying to make, Mr. Minister, was that the regional

district was not consulted in this particular instance. I would hope

that in future your branch will consult regional districts and their

planners on these matters.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, absolutely.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The minister nods his head

good. No, please don't answer. [Laughter.]

MR. HALL:

The previous member mentioned regional districts, which actually fits

in with a couple of questions that I have. The question is whether or

not the minister would care to share with the House the latest

developments, if there are any at all, with the Tynehead proposal in my

riding. Having watched the development of that proposal since 1966, and

now to see it, as it were, fall off the edge of the table with either a

very attentive minister who watched it fall, or a very inattentive

minister who just let it fall....

HON. MR. CHABOT: What is your point of view

on it? Do you support it?

MR. HALL: I'll let you know my point of

view as soon as you share with the House what you've been doing, Mr.

Minister.

would like the minister to bring us up to date on that, and the second

thing I'd like him to tell us about is whether there are any

developmental pressures that the minister feels in a similar area —

namely Mud Bay and Boundary Bay, to the side of the new riding of

Surrey which now, as you know, takes in White Rock.... That's the last

of our warm-water beaches. It is owned, in part, by a Crown

corporation. It is owned, of course, in terms of the low-to-high

watermarks by ourselves, and there is some private land there. I would

like to know if there are any developmental pressures which the

minister might like to share with us on that.

The last

question I have is that while we're all congratulating the minister and

looking to great things from him, we do notice that he is starting off

with a decrease of 10 percent in the money he has got. That is not a

very auspicious beginning for a minister. I would like him to explain

to us why we do have what appear to be cuts in three areas of endeavour

which are very vital at this time. Housing is one of the things which

is a pump-primer. It is the kind of thing which has a multiplying

effect. It's the kind of activity that might, indeed, produce some of

the jobs the minister is fond of talking about.

Also, in the

terms of recreation, if indeed we are going to enter the decade of the

eighties with any recreational strategy at all, you would think that

this might be the time in which we could put some of our unemployed

people to work, again doing some pump-priming work. There may be other

votes, special funds or piggy banks that the minister knows of, which I

know nothing about. I would like him to explain that apparent anomaly

of a bright, new, shiny minister with a 10 percent reduction in his

budget.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, we have

hundreds of students employed in the parks branch on a temporary basis

this summer.

The

member talks about a 10 percent cut in my proposed expenditures. Well,

I want to tell the member that there has been a movement of $4 million

from the estimates into the home acquisition fund, so that would have

quite an impact on the budget. The exact percentage would be — I can't

tell you offhand — in the neighbourhood of 7 percent right there, I

would think.

I am not familiar with the issue that the

member raises regarding Boundary Bay and the recreational potential I

believe he was talking about there. If the member wants to apprise me

of that problem I would be glad to respond to him by letter.

Part

of the Tynehead Regional Park is being promoted as a future zoo for the

city of Vancouver and the lower mainland. I have had correspondence

with the Greater Vancouver Regional District with respect to this

proposal, and because of the need of the minister signing a lease on

lands wherein the province has made a contribution for the

establishment of parks, without the involvement of the province I've

offered the Greater Vancouver Regional District an opportunity to

acquire our interests within that portion of the land which they want

to turn into a zoo. We would take that provincial contribution that

we've made into that regional park and place it into some area of

interest of the GVRD, and the GVRD could press on with their objectives

to have a zoo in the city of Vancouver.

Well, I don't know

what's happening with the GVRD. We've given them an opportunity to

respond to the Tynehead Society, so that if they're genuinely

interested in seeing established a world-scale zoo in Vancouver the

GVRD now has the wherewithal to do so. That offer was made to them, Mr.

Member, at the end of March.

MR. HALL: Thank you for

bringing us up to date, Mr. Chairman. I've just got one further

observation to make, and that is that the original proposal by the

Tynehead Zoological Society for a major zoo dealt with two parts,

namely the exhibition part of animals and the scientific and

propagating part of that zoological endeavour, which we could call

saving species. That was sent to the government of the day. That was

transmitted to the biologists and the experts in the government' s

employ. That technical material

[ Page 970 ]

which

was provided by the Tynehead Zoological Society was examined and

analysed by the government's own employees. That examination has never

been discussed. I don't necessarily feel it should be published, but

it's not been discussed in any detail. It certainly hasn't had a

release about it. There's not been a response. I have seen the material

on one occasion.

I would wonder if you could perhaps assure

the House that as the continuing saga of the zoo goes on you might want

to look into that technical material and indeed satisfy those people

who believe that material and that analysis by the government's own

employees was sort of a negative response, not on whether or not land

should be deeded, not on whether or not it should be handed over to a

private society, not as to whether that is the place for a zoo, but

simply on the technical proposals on the feasibility of a zoo, period.

I think we should all assist the minister in extricating everybody and

using the large amount of public money that's been expended in the land

assembly on behalf of the people of the province, including

expropriation, to assemble that public land there, and I want to see

some public good coming out of that expenditure of public money. At the

moment we're stalled. I think that if a public idea is good it should

be backed with the public purse. I was involved in a lot of ratepayers'

meetings at the time, with a lot of people angry regarding

expropriation. I think we need all the information we can get in order

to look at this thing intelligently, and have some discussions.

would urge the minister that perhaps for his own sake he might look at

that material and release it to the members, or have a résumé made.

Let's have a look at it.

MR. STUPICH: I listened to

an interesting speech from the minister yesterday evening when he was

telling us how important his responsibilities are. I couldn't help but

think he was really talking to Treasury Board rather than to the

members of the House. I note in looking at the expenditures that there

are only three ministries where the amount of money allotted in

estimates has been reduced. One of them is Environment, where the

reduction is in the order of one-third of 1 percent. The other is in

Agriculture, where the reduction is 22 percent — of course, we all know

what little interest this government has in agriculture. But the third

is Lands, Parks and Housing, where the reduction is 7 percent before

the figure for recruitment saving, and after that it's a 10 percent

reduction. It's the only one other than Agriculture, really, where

there's any reduction in the amount of money.

Mr. Chairman,

I hope the minister was successful in saying what he did to Treasury

yesterday evening and hoping they will agree perhaps it is an important

department, one that is worthy of more consideration and more attention

from this government.

I would like to ask the minister a few

questions. First, along with my colleague from Mackenzie (Mr.

Lockstead), I would like to wish the minister every success in dealing

with the sale of Crown land, because a constituent of mine was trying

to buy a lot in South Wellington. He started, I think, in 1973 and he

still hasn't been able to buy that lot. I have approached the Ministry

of Lands on different occasions and they have told me it's the regional

district's fault. I've approached the regional district and they've

admitted it is, but said they hadn't been able to straighten it out.

think they were just getting to the point of being able to do something

when the government started this policy of deregulation. Of course,

that meant we had to start all over again. I'll approach the minister

on that one in detail later on.

Newcastle Island was turned

over to the provincial government by the city of Nanaimo when it bought

it — not immediately but soon after. Very little has been done by the

previous government, immediately preceding government, or this

government. As a matter of fact, the facilities at Newcastle Island

have steadily gone downhill ever since it became a provincial park.

know some repair work has been done this year. I did make a point of

finding that out from the ministry. But to the best of my knowledge

there are no plans for any improvements or even to try to put back the

improvements that were there when it became a government park. I wonder

whether the minister has anything at all in mind for Newcastle Island

in the future.

Coronation Mountain just recently became one

of my problems with the redistribution. Again, it's one that has been

asked, I think, every year — probably since the previous member for

Cowichan-Malahat entered the Legislature in 1952. I expect this

Coronation Mountain question has been asked, and never any satisfactory

answer given. I wonder whether the minister has anything to say about

his attitude towards developing Coronation Mountain as a family skiing

development.

I am indebted to my colleague for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) who told me the problems of dealing

with Ladysmith Harbour come under this ministry. I'm not quite sure how

Ladysmith Harbour gets into Lands, Parks and Housing, but if the

minister could help me out on that, I'd appreciate it.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Chairman, first of all, talking about dollar allocations in the

estimates, as I mentioned a little earlier, while you were out making a

phone call to one of your constituents, I'm sure, we transferred $4

million from the estimates to the home acquisition fund. So there's $4

million here.

We've also transferred $1 million to the cost

of staff of the administration of the home acquisition fund from the

estimates to the fund. So a $5 million cutback from the estimates has

been transferred to the front.

Also, our commitment for the

allocation of dollars for parkland acquisition — that is, our

relationship with the cost-sharing in Pacific Rim National Park — being

down very substantially this year over last year, this makes quite a

substantial difference in the estimates. So many of the shortfalls are

attributable to the movement of funds from the estimates to a fund and

the movement of funds from the need of the Pacific Rim contribution

from the province.

Newcastle Island: there are no plans. Coronation Mountain: the

project won't work. Thank you very much.

MR. STUPICH: How does Ladysmith Harbour

come under the jurisdiction of your ministry? I just don't quite

understand that.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Because of the

responsibility of my ministry of administration of all the foreshore

leases.

[ Page

971 ]

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to raise the

matter of a campsite with the minister. This one is non-existent, Mr.

Minister.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I've never found one.

MRS. WALLACE:

Well, that's our problem in Cowichan-Malahat. That's our problem in the

Cowichan Valley regional area. We have a campsite at Ivy Green and one

at Bamberton, one to the north and one to the south. Both are

extensively used. You have to be in site by four o'clock to get a spot.

Apart from that, there are a few campsite areas in the Lake Cowichan

area, and I'm not sure whether that's under this minister's

jurisdiction or forestry. But in those you used to be able to get in

there early Friday. Now you have to get there early Thursday if you're

going to get a site in that area.

We have a lot of

attractions. We have a lovely area. We have a lot of things tourists

could well enjoy, but we have no place to put them. We really need a

campsite in the Cowichan Valley. The minister has assured us his

estimates have not been cut back, that he has ample money. He's told us

he's very efficient, and that's going to make more money. So I'm sure

he will get up and tell us he's going to give us a campsite in the

Cowichan Valley.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We're certainly

prepared to look at the concerns that have been expressed by the member

this afternoon. This is the first time that I've become aware there is

a pressing need for campsites in your riding. Mind you, I haven't been

the minister very long — just a few months. However, if the member

wants me to examine the needs I'll gladly do so and report back to the

member as soon as my estimates are passed.

MRS. WALLACE:

Just to refresh the minister's memory — perhaps he hasn't got round to

reading his mail — I have here a letter dated March 10 from the Maple

Bay Ratepayers' Association.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Was that from you?

MRS. WALLACE: I have a copy, but this is

addressed to you, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Have I answered it?

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I have no knowledge of

your answering it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: What did I say?

MRS. WALLACE: It says:

"In

the Cowichan Valley we appreciate travellers no less than other western

Canadians, and welcome them to this area. However, we often get bemused

reactions from campers when we must tell them that the nearest park

where they may legally pitch a tent or park a motor home is 15 miles

south at Bamberton or 20 miles north at Ivy Green, and then, to be

honest, tell them that they should be there by 4 o'clock in order to

get

a space."

Now you've had that letter, Mr. Minister, since March 10 and

the executive of the Maple Bay Ratepayers' Association

in this letter urged your government to take action on this matter and

provide the tourists we are so eager to see with a place to camp in the

Cowichan Valley. Mr. Minister, it really doesn't pay to send you a

letter if this is the first you've heard of it when I raise it in the

Legislature. This is not from one individual; this is from a

ratepayers' association in the Cowichan Valley. I think it's rather

offhand of the minister to just say that this is the first he's heard

of this matter. It's certainly not the first time I've raised this

matter in this House. I've raised it every year with every minister,

but the ministers keep changing.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I apologize that I don't

remember the letter. Did I answer the letter?

MRS. WALLACE: You didn't send me a copy.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Did I answer the letter?

MRS. WALLACE: Not that I know of.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Oh. I'm surprised, because I get thousands of letters a month and I

can't keep track of absolutely every letter that comes to me. I

responded to you a little earlier, and I'm sorry if this letter never

reached me.

MR. KING: I just wanted to say to the

minister it pays to wait until one's recognized, because each time the

minister has got up the Chairman of the committee doesn't even

recognize him before he starts to speak. Quite frankly, I think quite a

few people in the province of British Columbia have had trouble

recognizing the minister.

HON. MR. CHABOT: They keep sending him back

here.

MR. KING:

Well, that's what happens to damaged goods — we send them back, Mr.

Chairman. [Laughter.] I just want to raise with the minister a problem

that has been drawn to mv attention by a constituent with respect to be

Mobile Home Act. I want to read this very brief letter for the

minister's edification. The letter is to the Premier, and it says:

would question the Mobile Home Act, specifically

section 13(l), as it

appears from information supplied by the mobile home registry office

that a widow who has been left a mobile home of value well under $5,000

in the will of her late husband must go to full probate to obtain a

certified copy of the will and certificate of discharge, these being

forms required for transfer of title. Cost of probate long-form for an

estate under $5,000 value could be in excess of $250. This appears an

injustice that has been recognized by the Department of Finance and the

motor-vehicle branch in formulating probate short-form, which is

adequate to obtain releases sufficient for transfer of an automobile of

similar value to the mobile home in question.

suggest consideration be given to changing the mobile home registry Act

to have its requirement documents to conform to those of the

motor-vehicle branch in the case of estates under $5,000. I might add

the above information is taken from the estate of a local widow who I

have been assisting with probate."

[ Page 972 ]

The

gentleman has written me again in response to a letter of inquiry I

transmitted to him, and I read this for the minister's attention. "I

sent a copy of your letter directed to the Office of the Premier

suggesting consideration towards changing the mobile home registry

Act." The upshot of it was, Mr. Chairman, without reading all of this

document, that the Premier transferred this request to Hon. Evan Wolfe,

Minister of Finance. On July 4, Hon. Evan Wolfe responded, stating that

he had referred the problem to Hon. James Roland Chabot, Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing, asking that he amend the regulation which

resides under his jurisdiction in his ministry allowing for the type of

change recommended by this individual. Mr. Chairman, this is the kind

of bureaucratic change that costs a great deal of money to widows, in a

completely unnecessary function, in my view.

I personally

resent the high cost of settling estates, when according to the

response by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), apparently all

that is needed is a change in the regulations under the Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing. I ask the minister, as sincerely and as

forcefully as I can, to address himself to this problem at the earliest

possible date. Two hundred and fifty dollars may not be a lot of money

to the minister — he's a wealthy man, Mr. Chairman — but I want to tell

him that it is a very significant sum in an estate left to a widow; in

many respects, it can be a very significant sum. It's something that

seems to be an anomaly, rather than any particular policy requirement

that can be justified by the government. I would appreciate it if the

minister would look into it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: In one

instance in his talk, the member suggested that the problem is

associated with a particular

section of the Mobile Home Act; then he

went on to say that the Minister of Finance suggested, in

correspondence to me, that it has to do with regulations. We're looking

at major revisions of the Mobile Home Act next year. If the case is as

you've put it to me, and if it can be corrected by the regulations,

we'll change the regulations.

MR. SKELLY: I'd like to

bring up a number of matters in the minister's estimates. The one I

discussed with him earlier was caves. I'd like to congratulate the

minister for taking an interest in caves in the province of British

Columbia, because previous governments and previous ministers have not

taken an interest. I think that caves are one of the most attractive

resources that this province could develop in the tourist industry.

It's said that Vancouver Island has some of the most spectacular caves

in the world, and some of the most spectacular elements which you find

in caves, such as stalactites, moon milk, and all these things that

apparently attract people who....

MR. BRUMMET: How does that fit into Housing?

MR. SKELLY:

This is parks, my good friend, and it's involved with lands, as well.

I'd expect a question like that from a newcomer, although perhaps he

has just come from one.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We all come from caves.

MR. SKELLY: Speak for yourself, Mr.

Minister.

In any case, caves are an attractive resource to tourists.They

have been developed all over the world: in Australia, in New Zealand,

Carlsbad Caverns, Mammoth Caves in Kentucky. They are fabulous tourist

attractions which have been developed throughout the world. We have

here some of the most spectacular of all, but they are not developed.

I'd like to congratulate the minister for setting up this policy

steering committee to try to develop some policy to protect caves and

to make them available to tourists throughout the province. The

minister may not know it, but there are some problems with conflicts

between groups who are represented on the committee and groups who are

not represented on the committee, but who do represent a significant

number of speleologists, let's say — people who are interested in caves

throughout the province. In fact, some people feel that the only reason

they have been asked to appear before the committee is because they

have a number of surveys and inventories which have been done on caves

on Vancouver Island, and that the province's main interest is not to

get policy input from them but to get information and inventories as to

those caves. The minister should give a little more input himself and

show a little more interest in this type of development, in order to

eliminate some of the conflicts going on that committee; I'd appreciate

the minister's response to that.

In the Alberni Valley, a

large number of complaints have been developing around the maintenance

of parks in that area. I receive a large number of letters, which I

pass along to the minister or to his staff, about the lack of

maintenance. China Creek Park comes up time and time again, especially

concerning the maintenance of roads in that area. Thanks to the

Minister of Transportation, Communications and Highways (Hon. Mr.

Fraser), we finally obtained an agreement this year that they would

maintain the road in the park; the parks branch was expressing no

interest in that road. It's a major access to the China Creek marina

for people from the Alberni Valley who have boats. Now one of the

problems that's developing in the China Creek marina is the number of

people who take campers down there, and there are not enough camping

facilities provided by the Port Alberni Harbour Commission. I would

like to see a little more interest taken by the parks branch in the

development of China Creek Park and in campsites down in China Creek

Park; I'd like to have the minister's response to that. Apparently he's

spending very little, if any, money on maintenance and developments in

the Alberni area of the Arrowsmith region.

There have also

been complaints about Stamp Falls Park. The trails in that park have

degenerated so much over the last few years that some of the trails

that go up over a cliff overlooking the fish ladders in the Stamp River

have sluffed over, and the fences have gone into the river. Children

still use the trails, but they are becoming such a hazard to them that

parents aren't allowing their kids to go to Stamp Falls Park anymore.

The minister has agreed to spend more money down there, but we haven't

really seen any firm developments in Stamp Falls Park. I'd like some

assurance from the minister that he is going to take a little more

interest in this area in the future, because of the hazard which it

presents to children and because of the number of complaints that I am

getting.

I also get a lot of complaints about the Sproat

Lake launching ramp. People who launch their boats there end up tearing

the bottoms off them, and it doesn't do much for the boating community.

I suppose you could say it prevents the

[ Page 973 ]

spread

of Eurasian milfoil. Something should be done with the Sproat Lake

launching ramp to protect boat owners who use the ramp through the

parks branch facilities.

One of the problems seems to be that the minister isn't

interested in spending money in an area of Vancouver Island that is

used by a large number of tourists. As a result, Mr. Minister, a large

number of people are using areas outside the park, and one of the areas

is Toquart Bay, down near Ucluelet. They now have access to Toquart Bay

through logging roads. There is no provision for the collection of

garbage, nor is there provision for public toilets and that kind of

thing, and the beach is becoming a mess. The minister should really

take a look at the Toquart Bay area. It is quite an attraction to

tourists, and we should look at improving it as a park, or else have

some of the facilities in the Alberni area improved so that campers

will be attracted to those facilities.

Another park north of Tofino which was purchased by the NDP is

Hot Springs Cove.

AN HON. MEMBER: You sure have lots of parks

up there.

MR. SKELLY: Not enough, Mr. Member, and

they would be much more attractive to people if you did some work on

them.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Is that NDP park you're

talking about owned by the party itself?

MR. SKELLY: No, the party doesn't have any

parks of its own.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You said it was purchased

by the NDP.

MR. SKELLY: It was purchased by the NDP

government.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh, I see.

MR. SKELLY: This year something like

700,000 tourists will visit the Pacific Rim Park area, and because of

the crowding of campsites in that area a lot of people are interested

in moving north along the Vancouver Island coastal strip and into such

areas as Vargas Island and Hot Springs Cove. I'd like to see some

investigation by the ministry of the Hot Springs Cove, or Maquinna Park

as it is called, and possibly some provisions put in there for the

boating community that uses that area quite extensively.

Also, the Hesquiaht Indian band is now developing a community

across the harbour from Hot Springs Cove, and I'd like to see some

involvement of that Indian band in the development of tourist

facilities in the park out there.

I have a final question to the minister, and this concerns the

negotiations in the phase 3

section of Pacific Rim National Park. I am

wondering if the boundaries have yet been gazetted for phase 3. If so,

what provisions have been made to adjust the boundaries in the Bamfield

area? What provisions have been made to exchange timber rights in the

phase 3 area of Pacific Rim National Park, and what provisions are

being made this year? I notice you have something like $500,000 in the

budget — $532,000 for land acquisition in Pacific Rim National Park —

and I wonder what kind of provisions are being made this year to buy

out inholdings in the phase 3 area of the park.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

First of all, in the phase 3 acquisition for the Pacific Rim National

Park, it wouldn't be possible to gazette the boundaries of this area

until such time as negotiations have been finalized with the federal

government on the acquisition and exchange of the additional forest

land. Those negotiations should take place rel