1980 Legislative Session: 2nd 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)

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3779 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministry of Environment Act (Bill 59). Hon. Mr. Rogers.

Introduction and first reading –– 3779

Ministry of Agriculture and Food Act (Bill 57). Hon. Mr. Hewitt.

Introduction and first reading –– 3779

Ministerial Statement

Legionnaire's disease in Terrace.

Hon. Mr. Mair ; –– 3779

Oral Questions

Vogel report on Eckardt commission. Mr. Lauk –– 3780

Mr. Macdonald –– 3781

Provincial implementation of OAP supplement. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy replies –– 3782

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

Chabot)

On vote 155: minister's office –– 3782

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Gabelmann

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Hyndman

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Lockstead

On vote 157: lands and housing –– 3792

Ms. Brown

On vote 158: parks and outdoor recreation –– 3792

Mr. Howard

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Human Resources estimates. (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)

On vote 125: minister's office –– 3792

Mr. Lea

Division on Chairman's ruling –– 3801

Mr. Hyndman

Division on the motion that the member for Prince Rupert be heard –– 3804

Matter of Privilege

Release of member's speech before appearing in the Blues.

Mr. Passarell –– 3805

Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications Act (Bill 58). Hon. Mr. McGeer

Introduction and first reading –– 3805

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, prior to introductions, having already pronounced on the

dress code for the Legislature I must observe that the minister on my

right appears to be attired, if I may say so, for the wrong arena. On

that note, possibly he may wish to retire to re-attire.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Mr. Speaker, I just want to be prepared for any circumstance today, so

I'll be taking questions in the House and in the corridors.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Mr. Speaker, on a serious note but certainly a delightful day, I would

like to advise you that we have a special guest in British Columbia

today, Mr. Henrik Have from Copenhagen. Mr. Have is on a two-year

journey throughout the United States, Canada and Mexico. He arrived in

British Columbia a month ago and has since that time been spending his

hours happily visiting the interior of our province.

It will

interest members to know that he was in the Royal Danish Army for 29

years, retiring six years ago as a captain, and is now seeing the world

as a centennial project. I would like to ask the House to welcome Mr.

Have to British Columbia and to our Legislature.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure today to introduce Mr. Claude Ellis, who

is visiting us from Regina. Mr. Ellis, by the way, was the CCF Member

of Parliament for Regina city from 1953 to 1958. With Mr. Ellis is his

wife, Bessie Ellis. She was an NDP candidate in Lethbridge in the

federal riding in 1974. I hope the House will give them a rousing

welcome.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in our galleries today are Mr. and Mrs. Eric Robertson. I ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. MUSSALLEM . Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce two of our

leading citizens in Maple Ridge, Mr. and Mrs. Clappison. With them are two lovely

young ladies from the British Isles: Fay Hood of Great Driffield, Humberside,

and Julia Towns, Alderley Edge, Cheshire. May I ask the House to bid them welcome.

Orders of the Day

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the rules be suspended and that the question period be postponed for 30 minutes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, firstly, to gain the floor the member would need leave.

The member cannot seek the floor to make the motion initially.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker cannot rule a person out of order once having sought the floor. Are you going to recognize me or not?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion requires notice, hon. member.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, if that kind of a motion requires notice, I ask Mr.

Speaker to take the matter under review. I won't challenge the Speaker,

but I ask that you review that. I don't think it does.

Introduction of Bills

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT ACT

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

intituled Ministry of Environment Act.

Bill

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

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

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD ACT

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

intituled Ministry of Agriculture and Food Act.

Bill

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

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

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a short ministerial statement.

DEPUTY MINISTER: Proceed, hon. minister.

LEGIONNAIRES' DISEASE IN TERRACE

HON. MR. MAIR:

As members of the House may know, a few days ago it became apparent

that a 67-year-old man had been admitted to hospital in Terrace with

what originally appeared to be severe pneumonia, and was later

diagnosed as legionnaires' disease. In fact, he went to hospital on

June 9, apparently with pneumonia, as I said. His physician, Dr.

Redpath, immediately considered the possibility of legionnaires'

disease and promptly sent off the required blood specimens. The results

confirmed his diagnosis. Due to the early and accurate diagnosis and

correct choice of antibiotic, happily the patient is now almost fully

recovered. He is recuperating at home.

This has raised some

speculation about this disease. Of course. much has been learned about

it since it was first recognized after an outbreak following an

American Legion convention in Philadelphia in 1976. It occurs in two

main forms: a mild fever with muscle aches, and the more severe

condition with pneumonia predominating. It is rarely, if ever, spread

from person to person. Most cases are sporadic, although outbreaks tend

to attract much attention. Common factors have been identified in some

outbreaks, such as contaminated aerosols from air conditioning systems

and excavation. The disease appears to occur more commonly with

advancing age, and has also been associated with cigarette smoking and

alcohol consumption.

I am sure that the members of this

chamber would join me in congratulating Dr. Redpath for his astute

diagnosis and treatment. I might also say that the ministry is

obtaining further information on this case and will report back to the

House in due course.

[ Page 3780 ]

Oral Questions

VOGEL REPORT ON ECKARDT COMMISSION

MR. LAUK:

My question is to the hon. Attorney-General. With reference to the

statement made in the House yesterday about the Eckardt report, sworn

declarations were appended from Florence Tamoto and Susan Thomson. Were

any other sworn declarations taken during the course of the

investigation?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker, not to my knowledge.

MR. LAUK: Why were no sworn declarations taken from the hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and Larry Eckardt?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, it was felt by the interviewers that there was no need for

such declarations. The declaration was tendered by Susan Thomson at her

request and that of her counsel.

MR. LAUK: Did the minister's officials indicate why they felt there was no need to obtain sworn declarations?

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

MR. LAUK: Did the Attorney-General ask his officials why no sworn declarations were taken and why there was no need?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I was advised that the interviews were conducted and that complete

responses were given by the persons interviewed. If a declaration had

been the desire of the person interviewed, it would have been accepted.

MR. LAUK: Were the interviews with those individuals recorded by electronic recording or taken down in detailed minutes?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not aware of the answer to that question, Mr. Speaker. I'd be happy to take it as notice.

MR. LAUK:

There are two letters dated June 15: one is from Mr. Prior, production

manager of the government printing bureau, and the other is from Mr.

McMinn, director of surveys and mapping in the Ministry of Environment.

They indicate that all the material in the interim report — the Eckardt

report — was available on June 16 and that no changes were made

thereafter. Were statements taken from these gentlemen, and were these

statements recorded?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The two gentlemen involved were interviewed, Mr.

Speaker. Whether or not the statements were recorded — I don't know the

answer to that question.

MR. LAUK: Will the Attorney-General undertake to take that question as notice?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'd be pleased to, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Prior and Mr. McMinn say that all the material was available to the

Queen's Printer on June 16, yet the report is dated June 17, 1978. What

reason did the minister's investigation find for the discrepancy

between the dates?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: If the member

had taken the time to read the statement I made yesterday, he would

have found that both Mr. Prior and Mr. McMinn indicated that their

letters were inaccurate.

MR. LAUK: In fact, a change

had been made to the report on June 18 and possibly afterwards. Did the

Attorney-General's investigation indicate why there is a discrepancy in

those dates — from the date of the transmittal of the letters?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I don't have the answer to that question; I'll have to take it as notice.

MR. LAUK:

On January It, 1980, the acting chief electoral officer, Robert

Patterson, stated that the boundaries of the Little Mountain

constituency were altered to include the notorious "finger" after the

interim report was completed on June 17. Patterson stated further that

this was the only change. Was Mr. Patterson interviewed in the course

of the internal investigation?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, he was.

MR. LAUK:

Was a statutory declaration or a recording of that evidence taken from

Mr. Patterson, in view of the conflict between his statements and the

conclusions of Mr. Vogel, which were presented to this House yesterday?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I don't know if the interview of Mr. Patterson was recorded or not.

I'll be happy to take that question as notice. It's obvious from the

statement which I gave yesterday that Mr. Patterson's statement of June

11 was inaccurate.

MR. LAUK: Or it is obvious that your report is inaccurate.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the member has any information

that the report was inaccurate, would he please provide me with it.

MR. LAUK: I just have.

Mr.

Robert Patterson was a member of the commission, was he not? Was he

associated with the commission staff? He made the statement. The

statement has not been denied. There has been no contradiction of that

statement.

I have a new question to the minister. In view of

the fact that it is clear that Larry Eckardt made the decision on the

"finger" on June 18, after the report was completed, what explanation

did Eckardt give for this thirteenth-hour change in the boundaries?

HON., MR. WILLIAMS:

It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the report was not completed

by the commissioner until the Monday, when it was finally completed by

his staff, and that the material was submitted to the Queen's Printer

on the Tuesday.

MR. LAUK: The Monday being which date?

Interjection.

[ Page 3781 ]

MR. LAUK: Oh, you want me to figure it out. Okay.

I'll

repeat the question. The decision to change the boundaries of the

Vancouver–Little Mountain riding was made on the 18th. That was a day

before the notorious meeting in the hotel. This change was made on the

18th according to your report. What explanation did Eckardt give to

your investigators with respect to that change? Why did he make it?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, I am advised that he told the interviewer exactly what he

had stated publicly — namely, that based upon the matters which he

considered appropriate, and which are spelled out in his report, he

settled upon the boundaries for the ridings in the greater Vancouver

area on that morning.

MR. LAUK: As a result of the

interviews of the investigators in this case, did Eckardt indicate that

that was the only change and that he made it on June 18?

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

MR. LAUK:

Did the Attorney-General not find that a little bit curious — at least

curious enough to ask his deputy why this was not canvassed with the

commissioner?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if I

understand the member's questions correctly, he misinterprets my

responses and the report, Judge Eckardt was asked about this and he

gave us answers and I've just responded to them.

MR. LAUK: It's indicated by the Attorney-General's own answer

that Eckardt made the decision to change what was apparently an already completed

report, as far as boundaries were concerned, on June 18. The only change made

was the notorious finger. Surely he could explain why he made that change to

the only boundary line in all 54 or 57 — whatever it is — constituencies.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, again I must say that the member has not taken the time to

read my report, because that's not what was said in the report.

MR. LAUK:

The report gave the impression that more than one change was made on

June 18, when, in fact, you have indicated today that only one change

had been made. Was the explanation...?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

On a point of order, that was not my response to the question at all,

Mr. Speaker. In response to the member's question, I said that the

judge advised the interviewers that he settled on the boundaries for

ridings in greater Vancouver on that day.

MR. LAUK: Was the explanation from Mr. Eckardt taken in writing?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice.

MR. LAUK:

Did the internal inquiry establish whether, on the evening of June 19,

the Hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and Eckardt

spent any time alone together — not in the presence of commission staff?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The inquiry indicated, as Mr. Vogel said in the report, that the

commissioner met with Mrs. McCarthy very briefly in the dining room of

Delta's Laurel Point Inn, and subsequently in the hotel room with the

commission staff.

MR. LAUK: As a result of this

inquiry, was it determined whether that minister spent any time alone

with Mr. Eckardt at the Laurel Point Inn that evening, not in the

presence of commission staff?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr.

Speaker, I haven't reviewed the minutes of an interview of the Hon.

Grace McCarthy, then Provincial Secretary. I would be happy to take

that question as notice.

MR. LAUK: Did the inquiry

establish a detailed chronology of just who was present with the

Minister of Human Resources and Mr. Eckardt in the Laurel Point Inn,

and for what periods of time, on the evening of June 19?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, the report — if the member would take the time to read it

— will indicate who was present during the course of those meetings. As

far as the time that was spent is concerned, I don't believe that any

record was kept of that.

MR. LAUK: By public accounts

vouchers, Mr. Speaker, it's indicated — at least on the surface — that

commission staff may not have been present during part of the meeting

between the minister and the commissioner. Did the internal

investigation reveal this?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I can only refer the member to the report.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Attorney-General on the same

subject. In view of the fact that the report finds that Miss Thomson is

to be believed and Miss Tamoto not, based upon theSun day night

business, and the fact Miss Tamoto didn't say for sure that it was on

Sunday night, why was there no investigation as to whether or not the

Provincial Secretary put her finger on a map and indicated she wanted a

change, at some other time or place — even before June 16: even on the

15th, the Saturday, in Vancouver, or at any other time? The report

demolishes Miss Tamoto by really following a red herring as to what she

did not depose; she did depose that the finger was put on the map

that's what she was told.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr.

Speaker, if the member would take the time to read the report carefully

— and he obviously has not — he would know that the investigation was

undertaken because of Miss Tamoto's declaration that the conversation

which she was alleged to have had with Miss Thomson was denied. With

respect to the other matter, Miss Tamoto did depose as to her belief

that the matter took place in a hotel room in Victoria on that

particular evening.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a further

question to the Attorney-General. In view of what you have said, are

you contemplating charges against Miss Tamoto for swearing a false

declaration and committing public mischief?

[ Page 3782 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, that's an improper question to pose to the

Attorney-General in this particular case. But I'm happy to say, as far

as Miss Tamoto is concerned, that during the course of the

investigation it was not possible to uncover any circumstances which

would have suggested that she was improperly motivated in swearing the

declaration.

MR. MACDONALD: On a further question to

the Attorney-General, in view of the fact, as solicited by my learned

friend from Vancouver Centre, that you have had sworn testimony from

only two people, that you have not dealt with other times and places

where this instruction to add the finger might have been done, and that

all of your evidence is secret and to simply an official, not a judge,

will the Attorney-General recommend to this House that Larry Eckardt be

called before the bar of this House to answer such questions as may be

put to him by the members of this House?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, the answer to the specific question posed by the member is

no. If, in the course of the inquiry conducted by competent officials

of the Ministry of the Attorney-General, evidence had been uncovered

indicating there were any improprieties or breach of the law in any

aspect of the Eckardt commission, or in the performance of any member

of this House or the public with respect to the commission's

responsibilities, then otherwise would be the case.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to respond to questions taken as notice yesterday in oral question period.

Leave granted.

PROVINCIAL IMPLEMENTATION

OF OAP SUPPLEMENT

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker,

yesterday the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) asked this

question: "Can the minister assure the House that the criteria for all

means-tested programs have been adjusted in such a way as to ensure

that each family receiving the supplement now has $35 more in their

pockets as a result of the federally approved increase?" I am pleased

to tell the hon. member and all members of this House, as I stated

earlier in the year, that in all circumstances where a family unit

includes a member in receipt of old-age security/guaranteed income

supplement, the GAIN benefits have been adjusted to allow the extra $35

to be passed on to the client.

This second question was asked by the same member: "Would the

minister check to find out whether a person receiving the supplement

who is married to someone who is receiving a handicap pension is not

finding that the $35 is being deducted from the handicap pension rather

than from the seniors themselves...?" The $35 is passed on without

deduction from the handicapped allowance. I would like to give the

House an example. In April 1980 the maximum allowance for a couple

where, one is handicapped and the other is in receipt of the old-age

security/guaranteed income supplement was $728.28 a month. In July 1980

this same couple would receive a maximum of $778.36 a month. The

increase of $50.08 represents the additional $35 passed on as indicated

earlier, the quarterly increase in the federal guaranteed income

supplement and the provincial quarterly increase to those on

handicapped benefits.

For the

edification of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), who has

asked the question before about the passing on of federal benefits to

our senior citizens, there was only one time in the past few years when

that was not done. I thought it would be of very great interest to the

hon. member to realize that that was during the NDP administration in

April 1973.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker, it is my understanding that a short while ago you ruled that

points of order must be raised after question period. Is that true?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is in our standing orders, hon. member.

MR. LEA:

May I ask then if it slipped your mind, Your Honour, when you allowed

the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) three points of order during

today's question period.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member,

in any case when a point of order is raised, it is the responsibility

of the Chair to first hear the point of order. The points of order in

this case were very brief and by the time the point was made the member

had sat down. The reason is that it does not take up an inordinate

amount of time in question period. In this matter that was not the case.

MR. LEA:

So the ruling is that it's the length of time, and not the question

period, with points of order. It's how long you take with your point of

order in question period.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, hon. member.

MR. LEA: It's not? Gee, that's confusing, sir.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I hope the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) was making a comment in jest as he was leaving. Was he?

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

LANDS, PARKS AND HOUSING

(continued)

On vote 155: minister's office, $148,047.

MR. PASSARELL:

I have a few more questions to bring to the minister's attention. The

first one concerns vehicles in parks. In the last few years we've seen

parklands.

[ Page 3783 ]

There

is a definite need to increase some type of special routing for

four-wheel drives so they don't go around our provincial parks carving

up the wilderness. Mr. Kirshaw of the Okanagan Parks Society in

Summerland wrote a letter to the minister in January 1980. He also put

out a press release about the need for regulating off-highway vehicles

from doing continual damage to the environment of our provincial parks.

I would certainly hope that the minister might be able to make some

type of special allocation for four-by-fours.

The next point

I'd like to bring up, Mr. Chairman, is river parks. There is also a

definite need to develop some type of river provincial park system in

our province. The minister did talk about this on April 14 at a

convention with some environmentalists. He stated that river parks

might become a reality in four years, that legislation might be brought

in around 1983. I would certainly offer my support to the minister

concerning river parks, because there is a definite need for them. As a

suggestion to the hon. minister, this could also be based on the same

type of procedure that the federal government uses with heritage river

sites, making a park out of that section.

I'd also like to

bring to the minister's attention — and he may already be aware of this

— the need for urban parks. In the state of Washington they've just

brought in a bill that will establish urban parks in areas of over

25,000 people. The minister might also need to review the state of

Washington's bill concerning urban parks. It might be a good thought to

try to implement one in the province of British Columbia.

Two

last topics I'd like to talk about, Mr. Chairman, concern parks and

islands. The first one is Sidney Island. Has the minister ever visited

Sidney Island?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes.

MR. PASSARELL:

Good. I certainly hope that the minister would take a further interest

in Sidney Island. Just to reiterate some aspects of it, the provincial

government does have a provincial park on the tip of the island, as

well as a marine park. But the entire island is a reward that the

province of British Columbia should be able to use as a provincial

park. The cost of the island is presently just a little bit over $3

million. If the province could pick up this island it would be a

definite benefit to the parks system of the province.

Among

the reasons are its close proximity to the capital and lower mainland

regions and its natural setting. Wildlife on the island — which is in

the Gulf Islands — is abundant: deer, peacock, bald eagles. It would be

a shame if this island were sold to land developers and the wildlife

destroyed to a certain extent. It could also be a good gimmick for the

province to have a provincial park on the entire Sidney Island. They

could run little ferries over from the port of Sidney, and use some of

the money that would be generated from the 10- or 15-minute boat trip

to the island. As another suggestion, if the minister does proceed with

picking up the tab on Sidney Island before it's turned over for real

estate development, it would be a good example for the province to ban

motor vehicles on this island park similar to the Mackinac National

Park in the Great Lakes, where there are no motorized vehicles allowed

on the island itself.

There have been a number of

letters. There has been a committee struck for a number of years,

debating, trying to influence the government to take over the entire

SidneyIsland for a provincial park. There was an

article in the Victoria Times

of April 2, 1980, in which "Sidney Island Park Deal Has National

Backing" was the headline. A Mr. Richard Pratt of the Canadian Nature

Federation wrote to the Premier giving seven reasons why Sidney Island

should be turned over to the province as a provincial park. As well,

there have been numerous letters directed to the minister —

specifically, letters from Miss Pamela Jones of the Sidney Island

Committee. I have had conversations in his office, with him and his

staff, concerning the Sidney Island park project.

Lastly,

I'd like to talk to the minister about the Mount Brent development in

the Penticton region. There was a letter of February 29. 1980, by Mr.

Bob Nixon of the Sierra Club, stating the need to develop improved

parks in the area. I have had good contact with Me. Podmore of the

Lands, Parks and Housing ministry's branch in Kamloops. He's been very

considerate, Mr. Chairman. In supplying information and in discussing

this matter. One of the problems right now is that there is a definite

need for a public hearing on the matter and that environmental concerns

and issues be met. The Penticton Indian band has voiced strong concern

concerning the development in the Mount Brent area — provincial park

aspect — and I would certainly hope that the issues raised by the band

aren't ignored by the minister.

Also there is Moresby

Island. There was a letter directed to the Minister on May 27, 1980,

from Mr. Bruce Elkin of Bowen Island, who asks the minister to stop the

destruction of the wilderness area by clear-cut logging. Earlier this

morning we discussed forest development in provincial parks.

That

concludes my opening remarks concerning the parks issues. I have raised

a series of questions and I certainly hope the minister will be able to

offer some constructive criticism or suggestions on the issues that I

have raised this morning and this afternoon.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

I'll attempt to be brief and respond to the questions that have been

put to me by the member for Atlin. First of all, let me say that while

the member talks about cutbacks in dollar allocations for the parks

branch. I have some difficulty with his reasoning, or the way he

arrives at those figures. I don't know where that member was when Bill

5 was passed in the Legislature, which makes an allocation of.... I

think I'll have to read it to the member.

Bill 5, Special

Purpose Appropriation Act, 1980, says: "An amount not exceeding $6.5

million to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing for accelerated

park development." Does the member think that with this kind of

allocation for accelerated park development there has been a cutback? I

guess the member also doesn't recognize that we have received $2

million from the Crown Land Fund for acquisition of land for parks. He

doesn't recognize that regional parks and, hopefully, community parks

as well will be funded out of the Crown Land Fund.

So there

hasn't been a cutback, Mr. Member; there's been a tremendous

acceleration of dollars allocated for parks in British Columbia. In my

opening statement I talked about the three-year program: $21 million

has been allocated for parks in this province, for the next three

years. Never before in the history of this province has such a sum been

allocated

[ Page 3784 ]

for parks — and the member talks about a cutback! I don't know where he's at most of the time.

my opening statement I talked about the 1,800 new campsites, the 3,000

new picnic sites, the 2,500 kilometres of trails and the 19 group

camping areas which will be established in this province. There hasn't

been a cutback. There has been a tremendous acceleration of

development, as far as parks are concerned, since this little minister

has had parks under his jurisdiction. We have approximately 120

projects to which we will be applying the $21 million over the next

three years.

I don't know whether the member does selective

reading or whether he has a selective memory. He talks about an

article

by Mr. Stainsby in B.C. Outdoors .

You know, that's the trashiest

article I've ever read; it's full of

trash, lies and inaccuracies. I corrected that. That's why I say the

member either has a selective memory or he does selective reading. I

don't think he read the May issue, I believe it was, of B.C. Outdoors , in which I responded to the inaccuracies that appeared in the B.C. Outdoors magazine on which the member built his whole case on the question of park fees.

For

the record, I'll have to read my reply, in case the member didn't read

it. In case his memory has failed, I'll think I'll refresh his memory.

On March 20, 1980, I wrote to Mr. Stainsby. It took him a couple of

months to publish it; I think he was waiting for a Bierman cartoon to

put along with it. I said:

"Dear Mr. Stainsby:

"Further

to your

article on provincial campsite fees, I trust you will publish

this letter in order that the public will have proper information on

this subject.

"The private sector does not set

the public campsite fee in this province. I have not met with the

industry on this subject. A staff review was conducted with the

industry, but I must advise that this meeting, which dealt with a range

of subjects, took place after the rates for provincial parks had been

established by order-in-council early last fall. Claims by the industry

that it established the fees are nonsense.

"Fees

for provincial parks are determined by historical rates, comparison

with rates in other provinces, and the cost of operating campsites in

the parks. Fee levels in this province are comparable to other

provinces, such as Ontario, $5; Nova Scotia, $4; New Brunswick, $4 and

$5. On the whole, considering the service provided, Alberta is the only

other province in Canada which could be seen as having a more

reasonable rate.

"The charges of $3 and $5 at

our campsites do not constitute an outrageous increase in fees. In

fact, considering the changes in dollar values and the increased

earning power of the population, these fees are approximately equal in

real terms to the $2 fee which was in effect in parks as far back as

1972. Even discounting these facts and assuming that the dollar had the

same value, I doubt very much that a change in the actual price from $2

in 1972 to $3 and $5 in 1980, a period of eight years, can be claimed

to be punitive.

"In paying a campsite fee the

public is not paying twice for facilities. The cost of acquiring and

developing parks is paid for by all the people out of the revenues of

the province. This is appropriate because even though not all the

people in the province use parks, it is in the interest of all our

citizens to ensure the provision of adequate access to our lands and

waters and scenic and natural features.

"In

the case of operating costs, however, it is deemed appropriate that the

users should bear a portion of the operating costs. What we consider to

be a fair portion of the operating costs is between 50 and 60 percent.

In fact, without such fees, we'd have to raise additional revenue from

all the people to pay for those who are using the parks. With the

revised fee rates, campers will now be paying approximately 60 percent

of the cost of providing necessary services at the campsite. This

includes such costs as firewood, garbage collection, patrol and

policing, and the numerous related services which go towards providing

a pleasant vacationing environment for our users.

"Senior

citizens and handicapped people are not being charged camping fees, and

have not been charged since 1975, since the election of a Social Credit

government in British Columbia.

"On the matter

of the handicapped, to the best of my knowledge, British Columbia is

the only province in Canada that offers these citizens free use of

campsites in provincial parks. I would like to point out that, in

addition to the above, school groups, Scouts, Girl Guides, church

groups and all related youth-oriented educational and training events

have always got, and will continue to get, free use of group sites in

the provincial park system.

"The positive

policies of this government are clearly illustrated in this year's

budget. In this coming year a total of $7.1 million will be spent on

new facilities. This is one of the largest capital budgets in the

history of provincial parks. Furthermore, it is not a one-year but a

three-year program, which will see the creation of many additional

camping and day-use facilities, as well as a number of new parks."

So that's the response to many of the erroneous statements made by Mr. Stainsby in B.C. Outdoors .

Mr. Stainsby even went on to say we were going to escalate some of the

parks from zero dollars to $5. This is, again, an inaccuracy, because

none of our fees were escalated to that degree. It all depends on the

amount of development. That's what determines the end-price of campers'

fees, which certainly don't pay the full cost of maintenance.

The

national government has also had a recent campsite fee increase. Daily

camping fees in national parks will jump to $4.50 from $3 in a

campground with standard services, to $7 from $5 per campsite equipped

with individual electricity outlets, and to $8 from $6 per site with

individual electricity sewer and water outlets. A $3 fee is also being

introduced for unserviced camping areas. In other words, they're

suggesting that all their campsites will be charged for. We have a

great number of ours that are primitive in nature, and they are free to

the tourists and to British Columbians as well.

Now we're

looking at the changing of the regulations pertaining to ATVs. Cabinet

will give some consideration later this year to possible amendments to

the legislation later. The member mentions urban parks. Well, I guess

you could call those regional district parks or community parks. We

tend not to call them urban parks. We do fund regional parks in British

Columbia and some of those are in the

[ Page 3785 ]

confines of urban centres. We're looking at the possibility of funding community parks.

made a major acquisition at Sidney Island last year to complement the

provincial park that we already have established there. After the

latest acquisition of private land which we made there, which cost, if

I remember correctly, about $300,000 — I indicated to the group that we

have other areas of higher priority than Sidney Island. Sidney Island

is $3 million, which is a lot of money. I understand that the federal

government is looking at the possibility of it being a national park. I

don't know how serious they are. Nevertheless, I wish those that are

part of the Save Sidney Island group well in their endeavours. I offer

them moral support, but not financial support, because we have other

land acquisitions of a more urgent nature in other parts of the

province. It's a luxury-type park. It's one which has access only by

boats. It's one, I'm sure, that will never see a ferry service, as has

been suggested by the member for Atlin. It's a park that can only be

reached by owning a boat. There are some of us who can't afford a boat

and consequently are excluded from the ability to utilize this luxury

park at Sidney Island.

The question of Brent Mountain is under review.

MR. PASSARELL:

In regard to the minister's opening remarks concerning the cutbacks, I

would suggest that the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing read his

estimates. If he did read them, he would certainly see the cutbacks

from last year to this year. They're in black and white. You can't kid

around them. The figures from this green book here, that was given to

every one of the MLAs, certainly don't lie. I hope that the minister is

not trying to imply that. The figures in this are absurd figures. The

figures are shown and I stated that this morning. So I certainly hope

that the minister, before he gets up and says that there aren't any

cutbacks, reads page 146 and specifically the items that I brought

showing where the cutbacks were. You can't get around it — a figure for

last year that's higher than this year is a cutback.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Chairman, there are no cutbacks. I tried to explain in my opening

remarks that the expenditures shown for regional parks that were

contained within the estimates last year are not in the estimates this

year because the funds will come from the Crown Land Fund. It might

appear to the layman that there is a cutback. Essentially there isn't a

cutback; there's a major escalation. You tend to forget the $6.5

million that was contained in Bill 5. Forget the kind of allocation

we'll be giving the regional parks this year. Just add the $6.5 million

in the special appropriation bill, and you'll see that there is a

tremendous escalation in dollars that have been allocated to parks.

MR. GABELMANN:

The only escalation, Mr. Chairman, that I can detect is an escalation

in verbiage from the minister. It's interesting that when he defends

the "modest increases" in fees for camping sites, he talks about the

inflated dollar and the fact that in today's terms the fee is not much

different than the original fees were eight or ten years ago. In fact

that's true — we have an inflated dollar — but I wish he would use the

same argument when he talks about increases in the overall budget. If

it works in one case, it should work in the other.

The fact

is that parks have been and are starved for funding in this province,

and one only needs to talk to people who work in the parks to have that

proven; one only needs to talk to the people who are charged with the

responsibility of collecting....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Name names!

MR. GABELMANN:

Members of your staff, Mr. Minister. That should be enough for you. I'm

quite prepared to name names. The names will be very obvious to the

minister when he checks who works, for example, at Ruckle Park. You

have two people at Ruckle for the three summer months, and that's all.

Do you know what that leads to, Mr. Chairman, in that particular

campsite? It leads to people going into the bush and ripping out trees

for firewood and doing all kinds of destructive activity in the park

itself because no firewood can be provided. When you ask the minister's

staff why no firewood can be provided, they say it's because there

aren't enough staff — they're shortchanged for funds. That's the real

bottom line.

Not only are the parks not properly serviced in

terms of staff for the regular maintenance, but there is also some

destruction of those parks going on while there are campers in there

because they have to scrounge for their own firewood. Most campers

aren't going in there with chainsaws in the first place, and the kind

of firewood they end up getting is not the appropriate thing to do. I

get very personal evidence of that, as someone who spends a fair amount

of time camping. Last summer I noticed the same thing in the San Josef

Bay campsite in the southern part of Cape Scott Park, where for some

reason there is very little driftwood for firewood. Many of those

seaside campsites are okay because there is driftwood for firewood, but

in that particular one the beaches are clean. So what we have is people

going into the bush and chopping down trees at random. Why? Because

there aren't enough park staff to go in and take the proper trees or

some windfalls or whatever is appropriate to take out for firewood.

Why? Because there isn't enough money.

Simply put, Mr.

Chairman, the minister has been unable to persuade his colleagues,

unable to persuade Treasury Board that there should be some increased

funding for parks. Why is that? Because he's not interested. Proof of

why he's not interested: I remember the speech he made in this House

some years ago when he talked about there being more parks than

anything else in his riding. It was a long speech about too many parks

in Columbia River, and the implication of those comments was that he

wasn't much interested in parks. The implication of his policy over the

last few years is that he still hasn't demonstrated any interest at all.

Further

proof of either inadequate interest or inadequate funding: there are

still no public campsites on northern Vancouver Island. Recreational

vehicles by the score, by the hundreds, probably this year by the

thousands are going onto the new North Island Highway, and where do

they camp? Wherever they can go off into the bush, on logging roads,

wherever they can find on the side of the road, or on municipal streets

in Port Hardy. Does the minister not concern himself with the forest

fire danger, just to pick one problem that occurs when you allow that

kind of random camping? I know the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Waterland) is concerned about it; I know the forest companies are

concerned about it to the point where the forest companies themselves

provide more campsites than does the government in that area. They're

afraid of the potential damage to the environment and to the forest

particularly from fire, but not just from fire.

[ Page 3786 ]

made a plea last summer for the minister to embark on a recreational

vehicle and campsite program on northern Vancouver Island. We've got

nothing there now and no indication yet that.... What are all these

dollars you argue you've got doing? How many of them are going into the

North Island for campsites? Not very many. The money in Cape Scott

Park, if that's what you want to argue, is maintenance dollars, totally

inadequate to provide the kind of services required.

This is

the final point I want to make. There have been changes in the style of

summer recreation in the last ten years with the advent of motorized

camping homes, but more and more people are wanting to go back to the

kind of camping that existed in the fifties when you didn't travel with

all the luxury gear, you didn't require electrical hookups and all the

modern conveniences to the point of having television in your camper.

Frankly, I know the parks branch would like to do more, but I don't

think they have been given the kind of encouragement from the minister

or funding from the government to provide that kind of alternate

camping. It does exist here and there. I mentioned Ruckle Park earlier.

That is a kind of solution to that particular desire, but there isn't

very much of it around the province; where people :an get a couple of

hundred yards or a mile away from the road so they have to actually

pack everything in — that kind of camping. Regarding the development of

camping in canoe areas, the Bowron Lakes chain is a good example of the

kind of development that could occur on many other river and lake

chains in the province.

I'll conclude by saying that I have

a total lack of confidence in the minister, and a total lack of any

assurance that he cares at all about parks. His public statements of

concern, when talking about his ministry, always relate to Crown land

sales — getting Crown land into the hands of individuals. That seems to

be his priority concern, not housing, which we talked about yesterday,

or parks, which we are talking about today. You are an absolute failure

at the job, Mr. Minister. You don't like it; you don't want it. Why

don't you give it to somebody who does like it and does want it?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

I love parks and that is why we have probably one of the largest

allocations for land acquisition and development in the history of

British Columbia.

MR. GABELMANN: In 1970 dollars?

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, 1980 dollars.

visited Ruckle Park and know it fairly well. It's a beautiful park. I

wasn't aware — no one has written me a letter saying there is a

shortage of firewood and some problems with staffing. However, we are

prepared to look at that, Mr. Member.

You mentioned Cape

Scott. In our three-year allocation for campsite and park development

we have earmarked $500,000 for Cape Scott park — one of the major

allocations in the province.

MRS. WALLACE: I guess

we're on the third round of this minister's estimates at this point in

time. I want to continue along the lines of the previous speaker

relative to the maintenance of the parks and the short-staffing. The

number of young people who are unemployed in this province during the

summer would certainly indicate to me that the minister should be

looking at utilizing some of those people to ensure that the parks are

maintained in proper order. Instead of that, he seems to have been

going in a direction to get rid of summer help in the parks.

One

of the measures he has taken is to introduce the grouped garbage cans

rather than having a garbage can at each campsite. That has resulted in

people simply not taking their garbage to those grouped cans but

leaving a bag in the campsite where the crows get at it and by the time

the next tenant comes along the campsite is littered with garbage. I

felt that I would like to bring that to the minister's attention. The

grouped garbage cans are certainly not working. Maybe they should work,

but they're not working. It means that it takes a little longer to

collect the garbage from the garbage trucks going around if you have a

garbage can at each campsite, but putting them in a group away from the

campsite simply isn't working. Maybe that's a commentary on people who

should be taking that garbage there, but the fact remains that they

aren't taking it there; they're leaving it in the campsite, the birds

and squirrels are getting at it and it's making a real mess of those

campsites for the next tenant.

Another concern I have is the

little envelopes that are now being used to collect the fees, instead

of having the park attendant come along in the morning to wish you a

good morning, collect your fee and tell you where the good fishing

places are, a good thing to do for the day and the weather forecast.

You no longer have that kind of personal contact. You have this little

envelope that you put the money in and you fill out a questionnaire.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: This is Manning Park.

certainly leaves open the opportunity not to pay if people so desire.

It has taken away the personal touch that adds a lot to the value of

our parks and attracts tourists — having those people come around and

visit and collect the money personally. Of course, if you don't have

the right money you send a cheque off to the minister in this envelope.

I presume you have to put a stamp on it as well. It doesn't say that it

goes postage free.

The minister has just talked about how

this is the first province in Canada to make campsites free for

handicapped people. I think that's great, but it's interesting to

notice that on this envelope it says: "To validate, complete the

following: amount enclosed, or B.C. senior citizen." Nothing about

handicapped.

MS. BROWN: They're not accepting it.

MRS. WALLACE:

That's right. Just recently we had a particular case straightened out,

thanks to members of that minister's staff, where it was just refused

to a handicapped person. Surely if you're going to do it by envelope,

at least do it right.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We'll refund it.

MRS. WALLACE:

Yes, they're giving them a refund in this instance. But you know, that

sort of thing shouldn't happen. If you're going to give it to

handicapped people, then give it to handicapped people, and work out

some way of making sure that this happens, and certainly at least that

[ Page 3787 ]

alternative

should be put on the envelope as well, because there's nothing there to

indicate that parks are free for the handicapped.

I'd like

to talk a little about the state of the parks this year. Even on a

Friday, which is the beginning of a weekend, when people are out in the

parks the garbage cans are full. The toilets are in a dastardly

condition. You simply don't have enough staff to do the job. The member

for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) referred to your famous speech — or

infamous speech — when you were Minister of Mines about how we had too

many parks....

HON. MR. CHABOT: I wasn't the Minister of Mines.

MRS. WALLACE:

Well, somebody was the Minister of Mines. We had too many parks — more

parks per person than.... I think it indicates your attitude towards

parks, Mr. Minister, because you really don't seem to be interested in

keeping them attractive. I'm surprised the Minister of Tourism (Hon.

Mrs. Jordan) isn't after you, because certainly it's deteriorating from

the tourist attractions having parks so ill-kept and with no personal

contact at all with any attendant there. It's not really doing anything

to upgrade our tourist trade if we don't keep those parks clean and

attractive. And it's not happening. Now maybe you don't use the parks,

Mr. Minister; I don't know. But if you did, you would find that this

was the case.

I guess I have made this plea in the House

every year since I've been here. I keep making it, and the minister

keeps saying no. But I'm going to make it again. You have to be at

Gordon Bay Park at Lake Cowichan on Thursday night to get a site. It

needs enlarging, and you say no, you won't enlarge it.

I've

talked about the need for a park at Skutz Falls. That's a very

beautiful area along the Cowichan River part way between Duncan and

Cowichan Lake. It's an area that's used extensively by campers now.

AN HON. MEMBER: For fishing.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, it's good for fishing, That's right.

MS. BROWN: You could call it the Jimmy Chabot Park.

MRS. WALLACE:

Yes, we'd even let you call it the Jimmy Chabot Park if you would

officially make it a park, because what it is now is an area where

campers come in, but there are no controls or regulations. The local

residents in the vicinity are very concerned about the fire hazard.

It's a grassy field; if you've been there you will realize this is

true. That grass grows up, dies down, and it's just tinder-dry and

ready to go — one match and you've got a fire. There are some real

concerns about that particular area. And it is a needed park, because

our parks are always overflowing in that particular area.

I've

talked to you — and certainly a lot of the local government people have

— about the need for a trailer park, camper site, tenting place

somewhere close to Duncan. Of course, in my mind the ideal spot is that

strip of land which is up for long-term lease from the native Indian

people between the Cowichan River and the Village Green Inn. It is a

beautiful acreage within walking distance of Duncan and right on the

highway, and it would provide a tremendous boon to that area if we were

to have a place right there on the highway where campers, trailers and

tenters could pull in and set up camp. It wouldn't be an expensive camp

to institute because it's already beautifully treed, the underbrush is

fairly well cleared out and the roadways are all in. It would take very

little expense to make that into a very adequate park, and a very

valuable asset to the tourist industry and to the Cowichan Valley.

I've

contacted you about my concerns about establishing a park along Mill

Bay where the virgin timber stand is. Now you've written back and

indicated that it's not suitable for a regional park. I asked you why

it wasn't suitable. I've had no answer to that letter. For whatever

reason, you think it shouldn't be a regional park.

That

brings up another point. We had a very interesting thing happen in our

area. We get very little money for regional parks in the Cowichan

Valley. Last year we got a cheque for $600 from this minister. With it

was a very interesting covering letter. It said: "Would you please use

this money to advertise the fact that the provincial government

contributes to regional parks." When it came before the local regional

board, a motion was put that they use the money to buy a sign along the

highway to say that the provincial government contributes to regional

parks. It was voted down, because they didn't think $600 would cover

the sign. Do you know what they did? They took that money and put a

regional parks. That's the kind of cooperation we're getting from this

minister as far as parks in the Cowichan Valley go.

I raise

this every year and ask for some consideration to be given to those

areas, particularly Gordon Bay Park, Skutz Falls, the Mill Bay area and

a trailer campsite in the vicinity of Duncan. I always get the answer

"no." The minister tells me that he's got all this extra money. The

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) told us that when he introduced

his bill. None of it comes to the Cowichan Valley. I'm getting a little

discouraged with that minister. It really is a beautiful area. If you

don't like the Cowichan Valley just because I happen to represent it,

at least remember that it's part of one of the greatest tourist

attractions that B.C. has. If you're going to bring tourists into this

area, we have to have parks. For that reason, if for none other. I

would ask you to consider giving us some assistance in those parks.

MR. NICOLSON:

I'd like to report to the minister that on Sunday last I attended the

annual general meeting of the Valhalla Park Society. I wish to make the

following announcement. The Valhalla Park is now a class A park in the

minds of the people of the Slocan Valley, the Kootenays, the outdoor

people in the province of British Columbia and probably many others.

I'm

glad to see that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) is here.

He is a good attender in this House; it's pretty reliable that he will

be here. The Minister of Forests and the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) look upon themselves as being

the revenue-producers in this province. I want to point out to that

minister that there is no need for him to feel that he is a

second-class citizen in terms of the various ministerial

responsibilities. The parks are revenue producers in this province, and

let there be no mistake about that. When we look

[ Page

3788 ]

at the potential for the parks in this province to

generate revenue and to add to the gross provincial product, the

highest and best use of a good part of the land in this province would

be for parks.

I want to speak very strongly in support of

the government's catching up with the people in terms of what the best

land use is. Recently in Valhalla Park there has been an extension of a

moratorium on logging, which was first granted in 1977. Prior to that

there were other delays and decisions on whether or not to log and

build logging roads into the Valhallas. That moratorium has recently

been extended. I think it expires in December 1980. Some investigation

has been made of this. What it really boils down to in its simplest

terms is that if you take that annual allowable cut and you spread the

number of potential acres out over the harvesting cycle, it really

means about 100 acres of land per year that could be logged and about

ten jobs a year. That's its use if you use it in terms of logging. This

entire area is a very important area.

When a person

travels.... I've only been briefly to one very limited locale in

Europe, but even with that brief exposure to Europe there is a feeling

of awe when one looks at an old palace that was built in the 1500s or

something else that dates back, a cathedral etc. In British Columbia we

don't have cathedrals that date back 300 or 400 years, but we do have

cathedrals in this province. The cathedrals in this province are those

beautiful high alpine areas, the beautiful wild beaches and the many

things we show when we pump dollars into advertising promotions and

themes for bringing tourists to British Columbia, such as "Super,

Natural British Columbia" and the theme for this year which I was

privileged to watch along with the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs.

Jordan).

Mr. Chairman, things are happening in the

Valhallas. I'm afraid that government is running behind the people and

the developments that are happening. The old mining area of Sandon is

having hundreds of visitors per day to a volunteer museum — and these

are all logged, all documented. Last year we tried to get some sort of

cooperation out of some government department. We didn't care if it

came from Parks, Highways, or from whom, but we wanted some portable

toilets, because there were no facilities in the area and there were

hundreds of people visiting that area each day. All of those requests

fell on deaf ears, with the result that people up there took matters

into their own hands and they built the facilities which really should

have been provided by the government. They could easily have been

provided by the government had there been some kind of aggressive and

up-to-date knowledge of what really is happening in that area.

The explosion of yellow licence plates in the East and West Kootenays is something

rather remarkable. I can remember ten years ago travelling up to Sandon on a

weekend in the middle of the summer and maybe seeing one or two other people

there — if you spent the whole day there. Now there are cars going back and

forth. There's a little restaurant that has started up there in one of the

old buildings. There is a splendid opportunity to have some multiple use of

that area. There is mining going on there. There is living activity going on

up in Sandon. There is logging. What the people up there want is some say in

terms of where the logging should be and a general plan. With a great deal of

planning and thought — which has been going on for ten years by the people who

live, log and mine in that area — the Valhalla area on the west side of Slocan

Lake should become a class A park. As I say, the people there have decided it

is a class A park.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr.

Chairman, other things are happening. At the north and south ends of

Slocan Lake there are sandy beaches. On the south end the sandy beach

is unfortunately covered by a sawmill and a booming ground. At the

north end it is occupied by an enterprise called the Valhalla Lakeside

Resort, which the owners want to sell or subdivide, or do something,

because they simply are not making money in its present use. There is

the opportunity to purchase that sandy beach there, and I would

recommend that the government do precisely that. The regional district

of Central Kootenay has debated this twice in their regular meetings.

They've spent a great deal of time on it, particularly the regional

district director for that area, Mr. Conrad Evans. They have written to

the government and asked that the government at least do a thorough

investigation of the possibility of buying this and maybe making some

fair offer. No one is asking that government expropriate the land; no

one is asking that the government make an unreasonable offer for the

land, or that it be held up to ransom.

I've talked to local

people, and, frankly, local people in the ministry, in the regional

parks office, are not too encouraging on this. I would say that....

Well, I would back their opinions and respect them maybe 99 percent of

the time, but I must really disagree, because you just don't have this

kind of opportunity anywhere else on that lake. As I say, things are

moving very quickly. I think that in the future, if we don't take the

splendid opportunity to take this piece of land, to develop it in a

very sensitive way, and to exploit that piece of land as a park, and as

something which will be a revenue-producer for the area....

I'd

like the minister to realize that a study was done by the University of

Calgary on the area, and just as an example they said that if the

visitors to Sandon — just the visitors who logged in at the Sandon

Museum, which is in a little, old abandoned house, full of artifacts —

could be induced to stay in the area for only three days and spend $20

per day — I don't know about the three days, but $20 per day is a

pretty conservative figure — it would be a $1.5 million infusion of

capital into that area. I think that the potential is much greater than

that; I know it is.

Right now the ministry has had the

Valhalla proposal before it for some time. It was even before our

government. There are requests and support from the village of New

Denver, which endorses the proposal. I know that the local regional

district director endorses the proposal. The MLA endorses the proposal.

The Member of Parliament endorses the proposal. The people endorse it.

Mr.

Chairman, we also endorse logging and mining where they can take place

on the eastern shore. We say that the western shore of Slocan Lake in

the Valhallas is one the cathedrals of British Columbia, and that it

should be preserved. In increasing numbers, people are coming to

recognize that this has a value, and that it has an economic value. The

people of the area argue that their economic interests would be best

served in terms of a full development of that region, the Valhallas

being the central focus of the region. There are many other amenities,

such as the old Sandon site. The old Valhalla resort, a private piece

of property on the north end of the lake, has a beautiful sand beach; I

think it

[ Page 3789 ]

could serve much better than the expansion of the Roseberry Park campsite. People are still coming into that campsite, although it was

closed this year. They are coming in; they are parking on the side of the road,

and so on. We're short of camping facilities. The local chamber of commerce,

which supports the whole proposal, has even gone ahead and created its own campsite,

because the Roseberry campsite is insufficient to handle the demand in that

particular area.

For

all these reasons, I submit to the minister that his ministry,

particularly Parks, is not a revenue consumer. It could be a revenue

producer, in terms of generating and stimulating the economies of areas

which are in transition. These are traditionally mining areas in which

mining will continue to play a very important role, and to which people

will go to discover the living heritage of this province. I would ask

the minister to show his strongest support for theValhalla proposal in all its ramifications, which touch both the area designated to be the Valhallas and the other areas.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Just briefly in response, we have no aspirations to establish a park at

Sandon. We have a major commitment in your constituency to acquire a

property at Midge Creek, which is before the courts. We expect to have

an answer in the latter part of September of this year. It will be a

major acquisition for park development in your riding.

Valhalla

is a matter that's still under consideration and under review.

Hopefully, if we ever get out of here, I'll have an opportunity to

visit that corner of the province, and I will familiarize myself with

the Valhalla area.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) talked about the regional district

not getting any funds under the Regional Parks Act. Well, I guess if you don't

apply you don't get funds. There is an allocation there: one-third of the

contribution is towards the acquisition of land, and one-third of the contribution

is towards development of the park. Unless the regional district makes an application.... If they have the

function of a regional park, then they have to apply if they want to acquire

some land. Then we take it into consideration, and we grant money. I don't

know what the $600 is for. I would guess that if the regional district didn't

want the $600 or didn't need the $600, they could have sent it back to me,

and I would have put it into some other park development project.

She argues for higher camping fees by saying that we should escalate our staffing in the operation of our campsites. The

more staff you engage, the more costs are incurred. Then you've got

that 50 percent to 60 percent of the operating costs that you attempt

to achieve from fees. So more staff means more costs and possibly

higher fees.

We presently have 400 permanent staff in the operation of parks in the province.

We engage as many as 3,000 auxiliary staff in the summer months. Under the

Youth Employment Program, I believe we have about 400 staff engaged in the parks.

We also have a youth crew of approximately 420 building trails in the parks.

So we have a fairly large contingent of employees during the heavy tourist season.

The

member is persistent in her demands for the development of certain

parks in her riding, and we will certainly take her suggestions under

consideration.

MR. NICOLSON: I wish to thank the

minister for volunteering information about Midge Creek. I'd ask the

minister if he's proceeding under the Partition of Property Act.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes.

MRS. WALLACE:

The minister has indicated that what I said was not true, and I just

want to run through the business of the $600. The Cowichan Valley

Regional District received a form from the ministry which they filled

out and sent in to be ministry. They received from the ministry the

cheque for $600 accompanied by a request to acknowledge the assistance

in any park-promotional material. Now, if that's not exactly what I

said.... I can get you a copy of the letter if you wish.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, could I have leave to make an introduction before I get into the minister's estimates?

Leave granted.

MR. MITCHELL:

I would like the House to extend with me a welcome to one of the more

colourful personalities who were part of the NDP government when they

were in power, one who became Associate Minister of Mines, Hart Horn,

who is visiting Victoria.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make

a request to the minister of three issues I would like him to give

serious consideration to. I would like him to adopt a policy which that

forward-thinking member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) had when

he was Minister of Municipal Affairs, and that was the purchase of the

CNR right-of-way from Victoria to Deerholme. At that period it was

proposed that it be held either as a bike path or a hiking trail. The

most important

part is that the right-of-way should be maintained and

should be held by the province to ensure that in future access for

rapid transit to the Western Community will be available. The more

northwestern part of the line, I imagine, will and can be associated

into the parks branch, but the part from Victoria at least to Sooke

should be held for development of rapid transit.

Many

members of this province are finding a complete lack of camping

facilities in the general areas throughout the province. I would like

the minister to view the area from Victoria west towards Sooke. For

years we had a private campsite at the Juan de Fuca trailer park that

was an overnight campsite for many tents and trailers and weekend

campers, but since last year that particular area has been transferred

to a recreational park and they've been doing a lot of renovation, so

there are no camping facilities — provincial or otherwise — from the

Victoria area west towards the Port Renfrew area. What is happening is

that a lot of weekend campers are parking along the road and

trespassing on a lot of private land out there. In many cases, because

there are no facilities, the hygiene is in the bushes and not to be

desired.

There is one provincial park out there, which is a

day camp, the French Beach Park; possibly it could be made into a

campsite for overnighters or weekenders. I bring to the minister's

attention that there is a definite need in that area for campsites for

the expanding population of the Victoria area.

Third and

last, I would like to bring to the minister's attention — I tried to

raise this with the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr.

Fraser), and he told me that all the responsibility lies with the

Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing — the signing system that they are

developing for the parks in British Columbia. These are the brown and

black signs with a lot of little plaques. Now the

[ Page 3790 ]

Minister

of Transportation and Highways told me that he has just given you

permission to put these signs up. I would like to bring to the

minister's attention that they are not effective. If you're driving

along at 80 kilometres an hour, you can read the name of what is coming

up.

One example is Goldstream Park. You drive along and you

know it is Goldstream Park, but it isn't until you get to the sign and

see the small print that you realize that it is a provincial park. I

feel that these signs should be there for the motoring public. When

they are driving along they shouldn't have to wait until they are right

on top of it to realize that it is a provincial park and that they

should slow down to make a left turn. If you miss it you are past it

and it is hard to get back.

I bring these three particular

problems from my area to the minister. I hope that he will give them

very serious consideration. If you could kind of guarantee the people

of greater Victoria that you will get the CNR right-of-way by the end

of this week, we'll wait for the next two weeks for the rest.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

I'll make a quick response, Mr. Chairman. I don't know if the member

for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has been asleep since he was elected on May

10, 1979, or where he has been.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon.

minister, personal allusions are not allowed. We are discussing the

estimates. Please contain your remarks to the vote before us.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

It's been a matter of public information for some considerable time

that we're negotiating on the acquisition of the old CNR right-of-way

all the way up to Deerholme. We've been negotiating for some

considerable time. I don't know where the member has been.

Nevertheless, it is a matter of public information.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: There's nothing secret. I'm sure I've had a press release about it.

are negotiating for the acquisition of this land. We have received an

appraisal of late. I think we're down to the final strokes of

negotiations in the acquisition of this property.

We have no

intentions of developing any campsites between here and Sooke. I guess

the Capital Regional District has the park function and, it being in a

more urban setting, we would leave that kind of development to them.

This year we have earmarked $350,000 for the construction of campsites at French Beach Park.

MR. MITCHELL:

I am quite happy to hear that you are still negotiating the CNR

right-of-way, but you have been negotiating since 1975. We would

definitely feel more assured as long as it is still on stream and

definitely will be held for development.

While I am on my feet could I ask which way the $300,000 is going to be spent? Will it be spent on overnight camping sites?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Chairman, I think so many negatives have been uttered

this afternoon about British Columbia's provincial park system that it is

time somebody who actively camps in them stood up and talked very briefly about

the facts. May I say that I am very proud, as a member of the government side,

to be able to recount firsthand my experiences this summer in seven of our provincial

parks: Monck Park on Nicola Lake; Agate Bay Park on Shuswap Lake; Manning Park

— there are five or six superior parks around Manning Park; Skagit Valley Park;

Nicolum River Park; Kawkawa Lake Park; and Cultus Lake Park.

What

I have to say now is based on the experience of my family and I camping

this summer in the time we've had. Let me tell you a few facts, Mr.

Chairman, after what the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) had

to say. I dare say I've spent more time camping in these parks this

summer than she and her seatmates put together. They are outstanding.

Interjections.

MR. HYNDMAN: Oh, how the truth hurts. They are outstanding provincial parks.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. I'll ask all hon. members to come to order, and I'll

remind the hon. second member for Vancouver South that we are on the

estimates of the minister and, as I mentioned earlier, personal

allusions are not in order. The member continues on vote 155.

MR. HYNDMAN:

Mr. Chairman, I'll be happy to continue my discussion about parks. It's

always interesting how, when the facts start to come out, some people

in here get very noisy and very uncomfortable. For the record may I say

that those are outstanding provincial parks. They are clean; they are

very well maintained; they are tidy; they are very well staffed. If

some of those chattering nabobs to your left, Mr. Chairman, would spend

some time in them, they would find lots of staff around during the

course of a day or a weekend. They would find lots of staff around

doing repairs and maintenance, checking the wood supply and checking on

tickets, quite contrary to what the member would tell you.

Interjections.

MR. HYNDMAN:

If that little group of nattering nabobs on your left, Mr. Chairman,

would like some comparison, could I suggest that they go down to

Hozameen Park, which is also in the Skagit Valley — it is a Washington

state park — and compare within the five-mile radius the Washington

state Hozameen Park and British Columbia's Skagit Valley Park. British

Columbia has an outstanding park by comparison; it's far superior.

It's

just unfortunate that members to your left, particularly the member for

Cowichan-Malahat, couldn't find one positive thing to say about our

provincial parks in these estimates. They are congenitally unable to

say anything positive about a superior park program. I'm telling you,

Mr. Minister, that it is an outstanding system and it's very well run.

You and your staff should be very proud of it.

MS. SANFORD: After that speech from the member for Vancouver South.... Oh, he's gone. He got on the record and he's gone.

[ Page 3791 ]

During

the estimates of the Ministry of Environment I raised a question with

the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) concerning the Qualicum

River and the silting taking place in that river as a result of

extensive logging along the river. The result has been a problem at the

Qualicum hatchery. There is great concern at the Qualicum hatchery as a

result of the silting that is currently taking place in the river.

Attempts were made to have the land in question purchased by the

federal government.

I asked the Minister of Environment what

the intentions of the provincial government were at this time with

respect to the acquisition of that property. That property is now

slated for subdivision development. The Minister of Environment

indicated that the government is looking at the possibility of

purchasing property in that area. I would like to ask the minister

responsible for Lands if the ministry is presently negotiating to

purchase property along the Qualicum, particularly in the area where

the subdivision is slated. How much land is being negotiated if, in

fact, they are negotiating? What is the intention of the government if

they purchase? Will they set it aside as park property or recreational

land?

The Minister of Environment also indicated that the

problem was really more extensive than the area which had been logged

and which is now slated for subdivision. I am wondering if the Ministry

of Lands is looking at extensive purchases along the Qualicum. I would

like some specific answers from the minister on that.

The

other issue is one that I also raised the other day with the Minister

of Environment. This Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing must be taken

to task on the decision that he unilaterally made with respect to the

granting of a log-dumping permit to Mac-Blo over the objections of

the....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Are we going back to Lands now?

MS. SANFORD: You're the same minister, aren't you? Aren't you responsible for...?

MR. SKELLY: He's not responsible at all.

MS. SANFORD: He's not responsible. I see.

With

respect to the decision that was made by the minister — a straight

political decision — there had been an application for an oyster lease

in the area. The people in the Ministry of Lands were trying to work

out a solution to the conflict that exists in that area. But the

minister, along with the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) and

some of his senior officials, met in the minister's office and at that

time a decision was made — I assume under some pressure from Mac-Blo —

to grant a permit to dump logs in one of the prime oyster-growing areas

of the world. Even his own officials in the Courtenay office and in the

offices here in Victoria were unaware of this political decision made

by the minister as a result of meeting with the Mac and Blo officials.

The minister, in my view, stands condemned for that decision. I do not

understand, Mr. Chairman, why it was necessary for the minister to meet

personally with Mac and Blo officials when, at the same time, his own

departmental officials were attempting to resolve that problem. They

had spent a great deal of time trying to come up with solutions, and

out of the blue a decision is made by the minister to grant Mac and Blo

exactly what they want.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: All I really

have to say is one word, and the minister will know the whole topic

immediately, because we have discussed this personally and privately on

a number of occasions. That word, of course, is Okeover.

HON. MR. CHABOT: What?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Okeover.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh. You want me to answer that one?

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

You know all the answers. He's got it. But for the record, I think we'd

better just do the little number here — so we don't have just one word

in Hansard .

As the minister is aware, I did raise

this matter under the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, and

that minister agreed with us that that area should be preserved for

mariculture. This minister, while a decision has not been made, has

before him a proposal to put in this monstrous park.

The

regional district has suggested to the ministry alternate sites for the

type of park the minister wants to put into this area. That portion of

Okeover will remain open to public use, but everybody in the world must

know by now that the coming industry in British Columbia is

mariculture. That area happens to be the prime mariculture area in

British Columbia and it must be preserved. So all I'm suggesting to the

minister — and I know what the minister's answer to this is, because

we've discussed this many times, but I suspect I'm going to hear it

again — is that he seriously consider implementing the recommendations

put forward by the regional district of Powell River. Everybody will be

happy with that solution, including the minister, the government, the

MLA, the mayor — everybody in town.

MS. SANFORD: I

just wanted to point out to the minister that he was going to answer

some of the points that I had raised, and I was hoping that he would do

it now.

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all, in response to

the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), on the question of Okeover

Park, you know, you exaggerate to a certain degree about the size of

the park. It's a small proposal we have put forward. I think it's about

20 campsites. You know that's small acreage. I forget the acreage now,

whether it's ten acres.... It's a very small site.

We've had

discussions with the director of the marine resource branch because we

recognize the importance of mariculture and its future. We certainly

would not want to disrupt the future potential of mariculture by the

establishment of a campsite there. But the director of marine resources

agrees that, because of the buffer zone that we've left on the shore

front, what we had proposed would not pose any danger whatsoever.

have some problems. The matter is under review at this time. There is

some difference of opinion between the city of Powell River and the

regional district. They're at loggerheads as to whether the

representatives on the regional district from the city of Powell River

should have a right to vote on a project that is outside the city. So

now we find ourselves with two warring factions. I know that's probably

a little strongly worded, but we have a serious difference of opinion

between the representatives from the city on the regional district and

the rural directors of the regional district. So we're at that impasse

now. But I want to assure you,

[ Page 3792 ]

Mr.

Member, that the views of the people in that region will be paramount

in the making of this decision. However, it's under review, and we hope

that those differences of opinion between the city and the regional

district will be resolved so that we can go one way or the other.

The

member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) asked a question related to the

possibility of my ministry acquiring land adjacent to the Qualicum

River for the protection of the fishery habitat. In most instances my

ministry is involved in acquisition of land for park purposes. The

Ministry of Environment now has a fund called the Conservation Trust

Fund, in which it is allocated certain funds annually based on demands

from the Crown Land Fund. The minister determines the priorities of the

expenditure of those funds. It's brand new. I don't know the urgency of

the suggestion you've made, or whether there's a subdivision on the

drawing boards ready to go. I don't know, but nevertheless, the

Conservation Trust Fund was created for the purpose of acquiring prime

lands for the protection of wildlife and fisheries. I think the

question, with the allocation and the fund having been established,

could best be put to my colleague the Minister of Environment, because

he does have a financial allocation there.

MS. SANFORD: Buckley Bay?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Yes, there was a meeting in the office of the Minister of Environment.

I want to assure you that there was no pressure put upon me by anyone.

There were representatives of MacMillan Bloedel at that meeting. They

didn't pressure me. You suggested that possibly there was some

pressure. We discussed the issue, whether there was a possibility of

the site endangering the mariculture in the Buckley Bay area. We had

the director of marine resources there. There was no firm consensus

that it would endanger the oyster-growing activities in that area.

The

site you are talking about, which is a dry-land sort foreshore lease,

is an old coal dump. It's adjacent to the ferry slip leading to Denman

Island. It's one in which a great variety of precautions will be taken

by the company in its dry-land log-sorting operation. It's not a

question of booming and shifting around loose logs; it's bundled logs

which will be removed fairly quickly from the site. We determined that

the foreshore lease will not endanger the oyster-growing activities in

that region, because of all the precautions that are being taken. There

will also be monitoring of the water quality and....

MS. SANFORD: Just like Buttle Lake.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Well, if you can start comparing acids and minerals and junk coming out

of a mine with bundled logs, I guess you're entitled to do that.

Nevertheless, I concluded that there would be no danger and therefore

the foreshore lease was issued.

Vote 155 approved.

Vote 156: administration, $3,549,950 — approved.

On Vote 157: lands and housing, $38,764,768.

MS. BROWN: Just a very brief reminder that the minister has promised

to let me have the manual for B.C. Housing Management.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, absolutely. I make a commitment; I live by my commitments.

MS. BROWN: I know, but when?

HON. MR. CHABOT: When do you want it?

MS. BROWN: Now.

Vote 157 approved.

On vote 158: parks and outdoor recreation, $21,989,022,

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Chairman, part of vote 158, reading from the text and description

of it, provides for, among other things, "education programs for the

out-of-doors." I wonder if the minister could use some of the funds

herein to engage the member for Vancouver South in an educational

program about parliamentary practice so he'll understand it better.

Then maybe he can spend his whole time out-of-doors in the parks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is not within the scope of the debate.

Vote 158 approved.

Vote 159: ministry enterprises, $1,927,621 — approved.

Vote 160: building occupancy charges, $2,081,000 — approved.

Vote 161: computer and consulting charges, $857,512 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

HUMAN RESOURCES

On vote 125: minister's office, $212,051.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Chairman, I'm really pleased to rise in my place to address the

Ministry of Human Resources. It's a very special vote, I think, a vote

that touches all British Columbians, and a ministry that touches the

lives of all British Columbians. May I just say that I'd like to just

quickly review where we've been in the ministry in the Year of the

Child and Family, where we are at the present and where we're going in

the future. I'll just say a few words.

As members of the

Legislature will appreciate, this is a very large ministry. It has a

very great number of programs and responsibilities. I will not touch on

them all, but I hope that we will have a chance to discuss many of them

while the estimates of the Ministry of Human Resources are underway.

believe that this was the only jurisdiction in the world that adopted

the "and Family" to the Year of the Child under the United Nations'

declaration. I know that that was not a title that sat well with at

least one member of this House, but I think, in retrospect, we can

appreciate the fact that the Year of the Child was well celebrated in

British Columbia. To try to have separated the child from the family

would indeed have been a mistake, in terms of addressing the needs of

children in British Columbia.

[ Page 3793 ]

that year we honoured many who gave and give unselfishly of their time

and efforts on behalf of children and families in our province. We

recognize our partnership in the ministry with this army of volunteers,

and several hundred people were honoured by a Year of the Child and

Family award in that year.

In that year we had an all-out

attack on child abuse and neglect in the province. This will continue,

has continued, and will be continued in this ministry as the years go

on. I think one of the highlights of that particular war on child abuse

was the child-abuse manual which was printed, It was the result of an

interministerial committee. The Ministry of Health, the Ministry of the

Attorney-General and the Ministry of Education all had a

part in

putting together the child abuse manual. It has been recognized as

being one of the most thorough — probably the most thorough — document

on child abuse and neglect for professionals and laypeople alike that

has ever been printed in. this province. Many provinces and different

states have written for copies of the child-abuse manual.

Coupled

with the child-abuse manual was the ministry's training program, which

is designed to assist staff in dealing with child-abuse problems. It is

also designed to extend to other professionals — people who are in

other ministries, members of the community, the hospitals, the police,

public health staffs, the schools and all interested citizens — a

training program which, again, will be continued and has been given,

really, a very high priority in the ministry.

The Year of

the Child and Family saw the introduction of the Helpline for Children

— the Zenith number — Zenith 1234, where children can phone a 24-hour

toll-free service — the first in Canada. Parents, people who are

neighbours to abused children, relatives or any professional who has

knowledge of a child who has been abused can report that incident of

child abuse or neglect. It has been looked at by professionals and by

city and state representatives from throughout North America. I'd like

to say here and now, Mr. Chairman, that it has saved lives in the

province of British Columbia, We have received reports of abuse and

neglect; they have been acted upon speedily.

In 1979 we also

saw the expansion of Parents in Crisis. All of these programs are part

of the attack on child abuse and neglect in our province.

The

Year of the Child also brought the CHANCE program. This program does

just that: it gives a chance to handicapped youngsters who heretofore

have not had an opportunity to be in the regular school system. It is a

joint program with the Ministry of Education to provide personal

attendance in the school for handicapped children. It's a $3.7 million

program, and it is the first time in this province that the handicapped

have had that opportunity. Heretofore they've had the opportunity in

terms of having assistance at the home, or else they have had to do

without educational opportunities altogether. I am pleased that the

Ministry of Education and myself have been able to work together on

this very vital program, the CHANCE program for the handicapped.

Services

for the mentally handicapped have been updated by the appointment of

regional coordinators, who are now, I think, very well ensconced and

cognizant of these young people and children and older

mentally-handicapped. We have undertaken feasibility studies at

Tranquille and Woodlands; that is under way at the present time. We

have seen an increase of 37 percent in the subsidy for those young

people who are mentally handicapped and who are in achievement centres.

We've seen the development of local resources — group homes for the

retarded in region 7, the Prince Rupert–Bulkley Valley region; in

region 5, the Prince George Cariboo region; and also in the lower

mainland.

We have gone further than ever before in a move to

support independent living, which was introduced, as you know, by the

former minister, the hon. first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm). We continue to further independent living for the mentally

handicapped in the province of British Columbia.

The Year of

the Child and Family also saw life-planning for children in care. In

that permanent plan, that life-plan for children in care who cannot go

back to their natural parents, we in the ministry have insisted that we

have a life-plan for children so they will not go from pillar to post

throughout the system, in one foster-care home after another. Paying

tribute to that is the tracking system for children, which I did refer

to in the estimates last year. That really ensures a regular review for

every child in care. It's very, very important. Life-books for children

were given to each child in care in the Year of the Child and Family.

Again, we did emphasize throughout the year, and will emphasize in the

years to come, that every effort must be made to offer stability and

security to each child as early as possible.

Then we saw the

special-needs adoption campaign, which brought an awareness to the

people of British Columbia that there are some special-needs children.

They need very special care, a very special effort; in fact. they take

more effort because of their handicap and because of their special

circumstances. That special-needs awareness campaign has really

resulted in an awareness within the province and a response from the

public which has pleased all of us.

We've responded to the

need to assist the boat people. As you know, the settlement of the boat

people has been a partnership with the federal government. The Ministry

of Labour, which has responsibility for that, and the Ministry of Human

Resources have worked with them. We feel that that has been a very

well-organized and very well-done program by our ministry as well as

the Ministry of Labour in this government. We've had great cooperation,

of course, from the federal government under whose responsibility the

settle ment of boat people actually falls. In this case, I would like

to just note that the response from the public — the world cry that

went out to the boat people.... I don't think that very many other

jurisdictions responded better than did the province of British

Columbia.

Then we saw through the past year and a half a

strengthening of family services in the province. The Infant

Development Program was expanded in the Kootenays and the

Vancouver-Richmond area. We've received input from many community

organizations and from individuals for the Family and Child Service

Act. Over 1,200 submissions were received, either verbally or by mail.

That resulted in Bill 45, which is now before the House, Mr. Chairman.

I know that you don't want me to refer to that, but may I just refer to

the effort that the ministry received from the community in order to

bring that act to fruition and before the House in this legislative

session.

We've changed the financial eligibility test for

family support services. The allowable income levels were increased an

average of 17 percent, and we had special services for children cease

to be income-tested. That resulted in an expenditure by government of

perhaps over $1 million, but it

[ Page 3794 ]

certainly took a terrific pressure off some of the people who had very special concerns over those special services.

The

emergency shelter policy was expanded, and this was particularly

important to the smaller communities who couldn't afford.... Because of

the numbers of women and children who would use a shelter for battered

wives and children, they had a smaller use. There was a formula adopted

to provide assistance to women and children in the smaller communities.

I'm proud that that was brought in, because it gives counselling

services in addition to accommodation costs in the smaller communities,

and it makes each smaller community as available for that kind of

service as are the cities of Victoria and Vancouver.

There

were increases in income'assistance in 1979 and again in 1980. In 1979

these amounted to $31 million and in 1980 they amounted to $24 million.

I'd just like to say that that total of $55 million has made quite a

difference to that group of people in our society that need extra help

and that come to the Ministry of Human Resources in time of need.

May 1980 the basic GAIN increases amounted to around 8.6 percent. The

comforts allowance increased from $40 to $50 per month. This past year

the Christmas bonus was doubled from $25 to $50. There was an 8 percent

increase in day-care subsidies in May 1980. Most important of all, I

think, was the broadening of the categories in the day-care service —

the higher rates for children under three years and the establishment

of a brand-new category of 18 months to 36 months for group day care. I

think this will give a very excellent service and tremendous capability

for independence, particularly for single parents with very tiny

children who need that extra day-care assistance.

SAFER

benefits. I really can't speak enough of the SAFER program. I know that

sometimes when a benefit comes to the people of British Columbia or to

any group of people through tax dollars, we tend to take it for

granted. The SAFER program has been one of the most extraordinary

initiatives to be taken by any government. The maximum rent levels for

SAFER benefits were raised this year from $205 to $225 for a single,

and $225 to $245 for couples. The $35 federal GIS increase was passed

along to seniors receiving the GAIN supplement. The foster care rate

increase, amounting to approximately $2 million, was initiated in

October 1979.

That's talking about money. Let me tell you a couple of things about the

Awareness Week for Human Resources. I know there was a lot of criticism from

the other side of the House on the Awareness Week for Human Resources. Awareness

Week was the week which was set aside to tell people about the services

and the programs which this ministry undertakes on behalf of all

people. I'll just give you three examples.

Firstly, there was a 22-year-old paraplegic, a young man in a wheelchair. The

Ministry of Human Resources was the catalyst to bring that young man together

with the people who can assist him with recreation, housing and so on. He was

very much with his father, and his father is getting elderly. I think we did

a good service in that regard.

can tell you about many fractured families in the province of British

Columbia who keep thinking that the Ministry of Human Resources is

really just a place to get income assistance. Their term is welfare.

They found out through Awareness Week that it isn't only for income

assistance, but it is for keeping families together and giving services

to those people.

We identified in that week a little boy

whose appearance was greatly impaired by very poor teeth and a very

difficult jaw problem. His appearance is being greatly improved with

orthodontia work through our special health needs grant. We probably

wouldn't have found this had it not been for that week.

just want to say again that I don't think there's anything wrong with

telling about the services that are available for people. I think those

services that we're very proud of in British Columbia will continue to

tell that story.

Joint Labour and Human Resources programs

have been excellent. I'd like to pay tribute to the present Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and the former Minister of Labour, who

established, along with the Ministry of Human Resources, the capability

of finding jobs for younger income assistance clients and having the

subsidies that are available through the Ministry of Labour assist

those young recipients.

I'd like to say a word or two on the

task force on juvenile prostitution, which was established some months

ago, long before the furor that happened in the media — a furor that

has been well deserved. Surely there isn't anyone in this House or

anywhere in British Columbia that can tolerate the juvenile

prostitution problem that we have seen publicized in the West End.

Before the publication of all that was evident, we had an

interministerial committee set up, which was a very capable committee.

They had many community meetings. They covered education, police, the

Ministry of Human Resources and many community services in the area of

the West End. There are some very hard-working people, many volunteers

and many good professionals. They did very good work in defining the

problem and excellent work in getting together.

At the time

— in the spring — we felt there was something missing in all of that,

that it perhaps lacked some sort of coordination. I was in touch with

the mayor of the city of Vancouver and asked him if he wouldn't share

in the idea of appointing someone who would be able to bring these

people together so that they could positively address this situation.

So this joint city and provincial government idea of a coordinator was

born. I am pleased to tell you of the appointment of Ted Oliver, the

retired deputy chief of police for the province of British Columbia.

has been able to bring a continuity. He knows the needs of that

community. He facilitates access to the Attorney-General, the ministers

of Education, Health and Human Resources, and the mayor of the city of

Vancouver. There is instant and good coordination with each and every

one of those ministries and the City of Vancouver. I believe that has

made a real difference to the handling of that problem in the West End

of Vancouver.

I have said and I repeat that juvenile

prostitution will not be tolerated. We will do everything we can to

stop juvenile prostitution in Vancouver. As you know, Mr. Chairman, in

the meeting in the last couple of weeks of myself and the

Attorney-General with the Hon. Jean Chretien, he promised to amend the

Criminal Code by October of this year. He has given that undertaking to

us. We believe that he will carry it out. We also believe that all of

the things we have done, including the task force and the appointment

of the coordinator, have been good things. We have had success stories.

We have had young people leave the streets and change their lifestyle.

But, unfortunately, as quickly as we take one juvenile off the street

another one comes on to take his or her

[ Page 3795 ]

place;

we are doing, at best, a patchwork job. That patchwork job, as I say,

cannot be tolerated. We must change the Criminal Code. The

Attorney-General and myself will continue to press for positive

programs and for alleviation. And we will certainly be holding the

federal government to their commitment to change the Criminal Code.

the present time the ministry has two or three programs on the go which

I think I would like to share with the House. I think that all of us in

this House recognize the plight of the single parent in this province.

I think that all of us have had letters from those who are in the

position of having been left bereft of funds. with children more likely

than not, and having no opportunity at all to make a new life for

themselves because, unfortunately, there has not been sufficient money

left, and sometimes there are many debts when the spouse takes off. I

have thought for all of these years and I continue to believe that

there has been an impossible situation imposed upon very many people in

that predicament in this province because we simply haven't had a

proper program for the enforcement of maintenance orders. Let me just

explain to you what we are doing in our ministry.

cooperation with the Ministry of the Attorney-General, we are putting

together a program which would see that the payments that are made to

spouses would be paid into a financial entity. I can't think of

anything more sad than the situation where people part — for the very

many reasons that people break up marriages and seek divorces — and

find that in that separation or divorce situation they hold children as

pawns in a very emotional game when it comes to the payment of

maintenance to those spouses.

I look to families where

husbands are required by court order to pay wives a certain amount of

money. The first month goes by and the money is there. It may be there

in the second month. Then in the third month those payments cease and

the spouse is left having to take her husband to court because that

money is not there. As members of the Legislative Assembly, we all

certainly know of very many examples of tragic cases where the spouse

has really been beaten down by the effort and by the incredible

harassment that goes on in trying to collect that kind of maintenance.

I think the saddest of all are those children in the province of

British Columbia who are told that because their father didn't come

through with the maintenance this month they're not going to get that

football, or they're not able to go on that holiday, or they're not

able to do one thing or the other. What we really have is a very

emotional problem. In our ministry we're seeing traumatic problems day

after day in other areas. We're seeing the emotionally disturbed child,

and we're seeing the children who need extra attention and extra

dollars.

If I were to be talking to you just about dollars,

I think we could say that there would always be some way that that

could be alleviated. But we're talking about writing off children in

the province of British Columbia. We're talking about children who will

grow up under harassment, vindictiveness and in a venomous atmosphere;

they should not have to tolerate that kind of upbringing. I'd like to

take that atmosphere away from those children and let the parent get on

with rebuilding her own life. I say "her" because it is mostly women

who are in this position; if there are exceptions to that rule, and I

believe there are, then know that my words cover them as well. Where

the court has ordered maintenance, let that payment of maintenance go

into a financial entity, which takes all the personalities out of it.

That's what we are trying to work through at the present time.

It's

not a unique idea. It has been tried in the state of Washington and it

has been tried in, I believe, two other states in the United States,

besides the state of Hawaii. It has worked. It takes all the

personalities out of it: when the people decide to part, they part.

They are not held together with a dollar bill, and their children are

not held up and kept in, as I say, that state of harassment that goes

on between two spouses who are really only talking to each other about

money and nothing else. It has nothing to do with interfering with the

visiting rights of parents, but it has everything to do with

alleviating that pressure on the family home when a child is told that

the maintenance money has not come and that their standard of living

will be even lower. In the next few months we hope that we will be able

to bring to the House and present to the people of British Columbia the

opportunity and capability to those who, because of circumstances, are

parting.... They will then have the opportunity to go on with

rebuilding their lives.

I'd like to talk about another

program which we in the ministry are very excited about. Concerning the

program for income-assistance recipients, I will not have all the

details together until September, but I would like to talk about one

phase of it — that is, the job action program which we have started in

the ministry. Some time ago I had the opportunity to see such a program

in action in the United States, and it was an exciting one to watch. It

was a program that, in a three-week period, carried out motivation

retraining. The program took in people who had been in jail, and who

had records, and who had been on an income-assistance program for some

time, and it came out with an 85 percent success rate. I'd like to tell

you that this unique and exciting concept, the three-week training

program, has in the past three months been tried as a pilot project in

the province of British Columbia. I'm happy to tell you that an

improved — I'd like to think it has improved — program initiated by the

ministry has resulted in an 80 percent success rate.

notice that my time is getting close to the end. I have other things I

would like to talk about. Perhaps in my answers I will be able to

enlarge on that program and on others.

But at this time I

would like, if I may, Mr. Chairman, to introduce my assistant deputy

minister E.L. Northup, who is with me on the floor of the House today,

and Bob Whitmore, the assistant comptroller. I know that some of the

members will miss John Noble, our deputy minister, who would usually be

beside me. Mr. Noble is on his vacation and, I'm pleased to tell you,

has been visiting Hong Kong and has attended the international

conference of Social Services Congress, as well as visiting an Asian

refugee camp. We miss him, and we will welcome him back, but I know

that Mr. Northup and Mr. Whitmore will be able to provide all the

answers to questions from the opposition and from members on the

government side.

Could I also just pay tribute to my office

staff, In this ministry you need a heaping lot of diplomacy and a

desire to help; my office staff has that in spades. I'd also like to

say that the executive directors and Buntie Marshall in the Belmont

Building reach out to 5,000 people in the 200 offices of the Ministry

of Human Resources. Before the sun goes down tonight we will have spent

two million of the taxpayers' dollars on the Ministry of Human

Resources.

As I said, Mr. Chairman, I have not touched all

programs, but I look forward to constructive criticism and constructive

suggestions on how to continue to serve the families and children in

this great province of British Columbia.

[ Page 3796 ]

MR. LEA:

To help you, Mr. Chairman, I should inform you that on the minister's

office vote, it's the intention of the official opposition to break it

up into two parts — one dealing with the minister's duties as Deputy

Premier, and the other dealing with her duties as the Minister of Human

Resources. We will be dealing, as the official opposition, with the

Deputy Premier's duties prior to her Human Resources duties.

First

of all, I'd like to take the minister's mind back to June 19, 1978 and

ask the minister if she recalls some of the details surrounding her

meeting with Larry Eckardt on that evening. The minister, it's

reported, had dinner at the Laurel Point Inn that evening, and at some

point during that meeting met with Larry Eckardt and others and from

there proceeded to a room to meet with still others — and some of the

same, as I understand it. I wonder if the minister, in her duties as

Deputy Premier, could outline to us her recollection of that evening,

beginning from the time she first met Larry Eckardt and members of the

commission staff.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I

wonder if you'd ask the member for Prince Rupert whether he mentioned

the meeting at Laurel Point. Did you mention that? I don't know what

day the 19th was.

Mr. Chairman, I'd be very pleased to

answer what I have answered publicly before about my knowledge of that

evening. As you know, the Captain Cook Bicentennial was on that

evening, and as Provincial Secretary I had responsibility for the

Captain Cook Bicentennial. I had a commitment that evening and I

believe it was a reception on board a Japanese sail-training ship at

Ogden Point. The reception was to begin at 6:30 and it was to end at

8:30. If I recall, the House was sitting until 6, and I also had an

invitation and a commitment to join personal friends for dinner at

Laurel Point. I joined them for dinner and was in the dining room at

Laurel Point. You have to remember that I am going back 24 months and

some.

If I recall, at that time Judge Eckardt came up to the

table. I greeted him and he suggested that he would like me to meet his

staff. So I said that after I'd had a quick dinner, I was going to a

reception, but I'd be pleased to pop in and say something to them. I

did. I don't know who I met. There was more than one person in the room

and I didn't go very far into the room. I thanked them and I dashed

away because I had to attend the reception at Ogden Point. I took the

people I had joined for dinner, the McRoberts, with me. That was the

recollection of the time I spent in Laurel Point and the encounter and

greeting the hon. Judge.

MR. LEA: Is Larry Eckardt still a judge?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: As far as I know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. LEA:

Oh, you don't know whether he's a judge? I just wonder. You keep

referring to him as a judge, as I notice your colleagues do. I just

want to ascertain whether indeed he is a judge.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That would really be outside the scope of the vote before us, hon. member.

MR. LEA: No, not really.

January 12, 1978, an order-in-council was passed by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, setting out under the Public Inquiries

Act the appointment of the commissioner of the Eckardt commission. It

was signed by the Provincial Secretary and the Minister of Travel

Industry — at that time the acting one, Mr. Wolfe — and by the Premier,

W.R. Bennett.

From that date forward until that meeting on

June 19, 1978, did the minister ever have an occasion to either meet

with Larry Eckardt privately or to talk with Larry Eckardt? Did the

Deputy Premier have an opportunity to talk, between this January 12,

1978, date and that meeting in the Laurel Point hotel? Did you ever

have a private conversation with him?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Chairman, I would not have any recollection now of that, although I

can tell you that I have known Judge Eckardt for some years, and it

would be like you asking me if I've had a private conversation with you

in the last year or even the last five years. Did I have one in 1978? I

may have had, but at no time did I ever have a conversation with Judge

Eckardt regarding his responsibilities in terms of the report, which

the government had commissioned.

MR. LEA: It seems a

little strange, but I'm sure there's an explanation for the fact that,

having known Larry Eckardt for years, at this point you wouldn't know

whether he's a judge or not. It seems a little strange.

Would

the minister describe Larry Eckardt as an active Social Credit member

or an active Social Credit supporter? Of course, an active one take

part in pushing and helping Social Credit in any way.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Please let me just say, in reference to the member's concern about

whether or not I refer to Judge Eckardt as "judge," I believe that

Larry Eckardt's reputation as a judge is such that I would refer to him

as Judge Eckardt even though he does not practice on the bench. I don't

find that strange at all. That is a term of respect; I do have great

respect for Larry Eckardt, and I continue to have.

You asked

whether he was an active Social Credit member or supporter. I always

assumed, because he sought the nomination at one time, that he

supported our party. I was president of the Social Credit Party, as you

probably would know, between the time of 1973 and 1975. In that time I

was not aware of him being actively involved in any kind of activity

concerning political organizing or active political work, as you would

suggest. I personally don't know of that.

MR. LEA: I

think it's important that we try to find out the relationship between

Larry Eckardt and the Social Credit government, because of the

questions that have arisen over the discrepancies in people's

recollections of this royal commission, and the tabling of the report,

and whether new maps have been made, or whether they hadn't been made.

the minister aware of at any time since the Social Credit became

government in December 1975, up until January 12, 1978, when Mr.

Eckardt was appointed, whether Mr. Eckardt had ever in any way

approached Social Credit cabinet ministers, making suggestions as to

senior people within the department should be gotten rid of because

they were hired

[ Page 3797 ]

by the NDP? Did you have any recollection or any knowledge of that?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I don't have any recollection of that.

MR. LEA:

Is it that you have no recollection of it or that you don't know

whether it happened? You don't know whether that happened. Possibly it

would be beneficial to us all if the minister would check with some of

her colleagues to find out whether indeed that had happened. I'm a

little surprised that that sort of checking wasn't done, Mr. Chairman,

prior to a person being appointed to a very sensitive position of

bringing in electoral reform, especially when that person had at one

time been a Social Credit candidate. I think that that would even call

for a closer check.

I suggest that the minister check with

two ministers who are still within the cabinet, although neither has

the same duties they once had.

I wonder if the minister

would check with the present Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), and

the past Attorney-General — the now Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) — to see whether either one of those

gentlemen had received a memo or a letter from Mr. Larry Eckardt — or

from the minister herself. Maybe her recollection isn't that good in

that area either. Would she do that? Would she check with both of those

gentlemen to see whether they had ever received, either directly from

Larry Eckardt or from the minister herself, a request by Larry Eckardt

that senior people within the Attorney-General's office be let go

because of their political affiliation not being Social Credit but

being something else?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before

recognizing the minister, I would point out to all hon. members that

standing order 61(2) indicates that speeches in Committee of the Whole

House must be strictly related to the item or clause under

consideration. The Chair is having great difficulty relating this

debate to the estimates of the Ministry of Human Resources or the

responsibility of the Deputy Premier. I ask all hon. members to be

reminded that we must be strictly relevant in committee.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased you've made that statement. I'd like to make

one too, in response to yours and also in response to the hon. member

for Prince Rupert. I have no difficulty in responding to any questions

that might be asked of me about my responsibilities as Provincial

Secretary in this government during the years that I was Provincial

Secretary and carried the responsibility for bringing an electoral

reform and redistribution report to this House. I have no hesitation in

responding to questions in terms of the debate that went on during that

time. This House debated the bill that flowed from the redistribution

report very well.

During the time that I was Provincial

Secretary and had that responsibility, as a member of the government

that had responsibility for that report, I was very pleased to bring

that report to the House. I was very pleased to respond to the

questions that were then undertaken