1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

TUESDAY, JULY 6, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

8589 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Fire Services Amendment Act –– 1982 (Bill 63). Hon. Mr. Williams

Introduction and first reading –– 8589

Oral Questions

Emergency budget. Mr. Leggatt –– 8589

Timber plant layoffs. Mr. Nicolson –– 8589

Wood-processing plant shutdown. Ms. Brown –– 8590

Closing of Fraser Mills. Mr. Levi –– 8591

Relocation expenses of Douglas Heal. Hon. Mr. Wolfe replies –– 8592

Tabling Documents

Urban Transit Authority of British Columbia financial statements, March 31, 1982.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 8592

Employment Development Act (Bill 26). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Hon. Mr. Curtis (closes debate) –– 8593

Division –– 8593

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

(Hon. Mr. Chabot)

On vote 60: minister's office –– 8593

Hon. Mr. Chabot

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Lea

Mr. Nicolson

Ms. Sanford

Tabling Documents

British Columbia Place annual report.

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 8612

Appendix –– 8612

TUESDAY, JULY 6, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, one of

the outstanding resource companies in our province is, of course, the

British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation. [Laughter.] It's

currently creating 500 jobs in the Elk valley. With us in the House

today are representatives of their board of directors. I'd like the

House to welcome Mr. Gary Duke, Mr. John Montgomery and Mr. Walter Riva.

MR. BARBER:

As critic for the official opposition in regard to BCRIC, I would also

like to welcome the representatives of this corporation and ask that

they not take our laughter personally.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Speaker, as you know, I don't often have the opportunity to

introduce representatives from the great and growing South Peace River

constituency, one of the great and growing resource areas of this

province. With us in the gallery today are His Worship Mayor Bob Trail

of the city of Dawson Creek, Mr. Jim Inkster, chairman of the economic

development commission of the Peace River–Laird Regional District and

Mr. Phil Sykes, president of the Dawson Creek Chamber of Commerce. I

hope the House will make them welcome.

MR. LEA: I'd

like to introduce to the House an endangered species — a working IWA

member and his family: my brother Don, his wife Elaine, my nephew

D’Arcy and my niece Stacy, visiting us from Grand Forks.

MR. NICOLSON:

I'd like the House to join me in giving a welcome to my mother, who is

visiting with us today, Mrs. Rose Spotten, and also my sister, Karen

Haima.

MR. SEGARTY: I would like to join with my

caucus colleagues in welcoming British Columbia Resources Investment

Corporation personnel to the House today, and extend them the very best

wishes in opening up their new mine that will create 500 jobs

immediately in the Elk valley.

Introduction of Bills

FIRE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

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

a bill intituled Fire Services Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill

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

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

Oral Questions

EMERGENCY BUDGET

MR. LEGGATT: My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The

latest figures show that the number of people on UIC in British Columbia has

increased over last year by 171,000. That's more than the total

number on UIC a year ago. This gives B.C. the worst unemployment record west

of Quebec, and places nearly one in five workers in this province on unemployment

insurance. It's our only growth industry. Given this clear indication that the

province is in a long-term recession and is dropping into a depression, has

the Minister of Finance decided to bring in an emergency budget, a job-creating

budget, to put people to work in B.C.?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I don't know if the Hon. member who asks the question was in the House

this morning, but we commenced debate on a bill. I won't allude to the

bill, except to say that it is one of a number designed....

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

We have laughter again from the official opposition, from the

socialists. A number of pieces of legislation, some of which have been

given royal assent, are directed toward job creation and job

stimulation in British Columbia. While the unemployed situation must be

of concern to everyone in this province — and I in no way ignore or

belittle that situation — the fact is that we have more people employed

in British Columbia today than at any time in the past.

Finally,

Mr. Speaker, since it was an all-encompassing question with respect to

a subsequent budget in this fiscal year — and that directs itself to

future government policy — I submit that the blame is to be found on

that side of the House. We would not be in the difficulties that we are

in in Canada today if we had not had an NDP-Liberal coalition in Ottawa.

MR. LEGGATT:

My question is again directed to the Minister of Finance. Given the

figure which I've just given him of an increase over last year of

171,000 people, how many jobs is this employment standards act that

he's so proud of going to create for those 171,000 people on UIC? Give

us the number.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You don't even have the name of the bill right.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Questions regarding legislation are out of order.

TIMBER PLANT LAYOFFS

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forests. Last week

Crestbrook Forest Industries informed BCRIC that they were withdrawing

their bid to purchase the B.C. Timber operation in Nelson. The

remaining 190 hourly paid employees were immediately given indefinite

layoff notices, which brought the total number of layoffs in the plants

alone to 390. As there are now an additional 1,500 people claiming

unemployment insurance in the Nelson area — up 120 percent over the

same period last year — has the minister decided to discuss a rescue

plan for the plant operations in Nelson in his expected meeting today

with BCRIC management and Mr. Montgomery?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if I could ask the member to tell me what he means by a rescue plan.

[ Page 8590 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the place for debate on this issue perhaps will arise, but question period is not the place.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Speaker, I'm asking the minister if he is examining with the

officials of BCRIC any one of a number of options that might be open.

What is the assessment of the impediments to reopening the plywood

plant and the reason for the shutdown of the sawmill which immediately

followed the break-off of negotiations? I'm asking the minister if

there are any plans to build roads in the area, using some of the local

contractors that have been put out of work by the shutdown of logging

in the area. I don't want to rehash things that might have been brought

up best....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The scope of the question is so general as to take up too much time in question period.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, I'm just trying to answer the minister, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is beyond the scope of question period. Perhaps under proper legislation it would be in order.

WOOD-PROCESSING PLANT SHUTDOWN

MS. BROWN:

My question is to the same minister: it was announced last week that

Koppers' wood processing plant in South Burnaby is to be permanently

shut down, resulting in the loss of something in the neighbourhood of

60 additional jobs in Burnaby. The plant was recently purchased by

Domtar. My question to the minister is: has he decided to meet with

Domtar to discuss ways in which this plant can be kept open?

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

MS. BROWN:

Supplemental. Mr. Speaker. Given the fact that the Burnaby area had an

additional 2,221 people claim unemployment insurance this year, which

represents a 181.9 percent increase over the same period last year — in

fact, it is more than all of the claimants for last year — my second

question to the minister is: has he decided to do anything whatsoever

to ensure that this plant is not closed down?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

I am not aware of Koppers' wood plant specifically. I would think that

they are probably not a licensee under the Forest Act. The member asks

what the government is doing about employment in Burnaby and the

greater Vancouver area. I wonder if she has heard about B.C. Place,

where there are thousands of people today working on jobs who would

otherwise not be working — jobs which the members opposite are against,

because they have always been critical of the government's decision to

proceed with B.C. Place. I wonder if the member has heard of the ALRT

program, which is creating thousands of jobs for people in the Burnaby

and lower mainland area?

MR. SPEAKER: May we have order, please?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I wonder if she has heard of Pier B-C and the thousands of jobs to be created there.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. The minister has now gone beyond the scope of the

question. Hon. members, when the question says, "Has anything been

done?" the question is so broad as really to be out of order. The

question having been allowed, then certainly that which falls under the

category of anything that has been done must be in order.

On a point of order, the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, in defining the scope of a question, the answer must be

relevant to the scope of the question. When specific plant answers are

requested for, is the question not to be confined to that specific

plant, under your instructions?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The member knows the rules.

On a point of order, the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT:

My point of order is a clarification of your ruling on question period,

which certainly means more than just "the member knows the rules." If

your assumption was correct, I would not be on my feet. I'm asking for

clarification on the question that is exactly specific to a plant in

Burnaby, not to any other place. I believe that if the minister were to

follow your directions, as you advise me to do with presumption, then I

would suggest he confine his answer to that specific question.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. members. Not too many days ago, the Chair gave a

very comprehensive analysis of question period. I would recommend to

all hon. members a review of that statement, which addresses not only

this but many other questions regarding question period.

On a point of order, the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT:

I am still seeking an answer regarding the definition of an answer of a

question by a minister related to the detailed statement you gave to

this House. It is my recollection that the answer must be specific to

the question as you define, through interjections during the question,

that the question must be specific.

MR. SPEAKER: The

question, as I recall it, asked: "Has anything been done?" Hon.

members, you have placed in the hands of the Speaker the complete

responsibility to determine whether or not a question is in order and

whether or not an answer is beyond the scope of the question. It is

apparent to the Chair that the question should not have been allowed,

and I apologize to the House.

On a point of order, the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD:

What you've said is quite correct, Mr. Speaker: the House has placed in

your hands the administration of the rules with respect to questions

asked. All the House asks of you is that you do it fairly.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER:

The member has taken the opportunity, under the guise of a point of

order, to cast reflection upon the impartiality of the Chair. I would

ask the member to withdraw that allegation.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

[ Page 8591 ]

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, if you have come to that conclusion about my casting impartiality on the Chair...

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the member to withdraw.

MR. HOWARD: ...then Your Honour is in error in the assumption that you made.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member to withdraw any reference to impartiality on the part of the Chair.

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. We're dealing with a point of order. I am dealing with

the member for Skeena. The member for Skeena will withdraw.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Speaker, you usually allow a point of order

MR. SPEAKER: Would the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke take his seat.

I now order the member for Skeena to withdraw any charge of impartiality against the Chair.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, none were made. But pursuant to what you classify as an

order, yes, I will obey it. We're only dealing with unemployed workers.

MR. SPEAKER: That is all we require. Thank you, hon. member.

MS. BROWN:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Just to clarify, because the question

is in writing, my question was: has the minister decided to do anything

to ensure that this plant, meaning the Koppers' wood-processing plant

in Burnaby, is not closed?

Interjections.

CLOSING OF FRASER MILLS

MR. LEVI: I have a question for the Minister of Forests. If he listens well, we won't get into a wrangle.

This

year unemployment insurance claimants in the Coquitlam region have

increased by 3,363 over last year to a total of 5,538 — up 154 percent.

One of the largest mills in the province, Fraser Mills, has now

completely shut down. Can the minister advise the House whether he has

interceded with the management of Crown Zellerbach or received some

assurance that Fraser Mills will reopen this summer?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

I assume the members opposite understand that some very difficult

market situations now exist in the market areas in which our forest

products manufacturing companies sell their products. There are a large

number of market shutdowns currently in place in British Columbia; and

this is unfortunate. Certainly the member would not expect us to buy

the plant, as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, and keep

manufacturing lumber which cannot be sold. No, we do not intend to do

that. Yes, I have discussed with the management of the company what

their plans are. They advise me that as soon as market conditions

permit, they will reopen their plant and carry on with the

manufacturing process.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a do-nothing government.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

This government is doing a great deal to create employment in British

Columbia, but strangely enough, everything we do in this province is

objected to by the opposition, who yet claim that they are for the

working people and the creation of jobs in British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The answer certainly went beyond the scope of the question.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Speaker, my point of order concerns the rules surrounding question

period and answers in question period. The other day in this House you

read to us the rules that you as Speaker are required to follow because

they're the rules set down by the Legislature itself.

Unless both the opposition and the government feel that they're being dealt

with fairly, we will get chaos in this Legislature. Increasingly I feel that

we are not being dealt with fairly. When one of our questioners even attempts

to put any

preamble in, the government starts yelling: "Question, question."

In other words, get to the question. and at that time you interrupt our questioner,

telling him to get on with the question and to keep within its scope. Over an

over again we notice that after the government has answered, going far beyond

the scope of what the answer should be, you then chastise them by saying:

"Remember, you must keep to the scope of the question in your answer."

But it's after they've had their say.

That

does not appear to be fair to the opposition. Mr. Speaker, for the sake

of this Legislature, it has to appear to be fair, as I said, or it

breaks down into chaos. We're concerned. Mr. Speaker, I know you're

concerned. So I'm drawing it to your attention that we feel that way,

and that democracy cannot afford the opposition to feel that way.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. I'm calling to order the Leader of the Opposition, who

from his chair further suggested that partiality on the part of the

Chair was not a feeling but a fact. I must ask the hon. Leader of the

Opposition to withdraw.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it is my opinion that the Chair has not been fair in question period.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: A charge of impartiality against the Chair is out of order. I ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the charge.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I did not make a charge. I withdraw — but I don't withdraw my opinion. I have an opinion.

[ Page 8592 ]

MR. LEGGATT:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I noted from the clock that.... The

answer to the question from the member for Burnaby went beyond the

scope of that question, and it resulted in points of order on both

sides of the House. That time was therefore deleted from question

period. In view of the fact that it was the minister who violated your

question period rules, and therefore inspired an exchange on points of

order, it would seem only fair that leave be granted that question

period be extended in order that we have a full and reasonable question

period, since it was in fact an answer beyond the scope of the question

which used up the time.

MR. SPEAKER: Addressing the

question of order that has been raised, before I accept any further

point of order, the practice of the House has been....

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, this was on that point.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll answer this point of order first.

the member's point of order, the practice in this House has been that

whenever the Speaker initiates a matter of order which consumes

appreciable time, the Speaker then asks for that time to be restored to

question period. However, when those points of order are initiated by

either side of the House, then that time is not restored to question

period, because it is an expression of the House itself that it wishes

to utilize its time in that way. I recommend that we follow that

procedure.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I can't agree with you less.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I hope you'll make a ruling on this after giving it some

thought. All the government has to do is inspire points of order from

the opposition and they can wreck every question period. We lost seven

minutes of this question period.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Let's hear this.

MR. COCKE:

They were very embarrassed because we were talking about the economy,

and Mr. Speaker, they inspired the points of order. I suggest that if

that's the case, we need new rules around question period.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. In response to the point of order raised by the hon.

member, the decision released in the House a few days ago recommended

that points of order which occur in question period.... By the way, the

decision suggested that it could hardly be conceived as to how a point

of order could arise in question period. Nonetheless, if in question

period a point of order did arise, the suggestion was that the raising

of the matter should be deferred until after question period.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, just to jog your memory very gently, the whole proceedings

began because the Speaker quite inadvertently thought that my question

had to do with "can anything be done about anything?" Through no fault

of the Speaker — simply a matter of maybe a slight loss of hearing or

whatever.... The question was specifically pertaining to the zeroing in

on the one particular plant in Burnaby, and the Speaker made the

decision that the minister was correct.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is not a point of order, hon. member

MS. BROWN: Oh, Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by my colleague....

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. member, this is not a point of order. The member is now debating

and clarifying those matters which have already been concluded.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to answer a question taken on notice.

Leave granted.

RELOCATION EXPENSES OF DOUGLAS HEAL

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly)

asked a couple of questions concerning the payment of moving expenses

to Mr. Doug Heal, deputy minister of information programs. The answers

to the questions are as follows. The sum of $13,100 was paid to Mr.

Heal in March 1981, allowing him to move from Toronto to take up his

position in Victoria. This amount was paid after Mr. Heal provided

justifiable estimates in accordance with the comptroller-general's

instruction number 27-80 relating to relocation expenses for new

employees,

section 6-16.

The request for relocation

assistance was authorized by the Public Service Commission in the usual

manner and in accordance with the Public Service Commission's authority

under

section 6-31 of the comptroller-general's instruction.

The

member has intimated, Mr. Speaker, that there was no policy involved in

paying such expenses. As a matter of fact, just the reverse is true. It

is very clear that guidelines and policy do exist.

I can

also assure the member that in the specific case of Mr. Heal's

relocation expenses, full documentation was supplied to the comptroller

covering the detailed costs involved.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

tabled the financial statements of the Urban Transit Authority of

British Columbia for the year ended March 31, 1982.

MRS. DAILLY:

With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister if he could table

the estimates that allude to Mr. Heal's expenses. He called them

estimates; we hope they're vouchers.

MR. NICOLSON: I

think the request is as a point of order. When a minister refers to

documents and quotes figures, it is then his duty to table the

documents in the House.

[ Page 8593 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the member is quite aware of the rules concerning tabling.

MR. BARRETT:

On a point of order, knowing the rules of tabling, can the Speaker

inform the House how this rule applies to the minister's having quoted

from a document without tabling the document?

MR. SPEAKER:

If the document is quoted directly in the House, tabling is required.

That tabling is at the discretion of the minister. He accepts his

responsibility as an honourable member of this House. Therefore, as all

the members know, the Chair cannot decide from this vantage point

whether or not the document was quoted from.

MR. BARRETT:

The point is that this issue was raised earlier in this session and you

ruled that if the document was quoted from, the document is to be

tabled. The minister quoted a figure from the document in part of his

answer and is obliged by the rules — and at least by accountability to

the public of British Columbia who paid this bill — to table the

expense listing in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: We will accept a statement from the minister as to whether the document was quoted from, or whether it was referred to.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I was not quoting from the document.

MR. LEA:

On a point of order, I have to back up the minister. He was not quoting

from the document. I've seen the vouchers and there is no documentation.

MR. SPEAKER: That's not a point of order.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 26.

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT ACT

(continued)

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I made a number of remarks at the outset this morning, and then my

colleague, the Minister of Human Resources (Mrs. McCarthy) spoke at

length with respect to the thrusts contained in Bill 26. I think most

of the points were pretty well covered.

There is one point I

would like to make in closing. Among the many points made by the hon.

member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), I want to correct an impression that

she left with the House. It was an opinion that she expressed. I accept

it as an opinion, but it is an incorrect opinion. In reference to the

so-called tax-free bonds, the statute for which was given royal assent

some time ago, the member's inference — and I paraphrase her remarks,

since I don't have Hansard from this morning readily available

— was that the government of British Columbia did not seek federal

approval for that initiative. I wouldn't want this House to be left

with that impression. That is not correct. We certainly, much earlier

on, indicated that we were anxious to proceed with this. Contrary to a

claim made by another NDP member in another House, Mr. Nelson Riis,

very early contact was made with Ottawa. This is about the first

opportunity that I have had to correct his statement as well —

suggesting that while we've been speaking about it here, we had not

officially contacted Ottawa. I feel it is important that I assure the

member for Comox — and I assure this House also, and the people of B.C.

— that with respect to the other side of this initiative, we sought,

hoped for, and notwithstanding the negative comments which have come

from Ottawa, we still hope for federal approval of that initiative

which was taken by the government of British Columbia.

There will be other points, Mr. Speaker, which can of course be raised in committee. I therefore move second reading of Bill 26.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill

26, Employment Development Act, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of

the House after today.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

LANDS, PARKS AND HOUSING

On vote 60: minister's office, $187,000.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

It's always a pleasure for me to stand in my place and answer for the

activities of the minister, officials and other people of the Ministry

of Lands, Parks and Housing during the previous fiscal year, as well as

to identify some of the programs and initiatives that are being pursued

by this little ministry of government on behalf of the people of this

province.

Mr. Chairman, these estimates reflect very careful

scrutiny of all the ministry's spending to ensure maximum effect for

every tax dollar we spend. They also reflect the period of restraint

which the government has imposed in view of the state of the

provincial, national and international economies. Within these

constraints, the estimates have addressed the issues and problems which

confront the citizens of the province, and the need to press on with

programs to help resolve these problems.

Affordable housing remains a prime concern of British Columbians in practically

all walks of life. While all provincial governments attempt to deal with the

situation, the high-interest-rate monetary policies of the federal government

continue to plague the marketplace. These monetary policies make it more expensive

for the builder to build and more difficult for the potential buyer to buy.

In the face of these difficulties, the need for continued growth in the housing

stock of British Columbia remains high, as our relatively strong economy and

our amenities will, over the long term, continue to attract other Canadians.

Despite the gloom and doom we'read, there are some encouraging signs in

the housing market. There was a record high of production housing units in British

Columbia in 1981 — 41,585 units in all — which is the highest ever. At no other

time has it been that high in production — and all produced

[ Page 8594 ]

the private sector. Housing prices have dropped dramatically from their

peak a year ago. The average home price in Vancouver dropped from

$181,000 to $127,000, a reduction of 30 percent. The federal grants for

new homes and first home buyers are welcome. They follow a precedent

established by British Columbia. They should be made permanent to

provide some degree of stability to the people and the industry in this

province. Newly constructed townhouses are available for sale at prices

as low as $54,900 in the Fraser Valley at this time. British Columbians

remain the best-housed people in the world, with 63 percent being

homeowners, 40 percent of whom are free of mortgage debt. There are

signs in the rental market that vacancy rates are edging their way

upwards, providing renters with a wider choice of housing.

All

of these factors taken together provide an indication that the

affordability problem has diminished. Indeed, for first-home buyers now

is the time to buy in some instances. They also bear out the conviction

of this government that the housing industry responds to the needs of

society, and can do so faster and cheaper than pouring public funds

into questionable housing projects.

I'm convinced that

individual initiative provides the solutions to housing problems. The

government's role is to foster a climate in which that initiative can

thrive. By doing so we can ensure that there will be an adequate supply

and variety of housing options to suit the public's needs and choices.

This philosophy has served British Columbians well in the past, and I'm

sure will serve British Columbians well into the future. Sixty-three

percent of households in the province are housed in single-family

dwellings. Forty percent of homeowners have no mortgage. This

philosophy has ensured that British Columbians are among the

best-housed people, not only in any province of this country but in the

world. It is the goal of this government to maximize opportunities for

home ownership, as well as ensuring that there is sufficient rental

housing available. I know that interest rates are a serious problem to

those who must renew mortgages. The federal Canada mortgage renewal

plan provides some relief here. This is an area appropriate to the

federal level, as the cause lies in the excessive federal deficit that

we're all forced to finance.

Of special concern to the

government is meeting the needs of those with special housing

requirements, such as seniors and the disabled. I'm happy to be able to

report that last year, in the International Year of the Disabled, the

province was able to provide 200 housing units for the disabled.

MS. BROWN: Shame!

HON. MR. CHABOT:

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds says: "Shame!" I want her to know that

that's four times the number of units produced in any single year in

the history of this province, including those years in which the

socialists were government. So shame on the socialists who were

government here from 1972 to 1975 and never produced more than 40 to 50

housing units for the disabled in this province. We produced between

four and five times more housing units annually than did the socialists

in those terrible years between 1972 and 1975.

Our housing

programs reflect these goals, and many British Columbians have been

able to benefit from these programs we've initiated. Last year 11,000

people received the first-home grant to help them buy their first home.

Almost 1,400 home-buyers last year took advantage of the B.C. second

mortgage to move into home ownership. We doubled the mortgage just last

November to $10,000 at a preferred rate of interest. There has been a

sharp increase in applications. I expect this mortgage to play a

significant

part in home-purchase activity during the coming fiscal

year.

The increase in rental conversion loans to $25,000 per

unit is bringing increased demand for this program, which will result

in increasing the rental housing stock at a modest cost. When the NDP

were government during those terrible years between 1972 and 1975, they

did absolutely nothing to encourage the conversion of commercial and

industrial property to affordable rental accommodation in this

province. I'm sure that renters will, in turn, benefit from the

modestly priced conversion units. To provide more impetus for the use

of this program, new guidelines are being developed to provide

acceptable standards for converting commercial and industrial buildings

into rental units.

My ministry has approved a record number

of senior citizens' housing projects. To date, 17,450 units in 390

projects have been completed and are occupied by senior citizens.

Another 1,469 units in 38 projects across the province are underway at

this very time. The goal of the government is to ensure that there is a

three- to five-year supply of serviced land available for housing in

each community throughout the province. Making suitable Crown land

available for residential development and assisting local government to

develop and service land is an essential part of achieving that goal.

Under

the residential land development program, for instance, 11 agreements

with municipalities for land and funding were approved in 1981-82 to a

total value of $18 million. These developments are expected to yield

586 lots, 26 of them for multi-family projects. Similarly, the rural

residential development program and the land-servicing program are

aimed at developing land for residential purposes.

A new

initiative to ease the transition into home ownership was announced

with the lease-to-purchase program. A first-home buyer now has the

option to lease a serviced lot, with an option to buy it after the home

has been built and occupied for one year. By first leasing the land,

the buyer only needs financing to build the home. Nearly 3,000 lots

will be available during 1982 under the lease-to-purchase program. This

represents one in six of all single-family lots supplied annually.

Mobile

homes, with the protection afforded by the ministry's mobile-home

registry, have become over the past few years an affordable and popular

alternative to conventional housing. Through the accelerated mobile

home development program, my ministry, in conjunction with the Ministry

of Municipal Affairs, has offered funds at preferred interest rates to

local governments to develop mobile-home lots. So far, three agreements

have been approved, totalling $3.1 million, which will provide an

additional 154 sites. An additional four agreements, for a total of 670

lots, are being processed. Six other communities are considering mobile

home lot development.

I'm pleased to see the great interest

taken by members of the opposition in what's happening regarding

housing in this province. Out of a total of 26 on that side of the

House, there are two vacant stares from two members across the way.

Only two of 26 members are sufficiently interested to be in this House

to hear the speech associated with housing. They mouth a lot of

platitudes about housing, but when it comes

[ Page 8595 ]

time

to understand the programs in order to inform the people of British

Columbia and help them to have more affordable housing, to occupy

rental accommodation and have their own homes, they're somewhere else.

It's coffee time in British Columbia; it's coffee time for the

opposition. It's 3:10 in Victoria, and most members of the opposition

are out having a cup of coffee. That's more important than being in

this House, fulfilling the role for which they're well paid. Those

people are paid $42,000 a year to sit here and debate the issues of

concern to the people of British Columbia, but 24 of them are down in

the coffee shop right now. The people of this province have a right to

know that only two members of the opposition are in the House at this

time, when we're discussing such a critical issue as housing.

Residential

use of Crown land is only one part of the broad issue of Crown land use

in the province. My ministry has been spearheading the development of a

framework for coordinating land-use planning. Reconciling the variety

of demands on a fixed land base will continue to be the major issue of

the eighties for the lands division of my ministry. Social benefits

will need to be weighed against economic benefits, and both must be

balanced in consideration of the environment. Care must be taken not to

overcommit our land resources. We are responding to the questions of

the development of strategic land-use plans aimed at coordinating

resource planning.

Where specific land uses are the subject

of differing views, decisions have been deferred until complete plans

have been reviewed and adopted. Planning for 35 of the deferred areas

was started last year and is scheduled to be completed by the end of

this year. A Crown land plan for the Prince George area has already

been adopted by cabinet, resolving land-use problems that have plagued

the area for over 15 years. The Clinton Crown land plan is almost ready

for adoption.

When completed, these plans will provide a

strong basis for planned disposition of Crown land in all areas of the

province. This process will make the acquisition of Crown land by

individuals more efficient and less frustrating, than the previous

application process. A major review of the pricing policy of Crown land

is currently being conducted by the lands division, which will

consolidate the accumulated revisions of previous policy.

Land-use

issues also have a major impact on our parks systems. Use of the parks

is increasing. With more than 16 million visits last year and more than

17 million expected in the coming year, there is pressure to create

more parks. But other demands on the same land often create conflict.

Should the land be used for the recreational benefit of all British

Columbians, should it contribute to the economic welfare of the

province, or can it do both? Such choices are always difficult and will

continue to confront us.

It is in this spirit of stewardship that my ministry created 17 new parks and

one recreation area last year, covering an area of 34,200 hectares. That's

a substantial jump from 1980, when only five parks and two recreation areas

were created on 1,500 hectares. Negotiations are continuing on final purchases

of land for the long-awaited Pacific Rim National Park. Work continues on the

historical redevelopment of Barkerville in the central interior. When complete,

Barkerville will be a showpiece of our park system and a fitting memorial to

the history of British Columbia. In the coming year the parks division will

undertake a maintenance program to improve roads and upgrade the physical plant

in 25 separate projects at a cost of $2.3 million. An additional $650,000 will

fund new facilities.

The

foregoing outlines the major concerns and initiatives of the Ministry

of Lands, Parks and Housing. I believe our budget strikes a proper

balance between the need for restraint in government spending and the

need for continued planning and assistance programs, particularly in

the area of housing. More than a third of the ministry's vote goes

directly into grants and subsidies. Added to that are, of course,

grants funded by the Provincial Home Acquisition Fund and funding for

land development through the Crown Land Fund. These two funds

contribute more than $140 million toward government assistance to

housing.

Mr. Chairman, with these few words I look forward

to a very enlightened debate on the administrative responsibilities I

have in government by members of the opposition, who now seem to be

streaming back into the House. We now have four out of 26, instead of

the two who were here to listen to my speech associated with my

administrative responsibilities.

MR. HANSON: Mr.

Chairman. It was interesting to listen to the Minister of Lands, Parks

and Housing devote most of his time to the question of housing, in

which his ministry plays the most passive of roles.

Just by

way of background, a few years ago there was a reorganization in the

government and they created a ministry of leftovers, which is Lands,

Parks and Housing. Not that lands is not an important arm; in fact,

it's the most crucial of areas. But the Social Credit government,

because they believe that the people of the province of British

Columbia should be subjected in their housing needs to the vagaries of

the marketplace, sold off the housing corporation that the NDP

government had acquired. They didn't believe that the government had a

role — and there are many speeches in this House on that question. So

here the minister stands today and spends most of his time in the

introduction of his estimates talking about housing, attempting to take

some credit for the fact that there is housing being developed that no

one else can afford because of high costs and high interest rates and

so on. In just a passing reference he said: "Oh, by the way, I'm also

responsible, in cooperation with my colleague the Minister of Forests

(Hon. Mr. Waterland), for the administration of the Crown lands of this

province." Ninety-five percent of the entire province is Crown land,

and this is the area where this minister has been the most unmitigated

failure.

When I stood here roughly a year ago to debate the

estimates of the minister, at that time he'd mobilized the most

incredible coalition of people against him — incredible bedfellows. He

had mad at him the Federation of British Columbia Naturalists, the

British Columbia Wildlife Federation, the Canadian Institute of

Forestry, the Canadian Paperworkers Union, the Cariboo Lumber

Manufacturers Association, the Council of Forest Industries of British

Columbia, the Interior Lumber Manufacturers Association, the IWA, the

Northern Interior Lumber Sector, the Pulp, Paper and Wood Workers of

Canada and the Truck Loggers Association. They were angry with him

because he had planned to sell off vast tracts of the Crown land of

this province for the purpose of ranchettes and small estates for

extremely wealthy individuals in the interior of the province. After

this coalition mobilized their forces, he backed off and they moved

into a much more reasonable process, which is still taking place, to

sell core lands to ranchers in the interior.

[ Page 8596 ]

Those

organizations whose names I read indicated how they feel Crown land

should be managed for the people of the province. They referred to the

Forest Act plan for the use of the forest and range resources of the

Crown. The production of timber and forage, the harvesting of timber,

the grazing of livestock, the realization of fisheries, wildlife,

water, outdoor recreation and other natural resource values are

coordinated and integrated in consultation and cooperation with other

ministries and agencies of the Crown and the private sector. It's a

total failure.

I want to indicate to you a couple of

specific examples. The minister mentioned the sale of Crown land for

agricultural purposes in Prince George. This was a plan that took about

two years to develop, whereby a certain area of Prince George north of

the Cottonwood River was assigned for agricultural purposes. This land

had timber on it. A series of auctions were planned and scheduled and

this particular area — 65,000 hectares of land — was set aside for

agricultural purposes. There's very little agricultural land available

in that area. All of the coordinated planning indicated that these

65,000 hectares should be set aside for agriculture.

In his brilliance, this minister sets up an auction procedure whereby the legitimate ranching and cattlemen's community....

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're a one-issue member.

MR. HANSON:

I've got a stack here, Mr. Minister. He thinks it's only one issue, but

his mismanagement flows through all the issues. You'll be able to see

the imprint of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing on all of these

dogs' breakfasts, whether they're in Prince George, Athalmer, the

Kamloops area or wherever.

The objective of this plan in

Prince George was to bring this land in a planned way over to

agricultural production. They set up the auction procedure so the

logging companies and operators couldn't resist the cheap timber on the

land. If they had to go on the market to try to acquire timberland, the

market for timber would be about $8 to $9 a cubic metre of wood. There

was so much timber on this land that the people who came to the

first auction paid $124,000 for a parcel of land that had $300,000

worth of timber on it. They could scalp the timber off it and walk away

from the land. Can you imagine! The minister thinks this is funny. I

think it's a travesty.

I indicated earlier that last year an

incredible coalition had mobilized against him, and finally they'd

backed him into the wall and he had to change his policy. Here are some

of the groups that oppose this agricultural Crown land disposal system

that he's got going up in the Prince George area. The minister feels

that all these people have no legitimate concerns: the Prince George

Cattlemen's Association, the Cottonwood Grazing Association, the

Giscome Livestock Association, the Cluculz Lake Livestock Association,

the Punchaw Cattlemen's Association, the Fort Fraser Livestock

Association, the Prince George Farmers Institute, and the Nechako

Valley Regional Cattlemen's Association. These are people who have

traditionally supported that party and are now opposed to the policies

because they can see how bankrupt they are. There is no multi-use

concept in that minister's mind with respect to Crown land whatsoever.

says that I'm a single-issue critic. I'm single issue in the sense that

I want Crown land planning in a coordinated way that allows a variety

of options for the people of the province. That minister sees Crown

land as real estate. He sees it as single-use and single-purpose, and

that is it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're against the private ownership of land.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Tell the truth.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, could you have the member for

MacKenzie (Mr. Lockstead) withdraw the statement he just made. He

suggested that I should tell the truth. I'll have an opportunity after

my point of order to clarify what I'm stating about the NDP being

against the private ownership of land, but at the moment I want him to

withdraw the inference that I'm not telling the truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Unfortunately the Chair did not hear the specific remark

by the member. However, the minister felt that the remark was made. If

it was implying any improper motive, I would ask the member for

Mackenzie to make a withdrawal in the parliamentary tradition.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I only wish to correct a statement, Mr. Chairman. The minister keeps

interjecting across this floor that this party is against the private

ownership of land. Everybody in this province knows that's a bunch of

hogwash, a bunch of garbage and totally untrue. I have nothing to

withdraw. He's wrong. Why doesn't he tell the truth for a change? He's

not used to it, that's why.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order,

please. Hon. member, if a remark was made to which another hon. member

takes offence, it would greatly assist if the member would withdraw

that imputation towards another hon. member.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: If the minister's feelings have been hurt by telling the truth from this side of the House, I withdraw my remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. On a point of order, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke.

MR. KING:

My point of order, Mr. Chairman, is that the minister called precisely

the same remarks, "tell the truth," across the floor when my colleague

the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) was speaking. I distinctly

heard the minister say "tell the truth." If the minister takes

objection, he should set an example and withdraw as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, the point by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke is

certainly well made. Possibly at this time it would be most appropriate

for the Chair to rule that the expression "tell the truth" is one that

has the connotation of an improper motive. I say to all hon. members,

in keeping with our parliamentary traditions before us, that one of the

remarks that we consider unparliamentary could certainly be that

particular remark. Inasmuch as the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke has

raised the issue to the Chair, as did the minister, I would ask the

minister if he would withdraw the remark as well.

[ Page 8597 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT:

If I made that remark, I certainly withdraw it. If I made it today, I

withdraw it; if I made it yesterday, I withdraw it, and if I made it

last week, I withdraw it as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. members. That should put that particular matter to rest.

MR. HANSON:

I think we're going to see more of that minister interrupting, because

he doesn't want us to launch any attack that will outline the glaring

shortcomings of his administration. Over the last while when this issue

has been raised, he tends to try to interrupt and interject. He's

trying to get us away from doing our business on behalf of the public.

The

issue is so clearly documented — the mismanagement and the

maladministration in terms of Crown land. Getting back to that Prince

George situation, any sensible minister would look at the timber values

on that land and make a conceptual separation. The timber values should

be auctioned separately, and the agricultural land should be dealt with

in a separate auction for farmers who shouldn't have to compete with

logging companies to get agricultural land. It's as simple as that.

There are two ways you can do it. I think the Prince George cattlemen

were very responsible when they said: "Look, all the money over and

above the stumpage should be set in a trust fund and used for the

development of the agricultural land." It would benefit the entire

community. If that's too radical for you, have an auction for the

timber and one for the agricultural land. That's not too far out, is

it? Is that too bizarre? We want you to sit down with those people and

come up with a decision to have two auctions — one for the timber and

one for the agricultural land. That's the NDP's position on that issue.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

talked about that coalition that mobilized a year ago. Now there's

another coalition. All of these livestock and ranching groups in the

Prince George area, every fish and wildlife club in the province, the

Outdoor Recreational Council, the B.C. Wildlife Federation, the IWA,

the pulp and paper unions and everybody else are mad as a hatter at

that minister. What has he done? He's touched another area. He said

that we're going to start to modify the practice in the form of the

grazing leases. He's saying that in the past the lessee had certain

rights on the Crown grazing lands of the province, but there was

confusion because the Wildlife Act granted to hunters and fishermen and

other recreationists in the province the right to go on these vast

tracts of land in the province. Now that's been clarified by the Land

Act and the Trespass Act, and the provisions of the Wildlife Act no

longer apply to Crown lands under lease. That's a major departure in

practice. There may have been some legal technicality that was never

enforced on the books way back when, but in terms of the actual

practice and multiple-use of the Crown lands of this province, that is

a major departure, and it rests entirely on the head of that minister.

Many

people in this province still don't realize the implications of this

change. The major ranches in the province of British Columbia have the

use of Crown grazing land adjacent to their operations for forage at

specified periods of the year. They have the lease for the entire year,

but the actual use of that land is during a relatively limited period.

In the past, the hunters, the fishermen, the birdwatchers, the

photographers and the cross-country skiers who could act responsibly on

that land could use it. What's happened is that this minister has

entered into an agreement on a new lease form that gives the large

ranches in the interior, with a clarified opinion from the Ministry of

Attorney-General that the Wildlife Act has no provisions that grant

them access.... If you live in Kamloops, in Merritt, in the Bulkley

Valley, and there's a Crown grazing lease adjacent to the highway

stretching up to the timbered lands, and the rancher chooses to post

that land and say, "No access, goodbye, take your fishing rod and go

away," he is perfectly entitled to do that. That is not the way we

should be dealing with Crown lands in this province.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, I think these are very important discussions we're having here, and there's no quorum in the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken, I call for a quorum.

MR. HANSON:

There's been considerable confusion about this issue because the

minister has consistently said that there has been no change over the

previous arrangement. In fact, there's a change in the practice. Let me

read to you out of the new lease document. There's a management plan

for these Crown grazing lands, and let me read to you what it says:

"...to manage and use the Crown grazing leased land in a diligent

manner in accordance with the principles of good husbandry and solely

for the purposes of harvesting forage and grazing of livestock in

compliance with the management plan." That is a single-purpose use of

Crown land for the principles of good husbandry, of livestock and

harvesting forage in the grazing of livestock.

What the B.C.

Federation of Wildlife and the Outdoor Recreation Council are concerned

about is that much of this land is critical winter habitat for elk,

mule deer and sheep. It's used by other wildlife. It should be

coordinated for the management of the wildlife resources on those

lands, not just livestock. Livestock and wildlife can be compatible if

they're properly managed. What we have is a single-purpose orientation

of this minister with respect to the administration of Crown lands.

Another

section of the document indicates that the lessor is under no

obligation to provide access to the land or to maintain or improve

existing access roads.

The Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing wrote letters to thousands of people concerned with this issue

in the interior of this province. He indicated what the strict legal

underpinnings of this lease arrangement are. He indicated that a lease

in the legal sense grants the right of, and I quote from his letter:

"...exclusive possession to the leaseholder for the specific period of

time" — the specific period of time is 21 years with an evergreen

clause of 10 years for renewal — "and any condition or provision in the

lease document permitting unrestricted public access would interfere

with this right, thus nullifying the validity of the lease. For similar

reasons it is this ministry's position" — and this is extremely

important — "that the Wildlife Act provisions of access cannot apply to

Crown lands alienated by lease." Some 650,000 acres of Crown grazing

land under lease is no longer accessible under the provisions of the

Wildlife Act. That is totally unacceptable, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 8598 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Why?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food to please come to order.

MR. HANSON:

The minister asks me why that situation is unacceptable. It is

unacceptable to take public lands, Crown land, which can be used by a

number of users in a responsible way under a coordinated management

plan — people interested in wildlife attributes, esthetic attributes,

recreational attributes.... You take 650,000 acres and grant

sovereignty to one specific purpose: single use, growing cows.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can they go through the land?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Sure they can. You know they can.

MR. HANSON:

You're not giving access to others. The interjections of the Minister

of Agriculture are interesting, because he was a co-signer of the

document granting this privilege.

We're in consultation with

the ranching community, and we've indicated to them very clearly that

we have no objection whatsoever to the 21-year lease, provided that

proper stewardship is exercised over that land, as it is in almost all

instances. We have no complaint whatsoever about their access to forage

on that land for their purposes. We have no objection whatsoever to the

longer tenure of the lease which allows them to go to the bank and

raise money for their own purposes; we have no objection to that at

all. We're also extremely sympathetic with their concerns with respect

to the public who are uneducated in their responsibilities in using

Crown grazing land, in closing fences, and people who leave litter or

start fires irresponsibly or even damage the cattle themselves. We have

no complaint there; we're totally sympathetic with those problems, and

we feel that they can be dealt with adequately in consultation with the

ranching community and with proper education of the public.

You

don't administer the Crown lands of this province on a single-use

basis; you do not establish policy with respect to those lands because

some irresponsible person shoots a cow or leaves garbage on a Crown

grazing lease. That's not the way you administer public lands. But the

Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing entered gleefully into this

agreement because basically it is consistent with his notion of public

lands; that is, they really should be held by one individual only. In

other words, the private ownership of Crown land is the only way land

should exist. He's opposed to the notion of Crown land; he has said it

consistently in the past. So now we've got a lease agreement that says

the 650,000 acres of Crown grazing lease will be for the sole purpose

of growing grass and growing cows. We can grow grass and cows on those

lands and we can also have access to the wildlife and other attributes.

It can be done if you believe in coordinated management, but you don't.

I say, Mr. Chairman, that this minister is an unmitigated disaster. He

was an unmitigated disaster last year when he tried the wholesale sale

of Crown lands in this province. This year he has come in with his

Crown grazing lease program, which has mobilized all of the fish and

wildlife clubs, all of the naturalist clubs, the B.C. Federation of

Wildlife, Outdoor Recreation Council — all of these organizations. Many

of the ranching organizations are also opposed to this. They feel that

the public pressure will build to such a point on the edge of those

Crown grazing leases that in the long run it will be detrimental to

their point of view. Many ranchers have the perspective that you have

gone so far overboard in granting that sovereignty that they will be

the losers, because you people will be out of office — the minister

will be drawing his pension on the railroad and relaxing in Athalmer.

In the meantime, subsequent generations of this province are not going

to be able to enjoy the public lands which the public has paid for.

The

Minister of Agriculture, earlier, asked why we objected to it. The

public pays for the maintenance of that land. The public pays for the

conservation officers, the biologists, the fencing programs, winter

feeding programs in conjunction with the federal government, etc. Tax

dollars have gone into the maintenance of those lands for public

purposes. But this government, because they don't believe in Crown

land.... They only believe in real estate. Real estate is their only

objective, to move that into private hands; this is just a transitional

stage. It is a major departure in the way we administer our lands.

The

letters come in from everywhere. The Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), and the Minister

of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) sat down with the cattlemen's

organization and said: "Okay, we see you have problems. We'll enter

into this arrangement." They left the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr.

Rogers) out entirely. He now writes letters to constituents and people

all over this province saying he will make representation to the

Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing to try to give them access so that

they can put their hook in the water somewhere, or get access to places

that they used to go to. It's an absolute disaster. They're trying to

save face now, because it's a big issue in the Kamloops, Merritt, Yale

and Lillooet areas.

Mr. Chairman, the recreational assets of

the interior of this province are second to none. People live in

Kamloops, Merritt, Tête Jaune and all these areas because they enjoy

fishing; they enjoy hunting, walking and the privilege of easy access

to the Crown lands of the province. Now when they walk along the

highway, they can't get across it; it's posted. Many of the roads are

bulldozed. The Douglas Lake ranch bulldozed many roads. Sometimes we

have problems where there's a strip of private land where the access

from the main arterial highway to the Crown grazing lease is actually

on private land. So they can close off that private gate and they can't

get into the Crown grazing land anyway, even if that road was excluded.

I understand that's the situation in some of the areas around Kamloops.

The minister shakes his head. It's true. I'm dealing with very informed

sources indeed.

It's not good enough for the minister to

write to people and say: "We will specifically exclude X trail. We can

survey that out." That's not good enough. It's the notion that that is

public land. We want to have a plan so that the public has access to

it. That's not too far-fetched; in fact, when we form the government,

we'll have an integrated, coordinated plan. We'll say to the fishing,

hunting and other recreational groups in this province that their

rights are going to be given back to them. We're going to sit down and

listen in a very responsible way to the legitimate concerns of the

ranching community, and what their problems are. We're going to sit

down with the Fish and Wildlife people; we're going to work out what

the solutions should be, and we're going to grant access — in a

responsible way — to those people and give

[ Page

8599 ]

them the rights that they've had up until this minister took away the rights

of the public to go on their own land.

colleagues will be dealing with a few other specific aspects of

foreshore leases in their own constituencies, but in a general way I'd

like to say to the minister that in all the areas where you have

attempted to deal with Crown land disposal with respect to the

agricultural leases and so on, it's been an absolute disaster. The

Prince George one is just the latest one. I gather you had to go up

there last week.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, I didn't have to go up there.

MR. HANSON: You went up anyway. Did you go up on a government jet?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer is no.

MR. HANSON:

He creates a problem, he gets everybody agitated, massive coalitions of

opposition form, and two years later he's back to square one and he's

just caused everybody a whole lot of hassle. I'd like to say to the

minister that he's perfectly entitled to consult with the opposition to

avoid all this hassle and to do something responsible in the order of

the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat approach; some

coordinated notion of resource use — not single-purpose, not a special

deal in an office. Meanwhile, interministerial committees are meeting

on core lands, the B.C. Federation of Wildlife has been told one story

and the Outdoor Recreational Council another, and out of the blue you

have a meeting in your office. You sit down and make a special little

deal. It's a silly way to do business. There are many users.

The

only agreement I have with the minister's introductory remarks is when

he said: "The future problem in this province will be how to deal with

the competition between users of that Crown land." You don't deal with

it by having an office tea-party with one group and giving them the

whole shebang.

HON. MR. CHABOT: A few questions were

posed by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson). I've heard his

speech three times now on the question of grazing leases. I will

respond, probably for the third time.

But I want to clarify

one thing. He keeps talking about the fact that I'm opposed to the

preservation of Crown land and that I'm hell-bent on selling off the

Crown land of this province. I know the attitude of socialists. They're

against the private ownership of land. That's why they want to preserve

it as Crown land. I'll quote some statements made by some socialists

some years ago. They want to dissociate themselves from statements made

by their colleagues a few years ago, so they make cheap statements

across the floor such as "tell the truth" and things of that nature.

But the record is there to prove their attitude — to prove what they

stand for as far as the private ownership of land is concerned. We have

it documented that they are against the private ownership of land in

this province.

I'll read three quotations, one from an

executive assistant and two from MLAs. They're statements made by the

socialists when they were in government. The first one is an editorial

that appeared in theVancouver Province on Wednesday, November 28, 1973. It says:

"Reports from Prince George that Agriculture Minister Dave

Stupich's executive assistant was booed when he told air audience of ranchers

that no one should have the right to own land in British Columbia demand some

clarification, preferably from Mr. Stupich himself, or even from Premier Barrett.

"It should be said that the executive assistant offered

the view on land ownership as purely his personal opinion — that nobody should

own land 'because they did not make the land themselves.' But such personal

opinions in such a sensitive position, and in relation to other government attitudes,

assume some significance."

That's what the executive assistant to the Minister of Agriculture of the day had to say about the private ownership of land.

Another article, called "Black and Female," by Carol Allen appeared in the Homemakers' Magazine

in May 1974 on page 12. The person they're quoting is the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown). It says: "I don't believe in the private

ownership of land. It's a myth that we own anything." That is a direct

quote from the member for Burnaby-Edmonds about the private ownership

of land.

MS. BROWN: Go on; quote the rest.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. There will ample opportunity in committee for all

members to join in the debate. The minister will continue

uninterrupted. There will be no imputations of improper motive. If any

member wishes to respond in debate during committee, there will be

ample opportunity for that to take place.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On September 24, 1973, on page 192 in Hansard ,

is the following quotation of a member of the New Democratic Party. The

member for North Island, Colin Gabelmann, said when they were

government — I'm not going to read the entire statement....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

We are reminded in this House not to use the name of a member who is

currently sitting. There is every opportunity to refer to a member of

this House either by portfolio or by the riding which they represent.

If all members would be reminded of that, parliamentary tradition would

be well served.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On September 24, 1973, page 192 of Hansard . he said:

Maybe the government has got to be involved in building homes.

Maybe we have to say that land can no longer be owned privately. No one ever

suggested that air should be owned privately. Air was given to us by God, or

whoever we believe gave it to us, and so was land, Mr. Speaker. It is foreign

to my philosophy that land or anything on this earth that is natural should

be privately owned.

Now if you suggest to me that that doesn't mean that party or its members

are against private ownership of land, there's something wrong. He clearly,

stated that he's against private ownership of land. It's been stated

by many members of that opposition. They can wriggle all they want and attempt

to deny that they had made those statements, but the record is clear. Those

people uttered the words that they're against private ownership of land,

They hate these remarks which were made in the past being brought to their

attention at this time. Oh, they wriggle a lot. They squirm a lot. They're

embarrassed a lot, but those are the facts of life. They made

[ Page 8600 ]

those

statements. Those socialists over there are against private ownership

of land. I recognized that, sifting through the words of the second

member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) when he kept talking about Crown land

and how I'm making agricultural land available to the people of this

province for agricultural development. He seems to think there's some

devious motivation on my part to make land available for agricultural

development in this province. That's what he attempts to suggest. He

believes Crown land should not be made available for various endeavours

in this province, be it for residential, commercial, industrial or

agricultural purposes. I detect what that member is attempting to say

very clearly. He wants everything to remain Crown land.

this province we have an agricultural policy of attempting to become at

least 65 percent self-sufficient. Unless you make agricultural land

available to the people of this province, you'll never achieve that

self-suffiency level. That's why we had an aggressive program of land

disposition for agricultural purposes in British Columbia last year.

We're continuing to make agricultural land available.

We're

opening up land at this time. We're starting phase one of making

agricultural land available in the Fort Nelson area. It's the last

large block of agricultural land to be opened up in British Columbia.

It's the largest agricultural opportunity and the largest block of

agricultural land to be opened up anywhere in North America in the last

ten years. No other area has been opened up with as much acreage as

that which we're attempting to open up in Fort Nelson for agricultural

development. Is there anything wrong with making that land available to

British Columbians? There is a residency clause: you have to be a

Canadian citizen and you have to have lived in British Columbia for two

years before you're eligible to acquire this land. Is there anything

wrong with making land available to our people in this province? I wish

you'd answer that question. I think it's right.

In the

Prince George special sales area we've rationalized the division of

those lands — which land should be parks, which land should be used for

recreational purposes, which land should be committed to forestry,

which land should be committed to grazing and which land should be

committed to agriculture. We've gotten on with that plan and done that.

I commend the people in my ministry and in other ministries who have

worked together to bring about this special plan to make land available

in the Prince George area. That area has had problems with land being

locked into a special sales area for many years. At last we've

rationalized it. We're going to make land available for agriculture in

that area. Certainly it possesses unique problems. On certain blocks of

land there is a heavy commercial cover of timber. We are addressing

that problem, and the agricultural land disposal policy that is in

place today is a good policy. It's one that has taken a lot of time to

put into place, but it doesn't address the unique problems that exist

in Prince George. After my meeting with representatives of the Prince

George Cattlemen's Association, I guess I've got a better understanding

of the problems up there. I also told them at the time I met with them

that the new policy, once we put it into place, was to make

agricultural land available for all British Columbians — which includes

the cattlemen. Throughout British Columbia we've essentially had a

moratorium on availability of agricultural land, whereby you've had to

be a bona fide farmer, you've had to have 40 acres under cultivation,

before agricultural land was available. After ten years in which

farmers have had an opportunity to establish a unit big enough to

become economically viable, we've said the time has come for all

British Columbians to acquire agricultural land. I think there's

nothing wrong with that, and I'd like to know whether the NDP differ

with that kind of an approach as far as availability of agricultural

land is concerned. We're not saying that the farmers are excluded from

competition for this land, but we're saying that they must compete with

other British Columbians, because the time has come that all British

Columbians should have an opportunity to acquire agricultural land.

I've

heard the member talk about the grazing-lease policy three times now:

once under the Wildlife Act, once under the amendments to the Land Act

— which was completely out of order; nevertheless, he managed to sneak

in his speech on grazing leases under that piece of legislation....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The former cop there applauds the word "sneak." I have some difficulty with that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have some difficulty with personal allusions. Perhaps we could relate debate to the....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew applauds the word "sneak."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we could relate our remarks to the administrative actions of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing.

MR. MITCHELL:

On a point of order, I'd just like to bring to the attention of the

minister that as an ex-cop I have broad shoulders and thick skin.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Thick between the ears too.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask the minister to withdraw that remark. It was overheard by the Chair.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That wasn't supposed to be heard. I withdraw.

always get a kick out of the socialists across the way suggesting that

we killed the Housing Corporation of British Columbia. I admit that the

government of the day did dismantle that disorganized socialist

bureaucracy. I'll tell you, that was a disastrous corporation that

produced nothing — except that it probably allowed the Minister of

Housing of the day to attend many opening functions or official

takeover functions or whatever other kinds of functions took place

under HCBC. I guess he had to feel important, and that's why they

wanted to keep HCBC in place — to make that minister feet comfortable.

I recall very clearly that many years ago most of the activity under

HCBC was not in the construction field; it was in the acquisition of

developed housing units that were put together by the private sector —

and in most instances they were ripped off. That means that the

taxpayers of this province had to pay substantially more for certain

housing projects than they should have. They weren't good projects,

they weren't well constructed, but the NDP always paid top dollars.

Many

of them required conversion and other work. For instance, when they

acquired that disastrous project called the Casa Loma Motel, that was a

very unfortunate use of

[ Page 8601 ]

taxpayers' money. The private individual who owned it ripped off the government.

They

weren't very good businessmen and they should never have been in the

Housing Corporation of British Columbia. Despite the fact that most of

the units were purchased rather than constructed, in that three and

one-third years that the people of British of Columbia had the

misfortune of having the NDP in government, it produced approximately

1,400 units of housing. Compare that with the housing initiative

program which our government put in and which produced 5,200 units of

housing in British Columbia, rental and private ownership housing, with

no bureaucracy. In fact, it was well administered by the credit union

movement of the province with no additional staffing, no inspections,

nothing. It was money made available over the short period of a few

weeks, and it produced housing.

We have the evidence of the

Housing Corporation of British Columbia and what it did for British

Columbia. It was nothing but a boondoggle; it was nothing to be proud

of. I never cease to be amazed by the socialists who stand up here and

suggest that the Housing Corporation of British Columbia should be

resurrected. It's unbelievable.

MR. COCKE: Not as long as you're around.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

No, never will it be put in place as long as I'm around — never. It was

a boondoggle that hurt the taxpayers of this province; millions upon

millions of dollars too much that people had to pay for housing. That

Housing Corporation of British Columbia was an absolute disaster, one

which the people of British Columbia are still paying for. We still

have some of those units in British Columbia.

If the NDP

want to be constructive.... I haven't seen them constructive for many

years. They used to be constructive in the old days, pre-1972, from

time to time, when Bob Strachan was here. Some constructive arguments

used to come from across the floor. But Bob Strachan isn't here any

more; all we have are the mudslingers from across the way.

The

second member for Victoria talked about grazing leases. He said: "If we

were government, we would bring in a solution for the problems

associated with the recreational use of grazing leases. We would have

solutions for the B.C. Cattlemen's Association and its members who have

these grazing leases." He has all these suggestions if they became

government, but he's not prepared to suggest what the recommendations

are now. All he wants to do is offer cheap criticism.

I've

indicated to him that there is nothing new in grazing leases. Grazing

leases have existed in this province since the turn of the century.

We're not suggesting that there are going to be new grazing leases;

we're suggesting that the existing grazing leases will be renewed. He

attempts to leave the impression that grazing leases cover virtually

all Crown land in this province. Grazing leases do not represent all

Crown land. The grazing form of tenure that we have in this province

includes grazing licences, permits and leases. Of those three forms of

tenure, grazing leases represent only 2.5 percent. To clarify the

record, because he makes a lot of erroneous statements — uninformed

statements, I might say — about the question of grazing leases, I'll

outline for him very clearly that they represent 2.5 percent of all the

grazing tenure in the province.

MS. BROWN: How many hectares?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

I don't have the specific hectares. The last thing I want is to make an

erroneous statement; we get enough of that stuff from across the floor.

After I sit down and have an opportunity to rise again, I'll be glad to

give you the number of hectares to which grazing leases apply, but I

want you to know that they represent a very insignificant portion of

the land that is consigned to grazing in this province. It is only 2.5

percent; 97.5 percent is held under other forms of grazing tenure. So

don't attempt to leave the impression that the whole province of

British Columbia is locked up in grazing leases. It's not.

clarify some of the misstatements made by the second member for

Victoria, I want to refer to comments I made to Mr. Leverman, the

director of the British Columbia Wildlife Federation. I wrote to him

about my remarks associated with, grazing leases.

"Regarding

the method of policy formulation, several letters I have received from

B.C. Wildlife Federation affiliates suggest that development and

implementation of the grazing lease replacement policy was a unilateral

act of this ministry."

Oh, you attempted to

unplant that message with your erroneous and fictitious letters to the

editor around the province too. You attempted to convey that

information as well.

"Let me assure you this

is not the case. The policy is the result of intensive dialogue between

this ministry, the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Agriculture and

Food, and the fish and wildlife branch of the Ministry of the

Environment.

"The grazing lease policy applies

only to the replacement of expired grazing leases. No additional Crown

lands will be alienated for grazing purposes as a result of this

policy. The standard term of the new grazing leases is 21 years,

similar to the term under which most of the original grazing leases

were issued. As requested, I attach a list of the number and area of

grazing leases administered by this ministry.

"Regarding

your request for a list of names of all grazing lessees to whom the

replacement policy applies, I advise you that it would be a protracted

administrative procedure to assemble such a list. However, information

on specific leases may be obtained from the regional offices of this

ministry.

"Regarding public access across

grazing leaseholds, as you are aware, the old grazing lease document

provided for the general exclusion of roads and trails from a grazing

leasehold. However, this general exclusion was ambiguous in a legal

sense and could not always be effectively enforced. Accordingly, when

formulating the new policy, it was decided to protect public access in

a more explicit and hence enforceable manner by identifying and

excluding existing and potential access requirements prior to grazing

lease replacement. Using this approach, there can be no

misunderstanding as to the public's right of access, and in this sense

the new policy may actually enhance recreational opportunity relative

to the previous lease document. If it is subsequently determined that

an additional part of the leasehold is required for recreational or

other road access, the Crown retains the right under the conditions of

the lease to resume portions of the leasehold in the public interest.

[ Page 8602 ]

With respect to the public's right to enter and make recreational use

of grazing leaseholds, the replacement policy is no more restrictive

than the previous grazing lease policy. Both then and now the rancher

obtains a lease interest in land and, in the legal sense, exclusive use

for a specified period is the essence of a lease. Naturally,

recreationists may access and use a grazing leasehold if they secure

the permission of the lessee.

" Range

management practices. A high standard of range management is the prime

objective of the grazing lease replacement policy. To this end, an

administrative arrangement is in place whereby range agrology

specialists of the Ministry of Forests are responsible for the actual

range management function. Before any leases are replaced, lessees must

produce a range management plan approved by the Ministry of Forests.

Strict compliance with the management plan is a condition of the

continuance of tenure."

With those brief comments, Mr.

Chairman, certainly we can put to rest some of the erroneous statements

made by the second member for Victoria — erroneous inferences that he

makes in an attempt to mislead the people of this province. I want to

say that he talks about....

MR. HANSON: On a point of order. I ask the minister to withdraw that statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Was there any imputation of improper motive from the minister to the hon. the second member for Victoria?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Chairman, I'm not suggesting that he is deliberately attempting to

mislead the people of this province; I'm just saying that his

statements attempt to mislead the people of this province. He's not

doing it deliberately. I'm not attributing "deliberate" to him. I think

there's a big difference between his attempt to mislead the people of

this province and me suggesting that he's deliberately misleading by

his statements.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, perhaps

we can avoid the word "misleading." The minister has indicated that he

meant no improper motive to another hon. member. That satisfies the

Chair. We're allowed to point out where someone might be incorrect or

in error; that's fine. The House or the committee is always willing to

accept two different opinions, but the guiding principle is that we

cannot impugn the motive of another hon. member.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that clarification.

The

range management practices and plans that are put in place certainly

will enhance the multi-use of those lands for the grazing purposes of

wildlife and cattle. The member attempts to leave the impression that

the issuance of grazing leases is going to have a dramatic and negative

effect on the ability of wildlife to graze. I want to say again that

grazing leases have existed in this province since the turn of the

century. Wildlife have used grazing leases for at least the last 82

years in British Columbia, and they'll continue to do so without

negative impact on their ability to survive. Putting the range

management plans in place will, I think, enhance the ability of

wildlife to survive in British Columbia.

MR. HANSON:

The minister indicated that my information is erroneous. I would like

to read to the minister from a letter with respect to the Prince George

agricultural auction. The letter is dated Tuesday, June 22, 1982, and I

received it on June 28, 1982. A few paragraphs indicate the legitimate

concerns of the Prince George cattlemen and the other organizations

that I listed:

"For the last two years, since

the Prince George special sales area plan was in the works, we have

maintained our position that all we are interested in is that

agricultural Crown land remain in agricultural interests. It does not

matter to us who obtains the leases for such Crown land parcels so long

as the people who obtain the land are mainly interested in developing

it with agricultural objectives in mind, rather than raping it for its

timber value. We are fully aware that there are regulations regarding

timber harvesting, land clearing, etc., on agricultural Crown land.

However, these so-called safeguard regulations are just not

satisfactory to dissuade abuses. The penalty for ignoring the

regulation is minimal.

"Our first concern is

to stop speculation on agricultural Crown land because of its

commercial timber value. For the past two years we have proposed that

all timber revenues in excess of stumpage and reasonable logging

expenses be held back in an interest-bearing trust fund to ensure that

a portion of land is developed as required. Secondly, we suggest a

separate land and timber sale if the minister would not concur with

that first recommendation. The land in contention is 65,000 hectares of

Crown land.

"Crown land is a resource that is

entrusted to our provincial government. It must act as a proper

trustee. It has no right to allow blatant speculation and pocket the

profits of its actions. We need a policy that will allow an existing

farmer or rancher the opportunity to expand and develop his ongoing

operation. We need a policy that will encourage emerging agricultural

interests by making available a land base at reasonable cost. We need a

policy that will give every average B.C. resident a reasonable chance

to compete. The present policy does not meet these objectives."

The

concerns I've raised are reasonable. I'm raising them on behalf of the

people of Prince George, these organizations that have legitimate

concerns. If the minister fails to recognize the logic of their

concerns, then what can we do but shake our heads and wait for next

year, when his estimates come up? No doubt he'll have mobilized a major

coalition at that time in some other sector of the province opposed to

his policies and platforms.

HON. MR. CHABOT: One

quick response. I don't disagree with the contents of that letter from

some individual in the community of Prince George. I don't disagree

with the concerns expressed there. I think I responded to the question

of Prince George and the disposition of agricultural land over the

former Prince George special sales area. I identified the area as

unique in that it has a substantial commercial timber cover.

[ Page 8603 ]

Our

policy is a first-class policy, put together with careful thought. It

might not work in an area having heavy commercial timber cover. It's

certainly applicable and it works well in some of the more sparsely

timbered regions of the province. It works well in the Peace River, the

Bulkley Valley, but in this area, where some parcels of land do have a

heavy commercial crop, it does pose some problems. I believe that in my

previous response I indicated to the member that I was addressing the

legitimate concerns that they have expressed. I might not necessarily

agree with some of the concerns they express regarding agricultural

land being made exclusively available to existing farmers, because I

think they've had that exclusive right for ten years now, and that's

long enough. They still have the right to fairly compete with other

British Columbians, and we intend to very quickly address....

We'll

be having another auction in Prince George of agricultural lands fairly

soon — July 21, to be precise. Those are the likely timbered lines that

will be made available, and they're being put there with the full

understanding and cooperation of the members of the Prince George

Cattlemen's Association.

There's no need to watch this

little old member here who is attempting to open up agricultural land

for British Columbians to help make this province self-sufficient in

agriculture. Very soon we will have a policy in place that will address

the concerns that have been expressed to us by the Prince George

Cattlemen's Association membership.

MR. KEMPF: I have

several things that I want to cover during this minister's estimates,

some that I know a whole lot about and others that some members of this

chamber will probably say I don't know anything about. Before I start,

there's one thing that I know for sure, and that is that the cattlemen

of the Prince George area certainly don't need the second member for

Victoria to bring their concerns to this chamber.

MR. MITCHELL: You'll speak up for them.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, I will, Mr. Member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) — very loudly and, I might add, very clearly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are you living now, Jack — Oak Bay?

MR. KEMPF: The second member for Victoria talks about the Prince George special sale area and....

MR. HANSON: Oak Bay Jack.

MR. KEMPF:

Mr. Chairman, can you stop those very few opposition members from

chattering away and interrupting a very interesting debate by the

member for Omineca?

The second member for Victoria talks

about the Prince George special sale area and the auction which took

place there recently, and he talks as though it was a situation where

all of that land went to loggers and those in the forest industry. What

that member doesn't know about that situation — besides other things

that he doesn't know — is that an awful lot of people in the north are

both loggers and agriculturalists. Many of those people that got land

in that auction — and will get land in future auctions — are both.

That's because of the very real entrepreneurial spirit of northern

residents. I would certainly hate to see that sort of spirit removed

from this province.

The member doesn't realize that it's

very costly to get into any kind of agriculture, especially when it

pertains to the clearing of virgin land. I'll talk about that later

because it's the very basis for the argument that I want to put forward

here today and talk to the Minister of Lands. Parks and Housing about.

I'll get to that later.

It's really amusing to sit here this

afternoon and hear the opposition members speak as the great protectors

of the private ownership of land. One of the reasons that I first came

to this chamber in 1975 was that very subject. Although some members

opposite would like the members of this chamber and the citizens of

British Columbia to believe that they've changed their philosophy

regarding private ownership of land in this province, I want to stand

here this afternoon and say that's not true. They may have changed

their suits. We saw the Leader of the Opposition change his stance from

tearing off his tie, opening his shirt and taking off his topcoat to

wearing a blue pin-stripe suit now, to try to make the chamber of

commerce people believe he's one of them. But it's not true. We know

where they stand. We know what their philosophy is regarding private

ownership of land.

It also amuses me to listen to that

second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson); he's the land critic for the

opposition benches. It's amusing to hear him talk about Kamloops and

Merritt being the interior of this province. It really confirms a

suspicion which I've had all along about that member that he's never

been off the rock. I really am surprised that he has in fact gotten as

far afield as Kamloops and Merritt.

I also heard that member

talk about critical winter habitat for moose, elk and deer when he was

speaking about grazing leases. I want to point out once more, as I have

done many times in this chamber, that unless members on both sides of

the floor pay some attention to the wolf predation problem in this

province, we won't have to worry about critical winter habitat for any

of those animals.

The member talked about replies to his

erroneous letter, which is the laughing stock of the cattlemen in my

particular area and which appeared in all of my weekly newspapers. He

alluded to replies; he said he had dozens. In fact, I think he said he

had more than that: he had many, many replies to that erroneous letter.

I'd just like to ask that member to make available to me the replies

from cattlemen in my area to that erroneous letter which he sent to all

of my weekly newspapers.

I just have to reply to some of the

remarks made by the second member for Victoria, because they were so

ridiculous. The member talked about the people who obtained land in the

Prince George special sale area through auction as having gotten the

land for the sole purpose of raping it for the timber. Again, it shows

just how much that member over there doesn't know about what's going on

in the province of British Columbia. I'd like to ask that member if he

really knows how much you could get at this time — if in fact you could

even sell it — for any timber, whether it's from Crown land, timber

sales or whatever, whether they could sell it for more than it cost to

harvest it, log it and haul it. Nobody's interested in it at this time.

So that whole argument is fictitious.

I want to start by

commending the minister — he thumps his desk — and I hope he's

listening intently, because it may be the last time that I do so in

these estimates. I'd like to commend the minister for the hard work

that he has done in

[ Page 8604 ]

the

area of senior citizens' housing all over this province, particularly

that built over the past few years in my constituency. There is new

senior citizens' housing at Houston, Burns Lake, Fraser Lake,

Vanderhoof, and just a short time ago the minister and I travelled to

Fort St. James — yes, in a government plane — to open new senior

citizens' housing in Fort St. James. If we as legislators should make

any decisions in this chamber, it certainly should be in the area of

providing the pioneers of this province with senior citizens' housing.

I'd

also like to commend the minister for his very hard work in the area of

the construction of badly needed overnight-camping facilities in my

constituency. There are new overnight-camping parks at Red Bluff near

Granisle and at Parrens Beach, Fort St. James, which were much needed

and have been very well received facilities in those areas. I might

tell the minister that I was told over the telephone yesterday that the

Parrens Beach Park was filled to overflow capacity on the July 1

weekend.

The main reason for my rising in my place this

afternoon, and probably many more times during the estimates of this

minister, is to talk about land. My constituency covers an area in

excess of 29,000 square miles. The area I represent, Mr. Chairman, you

could safely say consists of nothing but land. In the days and, if

necessary, weeks ahead in this minister's estimates, we in this chamber

are going to hear about some of the problems which exist in relation to

that land in my constituency. In a province where 95 percent of the

land is owned by the Crown, we have a land shortage, particularly in my

constituency where land is our biggest asset. We not only have a

fictitious land shortage, but we also have a situation where this land,

because of ridiculous controls, bureaucratic red tape and regulations,

has been priced out of the reach of the citizens of this province. It's

been priced out of the reach of agriculturalists wishing to expand and

make viable their existing farms. It's been priced out of the reach of

our young people wishing to become farmers, wishing to get a start in

agriculture. It's been priced out of the reach of citizens wishing to

obtain a piece of Crown land on which to build a home and possibly have

a cow or two and a garden plot. I heard the second member for Victoria

give those pieces of property a very citified connotation. He called

them ranchettes. We wouldn't hear that out in the rural areas of this

province. I guess it's something he's picked up in the city of Victoria

when talking about Crown land.

Mr. Chairman, we're pricing

the land from our citizens wishing to obtain some of that land for the

purpose of recreation — whether that recreation be skiing, and they

wish to have that land on a mountaintop in this province, or fishing or

boating or swimming, and they wish a piece of Crown land on a lakeshore

in this province. We'll talk at length about that particular subject a

little later on, as I said before, possibly in the days and weeks

ahead. We have a land-related situation in this province which has

literally dashed the hopes of many of our citizens and completely

stripped them of their pioneering initiative. Thank God we still have

some of it in some areas of this province, and given half a chance, it

could be very much alive and very well, thank you.

Mr.

Chairman, this Legislature has got to make some serious changes where

land policy is concerned in this province. We've got to free ourselves.

We now hear the socialists opposite come down as the protectors of the

people who wish private ownership of land in this province. We've got

to rid ourselves of the socialist land controls placed upon us by a

former administration and still in place. We've got to get rid of that

situation brought in by the NDP under the guise of protecting

agricultural land. We've got to get rid of that kind of land control in

this province. We've got to release the thousands of acres....

Now

you see the member for Cowichan-Malahat, the Agriculture critic in this

House, smiling, Mr. Chairman. But I say again that we've got to release

the thousands of acres of land which are now within the agricultural

land reserve — land which will never produce anything, Madam Member.

You've been in the north. You know. I've seen you in the north. Yes, I

met you in my constituency once; I know you've been in the north. So

you know a little bit. You probably know a little more about

agricultural land than does the second member for Victoria, but

probably very little more.

MRS. WALLACE: And more than you do, Jack.

MR. KEMPF:

Well, I wouldn't say it's more than I do, Mr. Chairman. I take offence

at that remark, having been born and raised on a farm and lived on one

for 18 years in this province. I think I know a little bit about

agricultural land; I know a little bit about that of which I speak.

Mr.

Chairman, we've got to release the thousands of acres of land that's

now within the agricultural land reserve that will never make a farm.

MRS. WALLACE: Jim, I hope you're not listening.

MR. KEMPF: Madam Member, that minister quit listening to me three years ago — at least I feel as though that has happened.

Mr.

Chairman, releasing that land from the agricultural land reserve will

have the effect of releasing it from that fictitious shortage that I

spoke about previously, and consequently from that fictitious level of

land value that we have come to in this province, whether it be Crown

land or otherwise. We've got to divorce ourselves once and for all from

that socialist mentality that is hurting our citizens out there very

badly, particularly the ones wishing to obtain Crown land and build

homes for their families in this province — divorce ourselves from that

socialist mentality that believes that land is better in the hands of

the state than in the hands of our citizens. We must make that land,

through a reduction in the red tape and regulation, available in a very

real way to our citizens. I heard the second member for Victoria

suggest that what he called ranchettes, if that policy were followed,

would end up only in the hands of the extremely wealthy of this

province, How absolutely ridiculous! They would end up in the hands of

people who want to live in a rural atmosphere — young people who want

to get on the land, who want to build a first home and not have to face

the bureaucratic regulations and red tape laid down by all levels of

government in this province, whether it be municipal, provincial or

whatever. They want to get away from that and live in a rural

atmosphere.

Mr. Chairman, I have here and in my office

example after example...and that's why I say it may take us weeks to

get through the estimates of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing.

It's taken me years to accumulate all these problems, and if necessary

I intend to go through them, one by one, so that members of this

Legislature and the people of British Columbia realize what it is that

the people out there are facing in the way of problems related to land.

[ Page 8605 ]

MR. NICOLSON: You just want to stay here so you don't have to go back up north.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I go back up north every weekend. How long has it been since you've been in your constituency?

Mr.

Chairman, I have examples such as this one of a constituent of mine, a

very rural constituent. This individual lives about 120 miles from

civilization. He lives at Laidman Lake, approximately 120 miles

southwest of Vanderhoof.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Is he a trespasser?

MR. KEMPF:

The minister asks if is he a trespasser. Well, Mr. Chairman, if he's a

trespasser, then the pioneers of this country going back 150 years were

also trespassers. I don't have that word in my vocabulary. I don't

consider those people trespassers. I consider them pioneers. We've got

areas of this province unknown to some of the members of this chamber

which still need pioneers, still need the pioneering spirit. If we have

to stay here a long time, we're going to get that particular point

across.

Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about Mr. Rozek. He

applied for an agricultural lease 120 miles southwest of Vanderhoof in

my constituency, 20 miles from the end of any road. He is trying to eke

out a living for him and his family by trying to develop a ranch

starting with a very few head of cattle — trying to build it up, trying

to drain swamps, trying to produce a ranch 120 miles from civilization.

Mr. Chairman, to make a long story short....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time is just about up, hon. member.

MR. KEMPF:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, that's fine. I'll have plenty of time and

plenty of other examples to give, but I just want to talk about Mr.

Rozek. To make a long story short, what it is that this province is

asking of that individual is that he pay $1,294 a year on a lease on

land that the B.C. Assessment Authority has assessed at a real value of

$6,000. Let's just go over that again, Mr. Chairman, in case you missed

it: $1,294 a year in lease charges for land worth $6,000 — and that's

not a value that I put on it; that was valued by the B.C. Assessment

Authority. I've really got to ask where the fairness is in that

situation.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Let's go over it again: we've got an individual who went out there, and he's now 20 miles from the end of a road.

MS. BROWN: No wonder Jim doesn't listen to you.

MR. KEMPF:

Mr. Chairman, can you stop the chattering. I want the gallery to hear

the story. This fellow went out to this area 120 miles southwest of

Vanderhoof, when there was no road out there at all. Sure, he's 20

miles from the end of the road now, but there wasn't any road at all

when he went out there. He's hacked a homestead out of the wilderness,

but now he has applied for a piece of agricultural land and he is told

that he's got to pay $1,294 a year to lease a piece of land that's

assessed by the B.C. Assessment Authority at a real value of $6,000.

That's too much; that's far, far, far too much.

I know my

time is almost up. and with that I'll sit down. But. Mr. Chairman. I

have many other examples. I've got this whole file here and this one

here, and I've got a whole boxful in my office, and I intend during the

estimates of this minister to bring to this House many of these

examples.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Well, why don't I just take it for a minute or two.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, we'll all get into it.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, There is a standing order. I hate to use it. Normally a

caucus decides how they're going to do this type of thing. The hon.

member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) has been waiting for some time;

that's my observation. The member for Mackenzie is recognized.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Chairman, I know my colleague will have the opportunity to make his

presentation in this House later on, but first of all I do want to

agree with one thing that the member for Omineca said — one thing. The

rest of it was.... Well, he didn't say anything else. He only said one

thing worthwhile, and that was about the problem that all of us rural

members face and that our constituents face in obtaining a piece of

Crown land to build a home on. I've discussed this with the minister

before, and the minister has usually replied to me that he's got the

best policy in the whole wide world relating to making land available,

and that we in this party don't believe in private ownership of land

anyway.

Well, let me set the minister straight on two

points: if there is any, documentation of that, any policy of our party

— the New Democratic Party, the party that's going to be government

within a few short months, most likely — I'd like the minister to

produce that documentation. The minister got up in this House and read

out of context some remarks that were made by two members of this

House, and I know that he's going to be corrected quite shortly in a

very stern way here for the remarks he made.

He quoted an

executive assistant — what utter rubbish! Just for the record, Mr.

Chairman, the policy of the party on this side of the House is not

opposed to the private ownership of land; in fact, the policy of this

party is to make land available to people who need it. The policy of

that minister is to make land available to his friends and to the

friends of that political party and the rich. That's where they make....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, it's absolutely true.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Imputations of improper motive have to be censured by

the Chair. I would ask the member to temper his remarks. If he has

imputed any dishonourable motive to the minister. I would have to ask

the member to withdraw.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I said it was

the minister's policy, and it is his policy, because that's what he

believes. I'll withdraw because I want to finish this presentation, but

there

[ Page 8606 ]

was

nothing to withdraw. Let me cite you one example. In fact, there are

many examples of the policy of making land available to people in this

province who need it.

This government has embarked upon a

policy of private developers — and I'm not opposed to this — going in,

putting in the roads, subdivisions and the systems required. The policy

was supposed to have been that that property, whether five-acre lots or

whatever, would be made available through lottery.

We had a

case in my riding — that's why it was brought to my attention — where

that was not in fact taking place. The friends of the minister or the

government perhaps — certainly friends of the developer — had first

crack at obtaining that land at $20,000 per lot. That wasn't a bad

price in that particular area for those lots that would eventually come

under private ownership and could probably be further subdivided at

some future date.

Not everybody who wanted a piece of that

land had the opportunity at that time of obtaining that land. That

situation was corrected because it was brought to my attention and

representation was made to the minister and to the ministry, but how

many have there been since where these things went by the board

unnoticed or nobody complained? That's my second point. It went for

$20,000 per lot. How many young couples, particularly in this time of

economic recession, brought about largely by this government, have

$20,000 to plunk down for a piece of property? Not too many.

don't expect this of this government, but what I'm suggesting to the

minister, as the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) did indirectly in his

presentation, is that we come up with a policy of making Crown land

available to the people who need it — not to the rich or those who

already have land. That's the present policy of this government: those

who have got are getting more, and those who need it are getting

nothing.

Those who are fortunate enough to receive a bit of

Crown land for some purpose — a small holding, to build a home on or

for recreation purposes — are now being taxed out of existence by this

government sitting across the floor. Here's a government preaching

restraint, that brags about bringing in legislation supporting the

federal Liberal government all the way in their so-called restraint

program and taking dollars out of the pockets of working people, and

what do they do? They tax.

In one example I have here, there is a 600 percent increase over one year on the tax on a recreation lease on the Sunshine

Coast. That is what this government is doing. These guys can go flying

around the world, take in Broadway shows and buy fancy wines, and then

what do they do? They ding it to the people. They increase taxes by 600

percent on recreation leases in some cases.

I wrote to the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), but this minister is

responsible. He's in cabinet and he's responsible for these recreation

leases. What did the minister say? He said they had been getting off

too cheaply all these years. What can I say? I know they won't do

anything.

Mr. Minister, I'm going to change the topic here

for a second. Yesterday under the Ministry of Environment I raised the

possibility of making some leases available to people who wish to enter

the mariculture or fish farming industry on the coast of British

Columbia. The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) said that it

was none of his business and to talk to you. Well, I'm talking to you

now, Mr. Minister.

What I'm suggesting to you is that the

coast of Vancouver Island and large parts of my riding lend themselves

to this industry. It's an up-and-coming industry in British Columbia,

and in my view it has to be encouraged. We are very far behind other

nations in the world in this regard — Japan, Norway, Sweden and a

number of other countries that are very advanced in this field. Even

the United States is far ahead of us in this regard.

This

government is making it almost impossible in some cases for people with

private initiative to get into this industry. They're not asking for

handouts, loans — any of these things. They should have encouragement,

in my view. Many of them should have financial encouragement.

HON. MR. CHABOT: What industry?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mariculture and fish farming. Do you know what that is? Okeover is a good example. The minister is very familiar with Okeover.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We protect it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We're protecting it at the moment, but we'll see what happens. I'm watching that one very closely.

any event, I'm suggesting to the minister that when you have this type

of application.... I have seen applications rejected on the grounds

that some large logging company has the upland — not even the

ownership; they don't even own the upland — from the proposed lease

application for maricultural purposes. They merely have a TFL. The

government and the minister brag that 95 percent of Crown land in

British Columbia belongs to the people. I say nonsense. Applications

are rejected because of upland ownership, or control of the land by

some other firm under some form of tenure. The two can work in

conjunction very easily. The area I'm thinking of will not be logged

for probably 70 or 80 years, because it's young growth, but they have a

TFL on that area. The minister and that ministry rejected this person's

application for two acres. One hectare: that is all that was required

for a perhaps viable oyster culture operation in that area. It was

rejected on those grounds. It's not fair. You talk about encouraging

private initiative. You're killing it with your extravagance and the

policies of your ministry.

Regarding making Crown land

available, I want this on the record for the people in this province. I

know the minister is not listening; he couldn't care less. His mind is

made up and he doesn't want to be confused by facts. When we form the

government again — which will be soon, God willing — in order to save

this province from that group over there, we are going to make Crown

land available. In fact, our party has a policy to make land available

to people who need it. When my colleague the member for Nelson-Creston

(Mr. Nicolson) was Minister of Housing, we had policies; we made

housing and land available to people in this province who needed it. It

was an excellent policy, one that was dismantled by that government

over there out of sheer ignorance and jealousy.

With that, I

think I've made all the remarks I wish to make. One last item: I would

like the minister to review once again with his colleagues the policy

they recently engaged in, the extremely punitive taxation on Crown

leases for small holdings and recreational lots. Financially, you're

simply breaking some people; that's what you're doing.

[ Page 8607 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT:

I think the most charitable thing I can say about that member is that

most of his speech was made up of wild statements from a wild man.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Withdraw, please.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Withdraw what? He is a wild man; he does make wild statements.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have asked the minister to withdraw. It's a personal allusion which the Chair finds offensive.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The Chair finds it offensive; the member doesn't though.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair does. Please withdraw.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.

MR. HANSON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, that wasn't a withdrawal. I would ask you to ask the minister to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're probably right. The minister will withdraw without qualification.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'll withdraw, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

I don't know how to respond to the member. He makes some very wild

statements. He talks about making land available to my friends.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Well, I must have a lot of friends out there. I want you to know that

the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing is involved in making

available one out of every six residential parcels of land in British

Columbia in one form or another. So I must have a lot of friends out

there for making this land available to individuals.

really don't get very many specifics from the member for MacKenzie (Mr.

Lockstead), just wild accusations. He talks about a TFL and how it

infringes upon the ability to require an oyster lease. I don't recall

his ever having taken that up with a minister.

He talks

about making Crown land available. Yes, there was a policy regarding

the availability of Crown land when the NDP was government, but not by

way of buying Crown land. The policy was lease, lease, lease.

talks about escalation of recreational lease lots. I recall very

vividly, when the NDP were government, that a fellow by the name of Bob

Williams tripled the price of recreational lots in British Columbia

overnight. I recognize what's happened to land values in the last

couple of years and how it has affected recreational leases and the

ability of people to pay their lease fees and the taxes on these

leases. I have addressed that problem and will be making an

announcement in the next few days about a revised program.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Make it now.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

I won't make it now. I'll make it in the fullness of time. To you, my

dear friend, I just want to say that that question is being addressed;

not the way Bob Williams addressed it when he was the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

You suggested that your

party is not opposed to private ownership of land. I'd like to refer

you to a speech made by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). I

don't believe he was from North Island then — North Vancouver–Seymour

at that time. On page 192 of Hansard , September 24, 1973. the member for North Island said:

Maybe

the government has got to be involved in building homes. Maybe we have

to say that land can no longer be owned privately. No one ever

suggested air should be owned privately. Air was given to us by God, or

whoever we believe gave it to us, and so was land, Mr. Speaker. It is

foreign to my philosophy that land or anything on this earth that is

natural should he privately owned. I believe that it's going to take us

decades and decades to reverse that mentality and attitude in this

society — and I have it too — that we all think we have to own a chunk

of land, and that until we own that chunk of land. until we own a

house, we've actually not made it.

have got to reverse that philosophy, Mr. Speaker. I'm not suggesting

that this government will have the time to be able to do that; I think

it's a thing that has to happen throughout North America over a great

many years. But I think it's important that people begin to talk about

the fact that there is no real difference between land and air, and we

would t