1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1980

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3767 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On vote 155: minister's office –– 3767

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Hanson

Mr. King

Mr. Passarell

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

MR. SEGARTY:

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this morning is John Noonan and his son

Joe. On behalf of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis),

I'd like to ask the House to welcome John and Joe to the precincts this

morning.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, I'm informed that this morning the Crown corporations

committee is desirous of sitting while the House is in session. I

respectfully ask leave that the committee be entitled to so sit.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

I would therefore move, Mr. Speaker, that the Crown corporations

committee be permitted to sit while the House is in session this

morning.

Motion approved.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

LANDS, PARKS AND HOUSING

(continued)

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

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Chairman, when I moved that the committee rise last night because

of the noise in the House, I didn't expect I'd have to face the same

kind of disorder this morning,

However, at that point I had

asked the minister some questions relative to the Rural and Remote

Housing at Lake Cowichan, particularly about the drainage problems

there. He has had the evening to review this with his assistants, and

I'm sure he has an answer for me.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I

clearly recall those questions that were put to me by the member for

Cowichan-Malahat. Really, I'm rather surprised that these questions are

put to me, because my jurisdiction is very limited. I have no means of

assisting these people. I might sympathize; I might give them all the

sympathy I possibly can muster. However, the question you pose to me

about attempting to have water run uphill — I don't know. I would have

to say that I'm rather surprised that you haven't taken up that

question with the local building inspector.

I can't go around inspecting every home in British Columbia that has a

problem, where the basement might be leaking and the eavestrough might attempt

to go uphill and the water won't flow that way. I would have thought that

those problems that you brought to my attention would have been resolved by

the local building inspector. I guess if he approved it, he approved it. I don't

know whether those people are taking up their problems with CMHC, which is heavily

involved in this rural remote housing project. CMHC would have a heavy commitment

and would be interested in the problem. I don't know how long ago the home

acquired. You are asking me a series of technical questions about which I am

not knowledgeable. I am not about to go up there and try to fulfil the role

of the building inspector.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister says that he doesn't know. Obviously he doesn't care. But interestingly enough, I have a letter....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, that's not true. Tell the truth now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I heard that remark. On behalf of the member, I'll have to ask you to withdraw any imputation of falsehood.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

I don't want to say anything derogatory about the member. If she is

offended — apparently the Chairman is offended on her behalf — I will

withdraw. She said that I don't care. The only point I wanted to make

is that, as I said at the outset of my remarks, I sympathize with their

problems — with all the sympathy I can possibly muster. However, as I

told you, I can't resolve every housing problem in British Columbia.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to read from this letter of October 10, 1979:

"You

have provided me with a copy of your recent letter to Canada Mortgage

and Housing Corporation, outlining a number of problems faced by

several home purchasers in Lake Cowichan in the rural and remote

housing program. While the delivery of housing units under the program

is the responsibility of CMHC, I have asked officials of the regional

office of my ministry to investigate the situation with CMHC and to

undertake to facilitate any remedies which may be required by whatever

means may be appropriate and available in the circumstances."

That

letter is signed by the minister. That was in October 1979. There are

several other letters, because that minister, whether he likes to admit

it or not, is responsible for housing in this province. When he has the

CMHC operating in this province and providing houses, then he has some

degree of responsibility to see that the required standards are met.

talks about not being able to make water run uphill. Well, neither can

CMHC. The object is that they shouldn't try to make it run uphill. They

should drain it into the drainage ditch in front of the house instead

of trying to drain it up over the bank to the back. They have more or

less agreed that this has to be done, but it isn't happening. We've

gone through two winters now that have been a real disaster for the

people who live in those houses. We're coming along to fall again and

nothing is happening. Those people are concerned, and rightly so. For

that minister to get up and say, "Well, it's nothing to do with me;

it's the CMHC; I can't make water run uphill," is just not good enough,

Mr. Chairman. I want that minister to give this House and this

committee some commitment that he will use his powers as minister to

ensure that

[ Page 3768 ]

CMHC

does take some action there. You know, we've got promises, promises,

promises, and we've had people running around with levels and tapes,

but nothing is happening. We're coming up to another winter with more

flooding and more open ditches with children playing beside them, It's

just not good enough.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I think the member for Cowichan-Malahat

clearly saw in the letter she received from me that the problem rests

on the shoulders of CMHC. It was described to her in that letter. I

even offered the services of my regional officers to communicate with

CMHC in an attempt to rectify these problems if they can be rectified.

I want you to know that CMHC is not a provincial agency; it's a federal

agency. You seem to forget that. You seem to suggest that it's a

provincial agency. It's not –– I presume that my regional officers have

been in touch with CMHC, but they haven't reported back to me. Needless

to say, they probably conveyed the concerns that you expressed to me

back to CMHC, where they rightfully belong.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Chairman, yesterday that minister stood in the House and took a

great deal of credit for the senior citizens' housing programs that are

being sponsored by CMHC. He's prepared to take the credit, but he's not

prepared to take the blame.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I think

the member needs to understand that senior citizens' housing projects

are sponsored by the provincial government with some assistance from

CMHC. I think that has to be clarified, because the member seems to be

confused.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, yesterday the

minister was indicating how terribly important and obviously successful

his department was, how they were cooperating with everyone, and how

there was housing being established throughout the province. Naturally

we know the facts will argue with that kind of statement. But anyway,

give the minister a little bit of credit; he's only been there a short

time and is trying hard.

Mr. Chairman, one of the things

that rather disturbed me was his total, complete and absolute lack of

understanding of something that's going right by him. Yesterday the

member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) brought up the fact that the

Vancouver housing group put their rents up a month later than normally;

they waited to find out how much the senior citizens' grant would be —

the $35 increase. The minister is shaking his head; it may be a

dangerous practice for him. In any event, I suggest that normally the

rents are reviewed and are changed in July; this year it happened on

August 1. By that time it was clear that those people — the renters

from that Vancouver group — were getting their $35, and therefore they

raised the rents by an arbitrary $18. The minister indicated that

nothing unusual occurred. The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy) had promised that there would be no attack on that particular

increase these people got. In any event, I thought the minister's

answer was less than informative.

As to the second question, it occurs to me that the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. Mair) is having some trouble in the province in terms of personal care.

Now, personal-care homes are often run in tandem with senior citizens' highrises

or senior citizens' housing. To give you an example, the New Vista Society

in Burnaby runs both, and they have a personal-care aspect to a very large complex.

They want to build more personal care, and yet they've been informed that

there isn't sufficient call for them to increase the size of their personal-care

unit. In inquiring around I find that there is a year-and-a-half waiting list

for the personal care. Now it's part of Housing, Mr. Chairman; they get

grants from the provincial government. Naturally they get some cooperation from

the Ministry of Health, but I believe that mainly the Ministry of Housing is

involved in providing the funding, in cooperation with the federal agency. I

note that the minister talks about Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation

as though it was at more than at arm's length from him. One of the big problems

that we've had in this province over the years is that the old Social Credit

government — I'm talking about the one in 1972 — used to give the back of

their hand to CMHC. That's one of the reasons that this province is so far

behind. The funds were there in those days. That the former Premier, W.A.C.

Bennett, saw fit to ignore the utilization of those funds is one of the reasons

why we are in this horrible situation with respect to housing.

think that the Minister of Housing should be terribly concerned,

particularly when a non-profit society such as New Vista is prepared to

offer an urgently needed expanded service. But because some bureaucrat

somewhere.... I suspect that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation

had a good hand in it; there's no question about that. I suspect that

the minister and his ministry could be working a lot harder to see to

it that the grants are established for these kinds of very important

activities that should be expanding.

We have a situation now

where there are people who qualify for that level of housing but they

can't get near it. There is no shortage of candidates; there is no

shortage of seniors. I suggest to the minister that it is about time

that he went down and saw his colleague, the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. Mair), and asked him his professional opinion as to whether or not

what I say is true. He'll verify it.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

I have a couple of brief responses to the member for New Westminster.

He suggests that there's some jiggery-pokery in BCHMC with the....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Well, that's what you suggested. Certainly they're my words, but you

suggested that there's some form of jiggery-pokery dealing with the

date when rents are reviewed. It's always been July 1, and as far as I

know this year hasn't deviated from previous practices.

the question of personal care, the facilities and the responsibility

for the provision of personal-care facilities has been a responsibility

of the Ministry of Health, I believe, since 1976. We have on the

drawing board at this time in the province about six projects — joint

senior citizens, joint personal care. We look after the funding of the

senior citizens' projects, and the Ministry of Health, along with the

federal contribution, look after the personal-care funding. So personal

care essentially comes under Health, but we do have dual facilities.

There are two government ministries involved in the funding and the

initiation of these projects.

MR. HANSON: Mr.

Chairman, before I direct a number of questions to the minister

regarding the Lands

section of his portfolio, I would like to ask him a

couple of specific ques-

[ Page

3769 ]

tions about the Housing Corporation of British Columbia. My understanding and

the correspondence that we have had with his office and his assistant deputy

minister at the time, Mr. Armitage, is that the assets of the Housing Corporation

are being disposed of and the wind-up date — the target date for the disposal

of all the assets of the Housing Corporation — was March 31, 1980. The last

correspondence we had with the minister's office on this matter was, I believe,

when the minister was in Australia. Upon his return, an audited statement was

going to be drafted. I'm not sure whether that audited statement has appeared

and I've missed it or whether it is still in the drafting stage, but I wonder

if he would advise us if he has that information now, and would he please advise

the House of what happened to the assets, who received them and the specifics

about their disposition.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Member, yes, I have the latest financial statement on HCBC and the

disposal of its assets. I'd be glad to make a copy available to the

member. I'm not going, to enumerate for you this morning, unless you

insist, all the methods we use, who acquired them, the legal

description of the properties and units, and the purchase price.

However, I have that information. If you want the latest statement on

HCBC, I'll be glad to give it to you, my friend.

MR. HANSON:

Moving to the Lands

section of the minister's portfolio, as an observer

I have been watching the restructuring of the bureaucracy in the

ministry. A couple of observations can be made, and I would like to

seek clarification from the minister on what these changes mean. Mr.

Chairman, if you cast your mind back to the early days when the Social

Credit government assumed power and we did have a Housing Corporation,

the Housing portion in the government was relatively small, but then it

was more or less disbanded with the exception of the B.C. Housing

Management Commission and, at a later date, engulfed, encompassed,

brought in, or incorporated into a new Ministry of Lands, Parks and

Housing.

The interesting observation is that that portion of

the ministry in terms of the staff and the managers in that small

group, relative to the Lands portion, which is a relatively large

portion of the ministry.... I find it somewhat remarkable that the

housing presence in the ministry is so substantial in relation to its

function. Let me make that a little bit clearer for you. If you look at

the key managers within the ministry, you find that in many instances

they have a housing training and a housing background, a real estate

orientation, perhaps. I don't mean that in any kind of a derogatory

manner. I just mean that they have that kind of training and background.

What I am very interested in is that, very clearly, within the Lands portfolio

there is a planning and biological function that looks at the multi-use of land

— the different competing uses of land. My questions really relate to what change

in orientation this means. Is it a shift in direction? Is it a shift in orientation

away from what Lands was in the past, in the sense of its management of land

function into more disposal of lands for residential purposes or for more of

a real estate commodity orientation to land? I think it's a legitimate question

to ask of the minister. What does this mean? I think that, clearly, you don't

have to be too clever to look through the flow chart and see to what extent

the housing influence is being felt within the Ministry of Lands, Parks and

Housing. So I would like to ask him, first of all, what does this mean?

Mr.

Chairman, I think it's a legitimate question. When a ministry

restructures and appears to put a particular emphasis in its staffing,

I think it's incumbent upon the minister to advise us of the direction

of that ministry. I think it is a fair question. I would appreciate —

and I'm sure the other members in the House would appreciate — some

kind of philosophical or administrative response to what I believe to

be a fair question. There are many people at the working level in the

regions and at the Victoria management level that have real estate,

housing orientations. I feel that an answer should be forthcoming.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Well, I have some trouble with that question because of staffing having

some bearing upon emphasis. I don't view it in the light you do, that

there's an emphasis on housing because we have more housing people,

you're suggesting, as regional managers throughout the province. I

don't understand that point of view. We attempt to recruit what we

consider to be the best regional managers in the province, those people

mandate. You suggest that our emphasis is heavy toward regional

managers coming from the housing component. We have seven regional

directors in British Columbia. Two come from housing, one from parks

and four from lands. So if you can make something out of that, I guess

you're entitled to try.

MR. HANSON:

I believe the minister should be cognizant of the role of his ministry.

The traditional role of Lands is that there are competing interests for

our common land. To manage and dispose of out Crown land properly, then

those different resource variables, resource attributes and different

views must be present and not dominated by any particular specific

orientation. This is what I'm addressing. I want assurance from the

minister that that planning by a logical management orientation of the

common lands, consistent with the multi-use of those lands, be

maintained, and that we don't move into sort of a real estate

orientation to our Crown land. I think that would be a very great

mistake.

I would like to leave that question now and direct

my attention to some of the announcements that the minster has made

regarding the disposition of Crown land. I think if you were to try

within a sentence or two to characterize what has been happening in

this ministry in this regard, you would have to say that there has been

a great deal of political puffery, press releases, and a lot of noise

about relatively little. When you actually look at the Crown land that

has been made available....

Let me be more specific. As

recently as July 16, when the news release came out on the 15,000

hectares of Crown land to be made available for agricultural use in the

Peace River area — with a couple of parcels elsewhere, three in

Williams Lake, seven in Quesnel and one in Osoyoos, but the

preponderance in the Peace River area — I think many people felt that

that was new Crown land coming out, perhaps for the first time. But

much of that land had already been out; it had been brought back in

because of poor performance or because people were unable to make

payments and so on.

The Hudson Hope section, I would assume — and I would like specifics on that — is the Farrell Creek property.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes.

[ Page 3770 ]

MR. HANSON:

That's the Farrell Creek property, and that 31 parcels is really a

re-subdividing of something that has been out for many, many years —

it's been out since Bob Sommers was the minister.

The 25

parcels in the Fort St. John area, I think that was all out before; if

not, a good portion of it has been out. So what the minister has been

doing is issuing press releases and raising expectations in various

parts of the province, leading people to the conclusion that new

agricultural land is coming out that is suitable, that is perhaps in

higher classifications than it is in the Canada Land Inventory, leading

people to think that Crown agricultural land is going to be made

available in various parts of the province.

I would like to

ask him, for example, how many parcels of this Crown agricultural land

are going to be made available on Vancouver Island. How many have been

surveyed and made ready to go on Vancouver Island? How many are going

to be made available in the Fraser Valley area? In actual fact, what we

have is a situation where land on Vancouver Island, for example, is

already committed. It's committed on the coast. So we have a lot of

political fanfare happening in one area of the province. I think you

should come clean and be specific about where these lands will be made

available and what the limitations are, because if you're guilty of

anything, Mr. Minister, it's raising expectations of people —

particularly new young farmers, people who would like to have a piece

of land to begin farming.

You know what you're doing up in

the Peace River with your auction process? By putting the land out on

an auction basis to the highest bidder, first-time farmers are going to

find it exceedingly difficult to compete with other people on an

auction basis. Now when you say auction, do you mean lot-draw? I don't

think you mean lot-draw up there; you mean auction, so you're paying

top dollars. Does the young family, the new young farmer have access to

that land? If so — which he or she doesn't — what you've done is raise

expectations that people are going to be able to get into farming for

the first time, and that's not the case. So you should have a press

release saying that unless people have some money and can pay top

dollars for that Crown agricultural land, class 4, 5 and 6 — and I

would like to know what the classes would be; I think the majority of

it will be in the 4 and 5 classification....

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: You've got 2s and 3s? I don't think you've got class 2 and 3 up there.

Now

the interesting thing is: we have a news release here making a big

foofaraw over 15,000 hectares of Crown land — probably class 4 and 5 —

to be put out on an auction basis, land which was released before in

many instances. I would bet the minister a nickel that at least 65 to

70 percent of that land has already been out, it came back and is going

out again.

But at the same time that we have this press

release going out on the marvellous things that the Minister of Lands,

Parks and Housing is doing for first-time farmers in the Peace River

country — which is not the case at all — they're going to be flooding

6,500 acres of excellent land in the Peace River country in the Site C

pondage — good land, the best land north of the Okanagan, class 2, 3

and 4; a wide variety of crops can be grown on it; it has good

potential, good capability. What is the logic in that? It doesn't make

sense at, all.

So my point then, Mr. Chairman, is that as

far as the Crown land for agricultural purposes is concerned, I would

think that with few exceptions that land will be located in the

northeast of the province. There may be the odd small parcel elsewhere,

but there is not going to be any to speak of at all on Vancouver

Island; there will not be any in the lower mainland; there will be very

little in the Okanagan; there will be very little in the Kootenays, I

would think. If it does come on, if it is let go, if it's taken out and

put up on an auction basis, it will go to people who can afford to buy

it at an auction. Also, I think that the kinds of performance changes

that he has made make it possible even for people who have not

demonstrated a farming performance to take that land. For example, my

understanding of the previous arrangement is that to get a new piece of

land a person would have had to bring under cultivation 80 percent of

the arable acres prior to application. That has changed; that proviso

is no longer in place.

My question is: what provision is

there in your regulations or policy that makes it necessary to

demonstrate that a person will bring it into farming and/or that they

will perform on that land, that they will bring into arable, cultivated

acreage a portion of that land prior to getting another piece? I would

be very interested to hear the response.

I can ask some

other specific questions. For example, how many applications have been

processed on Vancouver Island for the agricultural land and for the

non-forest use of provincial forest Crown land?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Chairman, I have some difficulty with the member's aspirations to

have some Crown agricultural land being made available on the corner of

Douglas and Government streets in downtown Victoria. In case you don't

know it, there is no longer any agricultural land in downtown Victoria.

I am saying to those people who want to go farming that they're not

going to be able to farm in downtown Victoria or downtown Vancouver.

There is no Crown agricultural land in those two cities. We're telling

those people that there is an opportunity to go farming if they are

prepared to go where the farmland is available. There is no farmland in

Victoria.

I don't know why you think that I can wave a wand

or something and make agricultural land available in downtown Victoria.

I'm not going to be able to do that, because there is none. I'm

suggesting to you that we are making agricultural land available to

British Columbians and Canadians who want to be farmers. It is going to

be made available in areas in which there is agricultural land. Those

areas are the Cariboo, Peace River, Omineca and Skeena regions.

suggest that the approach we are taking in opening up Crown lands for

people to farm is the right approach. We have an upset price and an

open competition in which there is bonus bidding over and above the

upset price. In most instances the upset price in the Peace River

ranges between $40 and $50 an acre, which is not excessive, in my

estimation.

We have a new agricultural policy which has been

difficult to put together. It took six or seven months. We finally have

a policy which I think will make land readily available — with a

minimum of red tape — to British Columbians who want to farm. The

policy is geared to performance. In other words, the rental fee in the

first five years is minimal; it is I percent of the upset price of the

land. However, the provincial prescribed interest rate is running at

the same time. That interest is forgiven in the event that there is

performance

[ Page 3771 ]

within

the first five years. It is a ten-year lease. If there is no

performance after five years, in the sixth year there is a tremendous

escalation in the cost of the land because the interest rate is dumped

on top of the predetermined price.

So there is an incentive

for people to perform. One of the problems of the previous policy was

that the parameters of development were so excessive — 80 percent of

the arable portions to be put under cultivation — that people just

couldn't meet them and the performance was minimal. Now we are giving a

stipulated period of time to perform or else. I think the policy will

work. It is one in which people have an opportunity to acquire up to

1,280 acres of agricultural land.

There is really no class 5

land in the Peace River. It is basically class 4, with some class 3 and

2. The policy is one in which land classification essentially has to be

1, 2, 3, 4, and some 5.

Yes, we made an announcement. I

think I have a responsibility to not secretly make agricultural Crown

land available in the province. I think I have a responsibility to

notify all British Columbians. These auctions will be advertised in the

local areas in which they will be made available by open competition,

but the press release is essentially to alert other British Columbians

who want to acquire agricultural land. These are the first pieces of

agricultural land that we will be releasing under the new policy.

Providing everything works, we anticipate opening up a lot of

agricultural land — 15,000 to 20,000 acres in the Fort Nelson area.

Next year we hope to bring more stability to the community and to make

agricultural land available for British Columbians.

The

member talked about puffery, the release of lands and so forth. If he

wants to accuse me of puffery because I made $6 million worth of Crown

land available to municipalities, regional districts and other

community-oriented organizations, I guess he's entitled to do so. We

released $6 million worth of Crown land; we gave it to communities and

organizations during the first six months of this year. It's a very

effective program, and it is very well received by the community and by

various community-oriented organizations. If the member wants to call

it puffery, I guess he's entitled to do that.

MR. HANSON:

I wonder if the minister would advise the House as to how many of those

parcels of Crown agricultural land in the Peace River area are coming

out for the first time. How many of those parcels have come out before?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

First of all, Mr. Chairman, it's a nothing question. Does it really

matter? Farrell Creek — I can't answer that. There are 31 or 32 parcels

of arable land up there, approximately 400 acres each parcel. If there

had been some land released for agricultural development in the past in

that area and it failed, it was probably because of limited access to

the area. I've been to Farrell Creek. We spent a lot of money on

putting what I consider to be a too-high-class road into the Farrell

Creek area. The Ministry of Highways seems to set pretty high

standards. I told the minister that I don't think we should have a

trans-Canada highway in the Farrell Creek area. Nevertheless, I think

we need a good road access so that people can get into the area once

the land is available — so they won't have to go in by dogsled or on

horseback, but could drive into the country.

It really

doesn't matter whether the land had been released before. I'm not going

to research whether the land we are releasing had been released before

at one time, because it really makes no difference whether it had or

had not. There could be a variety of reasons why the lands reverted to

the Crown. It could be marriage breakup; it could be for a great

variety of reasons. The guy probably didn't have sufficient finances to

clear the land, or to remove the aspen to Put it under cultivation. I

don't know what the reasons are. In some instances land does revert to

the Crown. In most instances it's because of non-performance.

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Chairman, the minister seems to keep missing the point. The point

I'm raising is that the expectation level he raised over the amounts of

land, the kinds of land and the location of land that were going to be

made available in British Columbia.... It just hasn't materialized.

Rather than being frank and candid in these news releases and saying

that land that has previously been out but is now back in the hands of

the Crown is going to go out again, he says here there's new

agricultural land becoming available. He's not specific in terms of the

expectations of young British Columbians elsewhere that want to get

access to this land.

For the first time he stands up and

says it's going to be in the Peace River area, and there may be a

little in the Cariboo. When I ask him about Vancouver Island, he talks

about Douglas Street. There are many people on Vancouver Island who

would like to farm on Crown land. You should tell them that there's no

chance whatsoever. You have consistently raised their expectations.

far as the non-forest use of provincial forest Crown land, would the

minister please advise me how many applications have been processed on

Vancouver Island? It's a large island — 350 miles long.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

The member has to realize that there is no Crown land available in

downtown Courtenay, downtown Comox, downtown Nanaimo, downtown

Parksville or downtown Port Hardy. There is no agricultural land

available. You seem to forget that most of the land on Vancouver Island

is privately held. It's held in a variety of other timber tenures as

well.

In my press release I'm identifying certain parcels of

land that will be released for agricultural development. I'm not saying

that they're going to be in downtown Victoria; I'm saying that they're

going to be in the Cariboo area, the Peace River area, the Omineca area

and the Skeena area, essentially. That's where we have agricultural

land still available. If the member wants to suggest that I should be

releasing some land in downtown Victoria, unfortunately we have no

agricultural Crown land there.

MR. HANSON: We're not making much headway, Mr. Chairman.

I'd

like to move the minister back up to the Peace River on this

agricultural land. I would like him to tell the House how much money is

going to be allocated for experimental work to assist the people who

take over this Crown agricultural land — in other words, the

experimental farm aspect and the testing to ensure that there are no

failures. He talked earlier about people losing the land because of

marriage breakdowns and so on. There are people who are going to

acquire that land that are going to require assistance in terms of the

proper crops and the proper approach. I'm not making this up; I've

talked to people in the area and this is something they'd like and

something that would be helpful. Is there

[ Page 3772 ]

going

to be any kind of assistance in terms of the utilization of that land

through testing and experiments? I understand your ministry has some

test plots. Is that correct? Do you, working in conjunction with the

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), have some test land for

experimentation of crops and so on?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

You're in the wrong ministry, talking about growing crops. Those

questions about experimenting with different kinds of crops that can be

grown in different regions would be better put to the Minister of

Agriculture. It's his responsibility and not mine. Mine is to make

arable land available to people who want to participate in agricultural

development in the province. Then if they need any assistance in the

type of crops that should be grown.... There are a lot of

agriculturalists in the Ministry of Agriculture who would be readily

willing to assist them and to advise them on the type of soils and

climatic conditions. They should go to the Ministry of Agriculture.

MR. HANSON:

The minister tells us that we are not going to be able to farm in

Courtenay, Duncan, downtown Victoria, and so on. Let's talk about

recreational lots. How many recreational lots have been processed in

the northern half of Vancouver Island or, say, in all of Vancouver

Island in the last year? Could you maybe count them on one hand or two

fingers?

HON. MR. CHABOT: How much Crown land is there on Vancouver Island?

MR. HANSON:

You see, this is the kind of baloney, puffery and expectation thing.

Why don't you issue a release saying that anyone who wants any of the

Crown land on Vancouver Island can forget it in terms of agriculture,

recreational lots and in terms of non-forest use? It ain't there. This

is including all of the coast, not just downtown Granville Street or

Windermere Park but all of Vancouver and all the coast.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

We're just picking up the information on recreational and rural

residential on Vancouver Island. We have 20 lots of Port Hardy rural;

Hyde Creek rural, 28; Port Alberni rural, 15; Nanoose Bay rural, 14.

MR. HANSON: These are subdivisions, aren't they? These aren't recreational lots.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

No, they're rural residential. We are developing 17 recreational lots

on Vancouver Island and on the lower mainland we are developing 89.

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Chairman, not only do we not have recreational lots in most areas,

but I want to talk briefly about the way that they will now be

acquired. In the past it was possible for an average person on an

average wage to make application and to make payments, and to get the

use of the land. You know what is happening now, Mr. Chairman? You

won't believe this. They're moving into a 30-year prepaid lease. The

person pays 75 percent of market value for a 30-year prepaid lease. The

average person and the average young family are going to have a pretty

tough time coming up with 75 percent of market value within 90 days to

acquire a nonexistent recreational lot.

Can the minister

advise me why he has moved to this procedure? Because, do you know, Mr.

Chairman, what my inkling is? They're moving into an area where they

don't have to manage recreational lots any more. In other words, they

don't have to keep track of them — the payments, the accounting, the

bookkeeping, and do all the day-to-day kind of managing. It's just cash

on the barrel — 75 percent of market value — for a 30-year prepaid

lease. I think that's discriminating against the average British

Columbian who cannot afford that 75 percent of market value.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

I consider that a bunch of nonsense. First of all, regarding the price,

we're not talking about lot values in downtown Victoria. We're talking

about recreational lots adjacent to waterfront. The 30-year prepaid

lease and the 75 percent of market value applies only to the waterfront

lots. The lots that are behind the waterfront lots will all be sold. We

encountered great difficulties under the old socialist approach of

handling lots and leases, and the bureaucracy involved — appraisals

every five years. And we did have many people approach us to own these

recreational lots in fee simple. So we've made it possible for these

people to own their own little recreational lot. What's wrong with

that? We believe in the private ownership of land. That's where we

differ, my friend. You believe the state should own all the land; we

believe that people should own the land. That's the difference.

Mr.

Chairman, I'll just give you an example of what people will have to pay

for 30-year prepaid lease on a waterfront lot: here's one on Quadra

Island — this is at 75 percent of market value — for $4,987. Here's

another one at $2,587, another one at $4,950....

MR. LEA: Do you take Chargex?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Almost.

they range anywhere from $7,425 all the way down to $2,587. And these

are waterfront properties; they're not behind the waterfront. I don't

think they're excessive. We've concluded that the average income of

people who lease the recreational lots in the province is between

$25,000 and $28,000. So I don't think these figures, even at the lesser

income, are going to pose any serious financial problem on someone

being able to own a second home or a recreational lot, which I haven't

had the luxury of owning.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I think that Quadra lot draw was about a year or a year and a half ago.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, these are lots that are available now.

MR. HANSON:

With the decentralization in your ministry, why do all the funding

approvals have to be down in your office? Why can't you give the region

a pot of money to manage and allocate as they would like? I mean,

what's the point in decentralizing if all the control is still in

Victoria?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I don't dispense money by the potful, Mr. Member.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, is the minister telling me that funding approvals are made in the region?

[ Page 3773 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't know.

MR. KING: Can the minister tell us anything?

HON. MR. CHABOT: That member for Revelstoke Slocan....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh, that's right, Shuswap-Revelstoke.

have funds that are allocated for each region. I don't know what the

member is driving at. Estimates of the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr.

Fraser) were up; he was talking about the need for the promotion and

the purchase of B.C. grown fruit and vegetables. He was really

promoting it. He was told at that time that that had been long-standing

policy. So I'm rather confused — and I'm sure the member is just as

confused — with his question. It appears to be another question of

promoting fruit and vegetables on the ferries.

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Chairman, if it's not a legitimate question to ask why the minister

decentralized his ministry, at the same time maintaining all of the

funding approval controls within his own office.... What's the point in

decentralizing in the first place? You're just wasting the taxpayer's

money. I'm not going to sit around and wait for another answer, because

it will probably be like the last nine.

What I am going to

say, Mr. Chairman, is that if you have to characterize this ministry,

it is one of puffery, it is one of news releases, it is one of

recycling old Crown lots and trying to get mileage out of the Xerox

machine. There are very few new recreational lots. They are only in a

couple of specific locations in the province. He has raised expectation

levels so high among young people, who think they are going to acquire

Crown land but can't acquire Crown land for farming because they can't

pay top dollar on the auction block. They cannot afford the 75 percent

30-year prepaid lease and so on. So, Mr. Chairman, the whole thing is a

sham.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'Il just give a quick answer

to the member for downtown Victoria. He talks about top dollar. I told

him what land prices are and what prices are in the Peace River — $40

to $50 an acre. Our experience has been that the bonus bid has been

very reasonable. About 18 months ago — maybe almost two years ago now —

one parcel of 1,000 acres of arable land was sold for $36,000 and the

bonus bid was $300. I'll tell you, if you think that that is

excessive.... If people can't pay a $300 bonus bid on a large, viable

parcel of land like that, well.... I don't accept your comment in that

respect.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

anticipate releasing 365 recreational lots throughout British Columbia

this year. The member says we're doing nothing about making

recreational lots available. I think 365 is a fair number for one

fiscal year.

MRS. WALLACE: I want to talk to the

minister about some Crown land that he does own. It's very much in the

heart of the populated area. That land is some 4,000 acres that are

owned by the Harbours Board in the area of Tsawwassen–Roberts Bank.

There has been a concerted effort by the federal government and by the

regional district to have that land — which is in the ALR — placed

under the control of the Agricultural Land Commission. As it is now, it

sits pretty well idle with very little return coming from it. If it

were placed under the control of the Land Commission — and

incidentally, I understand that the Land Commission, is quite agreeable

and anxious to have control of this land — then they could utilize that

land on the basis of leasing it out for.... The minister, I think, is

indicating that it has nothing to do with him. Well, that minister is

responsible for land in this province. He is responsible, as I

understand it, for foreshore rights. I believe that he has some

responsibility to ensure that that land in that area, which is under

the control of the Harbours Board, is placed under a more viable use,

which could happen if it were placed under the Agricultural Land

Commission.

He has some powers in cabinet, I would suspect —

or I would hope. I'm urging him as the minister responsible for land

use in this province to ensure that more viable use is made of that

4,000 acres of land in the Roberts Bank area. Certainly it's not being

used to any great extent at this point in time. It's lying pretty well

idle. It could be used, and if he is so concerned about making Crown

land available for young farmers, there is an ideal opportunity for him

to use his influence to make some very viable land available for

agricultural purposes. I would urge the minister to take some steps in

that direction.

Another concern that I have regarding land

relates to these very Crown leases that the member for Victoria has

been talking about. I wonder whether the minister is looking at the

size of parcels he's making available, particularly adjacent to

predominantly rangeland areas, when he talks about the Cariboo, for

example. A lot of concern has been expressed to me by established

ranchers who are a bit concerned about what may well develop into the

establishment of a sort of real estate development on the borders of

their rangeland. They seem very concerned about this, and I would like

some assurance from the minister that that's not going to happen and

that he's going to ensure that this land being put up is in parcels of

sufficient size to allow a viable operation.

I know that

some of the ranchers concerned will be putting in bids to obtain

extensions to their own rangelands, and I certainly hope that some of

them, those who need to expand, will be able to do this. I hope too

that it will be available to people who are genuinely interested in

establishing themselves in the agricultural or ranching industry.

But

the thing that I and those ranchers don't want to see happen is small

lots being made available on the perimeters of predominantly

agricultural land or rangeland. Certainly there are enough problems

with that interface right now without extending it. I would like some

assurance from the minister on that item.

The third item I

want to raise with the minister relates to historic subdivisions. I'm

sure the minister has read the most recent accounts in the press,

yesterday and today, relative to Charles Moar. That's a very sad story.

As your colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) and

your colleague responsible for the operation of BCRIC will know, I have

tried very hard to have that particular property, the Walasheen Ranch,

purchased by government, because it is a historic subdivision. It's a

very large parcel of very good agricultural land, particularly suited

to a backgrounding operation for agriculture. That was what Mr. Moar

wanted: he

[ Page 3774 ]

wanted

so much to sell that piece of property as one unit so it could be used

for that. But unfortunately it's made up of a great many small parcels.

Now, of course, because I wasn't successful in persuading Mr. Helliwell

or the Minister of Agriculture, who is responsible for the Land

Commission, to put some money forward to purchase and consolidate that

property, we have it in the hands of the Heller Corporation, with

headquarters in Toronto, who have a client in the United States. We're

going to find an American landowner coming in there and taking those

several thousand acres of land, good land very much needed for a

backgrounding operation. That's one thing the Minister of Agriculture

and I agree on, though we don't agree that the government should move

in and make it available so that that could take place.

I'm

asking this minister, as the minister responsible for land in the

province, what he proposes to do about historic subdivisions. This is

one outstanding example where it is really working to the detriment of

our province to have a piece of land, which could be so viable as a

unit, fall into the hands of a finance company and eventually into the

hands of an American owner who will simply sell it off in small, very

unviable parcels and make a huge profit.

Mr. Moar was

dedicated to maintaining that in one parcel, and I'm shocked to learn

the effect that the loss of that property has had on him. It's a very

unfortunate thing. It could have been prevented had the government had

the foresight to move in and consolidate that property and make it

available to the agricultural industry or to some concern that could

have made a very viable backgrounding operation there that would have

brought millions of dollars into the economy of British Columbia,

rather than shipping it out to Alberta or somewhere else.

That's

a responsibility this minister has to face. He says: "It's not my

department; it's not my responsibility." He is the minister responsible

for lands, just as he is responsible for housing. He can't slough it

off and say it's not his responsibility. Maybe he can; maybe that's

what he's going to do. But it isn't right, and it isn't fair to the

citizens of this province.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman,

I'm pleased to see that you know the appropriate riding that I

represent. For the edification of the minister, who insists on

referring to me as the member from Revelstoke-Slocan, I want to advise

him that his government gerrymandered that riding out of existence just

before the last election. So I am now the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke. Good prevailed, in any event.

Mr.

Chairman, I do have a couple of questions for the minister from uptown

Invermere. I want to ask a couple of favours of my friend and colleague

from the interior of the province, one with respect to the new

reservoir to be formed behind the Revelstoke Canyon Dam. I think the

minister may have some influence on that — I'm not sure that it's

precisely his narrow area of jurisdiction, but I'm sure he does have

some influence — and I don't want to see that reservoir end up as

another ode to some has-been Social Credit cabinet minister or

something of that nature. I would much rather see the new recreational

reservoir that will be developed there have some meaning in provincial

terms, and therefore I would like to see it named the Revelstoke Canyon

Reservoir or the Revelstoke-Columbia Reservoir or something associated

with the area in which it resides and something which designates that

part of the province for the benefit of tourist travel and so on.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Chabot-King.

MR. KING:

Not Chabot Reservoir. Chabot is everywhere, and there is still some

dampness associated perhaps in certain regions, but I don't think that

Chabot Reservoir would be an appropriate name at all. The Revelstoke

city council has petitioned the minister to ensure that the proper

designation of that historic area of the province remains and does not

become sullied with political figureheads being represented in the

name. I think that's a good suggestion.

One other thing I

have to mention to the minister is the Seymour Arm recreation area at

the head of Shuswap Lake. The ministry has had some correspondence

regarding tourists camping in that area and having no water supply.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Where is that?

MR. KING:

Seymour Arm at the north end of Shuswap Lake. A rather large number of

tourists that use that area are obliged to go knocking on the doors of

private dwellings to obtain a water supply so they can have a cup of

tea in the morning, and that type of thing, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not coffee?

MR. KING:

If we really have a priority on tourism in this province, then we

should not subject our visitors to having to go and beg, bucket in

hand, so that they can have a cup of tea. I suggest that's a scandalous

situation, and, Mr. Minister, I think that perhaps even though there is

a crude instrument of restraint in place in this province, enforced by

the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), you just may be influential

enough to jar loose a few bucks to pipe in a little bit of water, so

that the tourists can stay up there without having to beg or without

having to go down to the lakeshore and scoop it out first thing in the

morning, and that kind of thing.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Thank you. We'll put a well in.

MR. KING:

Finally, the Silver Star recreation situation, Mr. Chairman. They plan

to extend their recreational boundaries into the watershed area now

used by the large city of Armstrong. While the residents of Armstrong

and the councils of the city and the municipality do not object to

reasonable use, to the multi-use concept of recreation land, they are

genuinely and properly concerned about any type of activity that might

befoul their water supply, I think with great validity. There are

certain activities that can properly take place so long as they are

tightly regulated and so on.

The big problem, Mr. Chairman,

is that the minister appoints a commission to oversee this process and

the application to expand the recreational boundaries and then he

denies the very people who have the most to lose any representation on

that commission. That is antidemocratic. I strongly appeal to the

minister to relax from the rigid posture he has taken in this respect

and to allow some representation from those people who stand to have

their pure supply of drinking water affected by this further

alienation. It's a reasonable request and it's not too late. I strongly

and sincerely recommend to the minister that he review that decision

with regard to putting someone from that community on the commission —

not necessarily an elected representative of the city but a local

citizen — so that the area may have some assurance that the questions

regarding the proper protection

[ Page 3775 ]

of their water supply are properly raised and properly weighed before decisions are made.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

I'll just make a couple of quick responses, Mr. Chairman. We'll

cooperate fully with the city of Revelstoke to have a park of

provincial significance up on the new reservoir. The member has

suggested that we not sully that body of water with the name of some

has-been or some present politician. I like the purity of the

suggestion on the part of the member; but I recall that when Bob

Williams was the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources he

sullied the name of the water behind the Mica Dam by calling it

McNaughton Lake after....

MR. KING: A famous Canadian.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Yes, he was a famous Canadian; but the significant reasons for its

naming were the NDP support of the McNaughton plan to completely flood

out the Columbia valley — a draw-down reservoir in the Columbia valley

— and the friendship between Bob Williams and the nephew of the late

General McNaughton. Thank God this government in its wisdom has seen

fit to change that name back to an old, historical.... I'm not going to

give you that speech again. In recognition of the contribution which

the natives made in that area in helping the early explorers like David

Thompson map that region, it has been renamed Kinbasket Lake after a

famous old chief who still has some descendants residing in the

Windermere valley. I worked very hard to have that changed and I am

very proud of the name.

On the question of representation on

the advisory committee — you called it a commission or something of

that nature; it is the Silver Star Advisory Committee. Its role is

virtually at an end. It has just one little task to conclude before it

disappears. The member expressed some concern. He talked about

representations from the city of Armstrong. We have invited

representations from that community on the proposed development of the

Silver Star area. I don't believe we received any representations. We

received some concerns from the city on the question of the proposed

development.

I want to assure the member that the proposed

development of the on-site residential facilities on the hill is not in

a water-supply drainage area that provides water to the city of

Armstrong. Essentially there will be no impact on the purity of the

water that is supplied to the city of Armstrong. I think I have stated

that in correspondence I've had with the member and, probably, with

city of Armstrong.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the

ministry did indeed receive representation and a submission from the

city of Armstrong, dated July 27, 1979, in addition to individual

letters from the council and private citizens in the area. It's a neat

dodge for the minister to say, as he sometimes does: "They can make

submissions." But someone else is making the decisions. Guess who? The

area which seeks to intrude into the watershed has full representation

on that advisory committee. The area which stands to lose and be

adversely affected has no representation whatsoever. If that doesn't

appear to the minister as a denial of natural justice or at least a

denial of fair representation, then I can only conclude that that's why

he represents the party he does and that's why I am on the opposite

side of the political equation.

I don't think that is very

fair and the local community doesn't think it is very fair either. They

wanted some assurance. They are not rigid about it, and are not saying:

"Halt all recreation." They simply wanted to ascertain, make sure and

have a voice in deciding what kind of activities might be allowed there

without interfering with their water supply. I believe that is a

thoroughly fair posture.

In terms of the name of the lake,

what I had in mind was that I didn't want it be called the W.A.C.

Bennett Dam, Williston Lake, the Leslie R. Peterson Rehabilitation

Centre or any of those other parochial old Social Credit names that

bestir not-so-pleasant memories out of the past at times. I didn't want

that kind of narrow parochialism associated with the area.

I'm

surprised that the minister takes exception to the name of Andrew

McNaughton. He is a famous Canadian who distinguished himself in battle

in two wars for this nation. He was an outstanding engineer with the

federal government for many years and did a lot of the initial work on

the Columbia River development, whether you agree or not.

that as it may, I didn't want it called one of those names, or Gaglardi

Way. I wanted something more representative of the province, its

history and its own particular terrain, which is wonderful in itself

without besmirching it with partisan political considerations.

MR. PASSARELL:

Mr. Chairman, the minister praised himself earlier for giving $6

million worth of Crown land to help communities. I'd like to talk about

the minister's favourite piece of Crown land that he gave away, for the

good of the community supposedly, to that holistic society. It is a

Philippine-based group of the Church of Scientology, with 60 percent of

its directors based in the Yukon, 38 percent located in the United

States, and 2 percent located in British Columbia. I'm wondering why

the minister gave such a piece of Crown land to the Church of

Scientology when many residents of the area are opposed to the Church

of Scientology and when residents of the community of Atlin are being

denied Crown land parcels.

The Church of Scientology speaks

for itself, Mr. Chairman. They have had numerous court cases in the

United States for violent crimes; they have been charged with attempted

murder of politicians who stood up and spoke against them. I'm just

wondering if this is one of the reasons why the Minister of Lands,

Parks and Housing gave away Crown land to the Church of Scientology.

Was he afraid of what might happen to him from the church? There is an

example of three politicians in the community of Cleveland, Ohio, who

stood up against the Church of Scientology and spoke about their

movement in the area — getting Crown land and putting in a church.

certainly hope the minister isn't afraid of the Church of Scientology.

This is the first time they have ever received Crown land to build a

church in a pyramid in the province of British Columbia. I could be

mistaken. I think it's the first time the Church of Scientology has

built their holistic pyramid church in Canada. I think they are only

located at the present time in Mexico, the United States and Latin

America.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

It was

interesting to hear the minister's response when he was talking about

his philosophical beliefs on who should own Crown land. I just wonder

on the basis of what philosophical belief the Church of Scientology

should receive

[ Page 3776 ]

Crown

land in British Columbia when 98 percent of their directors aren't even

residents of British Columbia, when residents of the community of Atlin

who've lived there all their lives can't receive Crown land at the

present time, because they're told that there's a certain plan. There

was a memo sent to residents in Atlin from Lands, Parks and Housing —

from the Smithers lands branch — stating that no more Crown land would

be made available in the community of Atlin at the present time because

of a Placer Developments' proposed settlement plan — Crown land would

be held at bay. Yet the Church of Scientology — which, to say the

least, is a very dangerous organization — receives Crown land to build

a holistic pyramid church and supposedly some type of medical centre.

I'd just like to have the minister answer why the Church of Scientology receives Crown lands when residents of Atlin can't.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

We're developing 33 recreational lots in the Fourth of July Bay, in

Atlin. We're developing 20 residential lots in the community of Atlin.

I think we've been fairly active in making land available to the

residents of that community.

He brings up the holistic

society. They originally applied for 160 acres — a quarter of a

section

of land — up there, and we thought it was beyond the needs that they'd

expressed in their application. We determined that they're Canadians,

and they are eligible for 10 acres of land, based on their application.

They meet the criteria of availability of Crown land. We've offered

them — I don't know whether they've accepted it or not — 10 acres of

land. I want to assure you, Mr. Member, that in my ministry we accept

applications based on certain conditions; we don't make moral decisions.

MR. PASSARELL: The minister stated that the signees were Canadian citizens. Is that what you said, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Chairman, I don't have the application in front of me but, needless

to say, in order to acquire Crown land in British Columbia you have to

be a Canadian. We don't make moral judgments either.

MR. PASSARELL:

The figures were that 60 percent of the board of directors were located

in the Yukon. I would suppose that they were Canadian citizens. If you

go to the Society Act and look at who belongs to the Church of

Scientology, 38 percent of the board of directors are residing in the

United States, and 2 percent are British Columbia residents. How can

such a large group, 98 percent of whom aren't even residing in British

Columbia, pick up Crown land to build a church and a holistic pyramid?

change the debate to the third aspect of the minister's

responsibilities, we'll talk a bit about parks. During this speech

there will be a number of questions raised to the minister regarding

park issues that I certainly hope the minister will be able to resolve

quickly, before we see a further erosion of our provincial park lands.

Erosion

is seen in this year's estimates for parks and outdoor recreation,

which, if the minister is aware, are down from a $23 million allocation

last year to $22 million for this year.

The number of cutbacks that the minister has made in the last few months are

in acquisition of lands, machinery and equipment — 30 percent in provincial

parks; grants, contributions and subsidiaries are cut back by 650 percent; faculty

development is cut back from last year; regional parks grants were $600,000

last year and not a penny this year; materials and supplies were cut by 12 percent

and land acquisition was again cut from last year. I'd like to know how

the minister, who is supposedly concerned for parks, could allow this type of

drastic cutback to happen. These are such massive cuts — 650 percent in grants

to 400 percent in facility development. There must be reason for the minister

cutting back on parks in this province.

How

can the people of British Columbia get the value of their initial

investment into parks, which they paid for through their tax dollars,

when parks are being cut back for the benefit, as it appears now, of

private park operators?

The first issue I'd like to raise

with the minister is park fees. The minister is quite aware that there

has been a definite groundswell of opposition to the minister's

statements that camping fees in provincial public parks will increase

by 25 percent to 50 percent. Why did this happen? I suppose there are a

number of reasons. The private campground cartel, which is a new cartel

in the province of British Columbia, exerted enough pressure on the

minister to increase campground fees in the provincial parks. They

exerted their influence, Mr. Chairman, and the effect was that people

going into our public parks are going to have to pay almost 50 percent

more now for a camp space.

The editor of B.C. Outdoors , Mr. Don Stainsby, published a letter which appeared in the March 13 Victoria Times . This was an open letter from the B.C. Motels, Resorts and Trailer Parks Association newsletter.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, if you could bring the member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) back to order, I would appreciate going on.

HON. MR. MAIR: At least you can pronounce Kamloops.

MR. PASSARELL: There are many words we can pronounce. I just hope

that the member for Kamloops doesn't talk the way he's noted for.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will all hon. members come to order.

MR. PASSARELL:

The newsletter from the B.C. Motels, Resorts and Trailer Parks

Association was taking credit for the increase in the park fees. I

wonder why a private organization is taking credit for the 25 percent

to 50 percent increase that the minister's office supposedly brought

about. Parks are intended for people to use and enjoy as part of this

province. To bring parks into the category of direct business

competition is denying residents of this province a given right of

enjoyment of the parks. To increase park fees 50 percent is downright

shameful.

Mrs. Vida Noble of Vancouver, along with many

other residents, has written to the minister stating her opposition to

this increase. On March 25, 1980, included in a letter to the minister

was a petition signed by many residents of her area opposing the

increase. Mrs. Noble's letter came along with Mrs. Helgeron's letter

from Vancouver. She also sent a petition to the minister.

[ Page 3777 ]

Another

aspect concerning this was brought to my attention by Mr. Norman Lyles.

He stated that when recreational vehicles go into campgrounds that are

full, they are being denied space to park. I'd like the minister to

explain to this House why recreational vehicles are not allowed to park

in campgrounds when the campsites are full. It appears that the private

park operators located right next door to provincial parks will get the

business from the overflow. They charge higher fees and this allows

tourists to be at the mercy of the private park operators who swarm

around the area.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL:

Sure, for provincial parks. Then they're increased 50 percent and are

being denied space to bring their recreational vehicles in and they

have to go to a private campground,

Also, I'd like to talk

about a memo dated January 14, 1980: An implementation of three-year

objectives planned for parks and outdoor recreational division.

Concerning ourselves with the section-planning program, there are a

number of sections. I'll just to go over them briefly and have the

minister explain what these have in relation to provincial parks.

No.

6 on page 2 says: "to identify the public and private sector roles in

the provision of recreational facilities adjacent to provincial parks

and the provision of programs within provincial parks."

Going

on on page 4, there are a number of sections in the operational aspect.

The first one in the terms of reference: "to achieve a 10 percent

efficiency reduction in provincial parks in the province."

No. 4: "to study the feasibility of levelling a day-use facility fee in provincial parks."

No. 5: "to implement self-serve campground fee collection throughout the provincial park system by 1982."

No.

6: "to annually review all provincial park fee levels to avoid unfair

competition and competitive pricing with the private sector."

I just wonder, Mr. Chairman, why our provincial parks have to be in direct competition with the private sector.

No.

7: "to utilize cost efficiency contract services in provincial parks as

follows: maximize use of tax and services by 1982; for all recreational

program services in provincial parks without subsidies by 1982." Does

that quote mean that the provincial parks are going to be without

subsidy by the provincial government by 1982? It appears as another

sellout to the campground cartel in this province.

There was a letter in the March 7 Province in the outdoor

section by Tony Eberts in which he talks further about the B.C. Outdoors

article: "It has been successful in convincing the government to raise

the rates of all government campgrounds. The major breakthrough will

assist all private operators in the months to come. If you have a

government park nearby, be sure to let us know so we can put you on our

mailing list for the April meeting."

Another question raised in this

article is: what about old-age pensioners,

single parents, citizens who beg or borrow equipment to take groups of underprivileged

kids away for the weekend to the outdoors. What effect are these 50 percent

increases going to have on the people of this province who can't always

afford to buy tents and go camping? A 50 percent increase is going to have a

drastic effect on some people in this province. Nor must we overlook the significant

fact that our tax dollars have built the provincial sites. Why should we pay

again to use them? Surely the government should be more concerned with trying

to hold the line against inflation than instigating price increases as high

as 50 percent.

Another

topic is hunting in parks, specifically in Spatsizi Park, in the

northwest

section of this province. Hundreds of animals are being

slaughtered in the park by head-hunters. It is interesting to note that

many people are concerned about this aspect.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL:

Mr. Chairman, could you bring the man from Kamloops back to order

again? He's getting red in the face. I'm scared he might get a little

violent.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon.

member, please, no personal allusions. I ask all hon. members to come

to order. The member for Atlin continues on vote 155.

MR. PASSARELL:

This is concerning a letter from Miss Owen Mason from Vancouver, who

wrote to the minister on May 6, 1980. To paraphrase part of her letter:

"It has come to my attention that the Parks Act in my province of B.C.

is being violated, and I'm wondering why you, my representative, allow

this. Item 6(3) states: Our provincial parks are dedicated to the

preservation of their natural environment for the inspiration, use and

enjoyment of the parks."

Mr. Chairman, Miss Mason was wondering:

"How

can this be when both hunting and trapping are legally done in my

provincial park? Is there no place for peace and solitude and freedom

for the citizens of B.C. or for our wildlife animals?

"All

the government is interested in is making money at the expense of the

animals' death and suffering by the hunting that's going on in

provincial parks."

Another aspect, Mr. Chairman, is the March 26, 1980,

article in the Province ,

the headline of which is "Wildlife and Loggers Don't Mix." What is the

minister going to do to alleviate a serious problem that's happening

right now in our provincial parks — wildlife being further eroded and

pushed off their natural habittat by logging firms, hunters and

trappers.

The third aspect, Mr. Chairman, is development in

our parks. As stated in the previous articles, wildlife is losing out

to development in our provincial parks, as the minister should be

aware. Mr. Bob Nixon of the Sierra Club has published numerous press

releases regarding logging in our provincial parks. One of the articles

is dated April 10, 1980.

"The Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing has no objection to logging of lodgepole pine

in class A provincial parks, according to a Sierra Club spokesman, Mr.

Bob Nixon. The ministry's position became known at a recent Okanagan

meeting between public interest groups and government officials

concerning the future of a sub-alpine class A park proposed for Brent

Mountain. The Sierra Club charges

[ Page 3778 ]

that the park logging policy is a result of pressure upon cabinet

by the forest industry for more timber supply at any cost."

At this stage, Mr. Chairman, it appears the government members' stomachs are rumbling.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: Are we going to go on through lunch?

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Why not?

MR. PASSARELL: If we go on through lunch, these guys might go wild on us without food.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are on vote 155. Could the member please contain his remarks to vote 155 and avoid personal allusions?

MR. PASSARELL:

Yes, Mr. Chairman. I move the committee rise, report progress, and ask

leave to sit again, after the members have eaten so they can come back

in a good mood.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd like to speak to the motion, if I may.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not debatable, hon. member.

HON. MR. GARDOM: If the hon. member happens to be the last speaker and he's not going to be too long, we can finish between now....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Are you holding your hand up for exercise, or what do you have in mind?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. House Leader, the motion is not debatable; it is either carried or defeated. The motion is on the floor.

Motion carried.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon., Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:05 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1980,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada