1981 Legislative Session: 3rd 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, JUNE 18, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6271 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Statements

Terrace schools dispute. Mr. Howard –– 6271

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 6271

Real Estate Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 23). Hon. Mr. Hyndman

Introduction and first reading –– 6272

An Act to Amend the Capital Commission Act (Bill M205). Mr. Barber

Introduction and first reading –– 6272

Bikeways Development Act (Bill M207). Mr. Barber

Introduction and first reading –– 6272

Oral Questions

Ku Klux Klan activities. Mr. Barrett –– 6272

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Leggatt

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

Chabot)

On vote 149: minister's office –– 6274

Mr. King

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Lockstead

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Howard

Division on an amendment

On vote 151: lands and housing –– 6294

Mr. Hanson

Appendix –– 6295

THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: In the gallery

this afternoon are two very important people associated with government

and real estate. Many would observe that for some years Mr. Dermot

Murphy has been a most distinguished secretary of the Real Estate

Council of British Columbia, and as many who know him would add, a

charming Irishman. With him is Mr. Tim Hammill, recently appointed

deputy superintendent of brokers. The public service of British

Columbia is fortunate in being able to raid Mr. Hammill from private

practice in Ontario. Would members join me in welcoming Mr. Murphy and

Mr. Hammill.

MS. SANFORD: We have a very special

guest in the gallery today. It's my pleasure to introduce Kate Losinska

who is the president of the Civil and Public Services Association of

Great Britain, which is the largest union of civil servants in that

country. With her is John Fryer, the general secretary of the B.C.

Government Employees Union, and two staff representatives from that

union: Van Buchanan and Sylvia Porter. Kate Losinska is here as a

keynote speaker to the BCGEU convention which begins tomorrow here in

Victoria. I hope you'll give her a very warm welcome.

MR. HALL:

Visiting Victoria today and in the members' gallery, straight from the

examination rooms at the senior secondary school, grades 11 and 12, are

my son Griff and my daughter Tracey visiting Victoria for the first

time in some years. I hope the House will welcome them.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, Little Red is here today with her friends.

MR. HOWARD:

I wonder if I could ask leave of the House to make a statement with

respect to the dispute in Terrace between the school board, and the

teachers.

Leave granted.

TERRACE SCHOOLS DISPUTE

MR. HOWARD:

Schools in Terrace have been closed now for a week as a result of a

difference between the school board and the Terrace District Teachers'

Association. The students are the ones seriously disadvantaged by this

dispute, and it is their scholastic attainment and educational

aspirations which must be considered paramount. The differences between

the school board and the teachers are going to be resolved sometime;

that's inevitable. The sooner the dispute is resolved the better it

will be for the students. Any protraction of the dispute will also add

to the tensions which already exist at all levels in the community.

It's crucial, therefore, for this dispute to be settled as quickly and

as amicably as possible.

The School Act provides that the Minister of Education has charge of the management

of all schools and shall supervise all schools. There are other responsibilities

which devolve upon the minister, but he is responsible for management and supervision,

which, I submit, must be exercised in the current dispute. An impasse exists

at the local level; such being the case the Minister of Education must take

his duties and responsibilities seriously enough to take immediate steps to

have the dispute resolved. I and many others in Terrace cannot understand why

the Minister of Education has failed to take any action which would lead to

a resolution of the dispute. His relative aloofness and failure to fulfill his

responsibilities under the School Act are only further serving to injure the

education of some 4,000 students who are caught in the squeeze.

Just

a short while ago the minister, at my urging earlier, assigned his

deputy minister and assistant deputy minister to assist in resolving

differences between the school board and the teachers in Terrace. The

current dispute has arisen because of differences of opinion over the

agreement reached as a result of that earlier intervention. The most

logical course to pursue is, I submit, to have some additional input by

the same people and the same ministry which was instrumental in

resolving the differences in the first place. That is not considered

appropriate by the Minister of Education. .

He has

additional powers under the School Act: he can designate any member of

the public service to act on his behalf. It may be that the

professional mediation staff of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

Heinrich) could assist. In that regard I have asked the Minister of

Labour to offer the services of his staff. The educational well-being

of the students is too important to be put to one side because of any

minor technical or procedural question. I sincerely hope that the

Minister of Labour can be of assistance in the settlement of this

dispute, for some third-party neutral involvement is essential.

HON. MR. SMITH:

Mr. Speaker, as the member has alluded, we have already intervened in

the Terrace dispute. In fact I took the unprecedented step of sending

the Deputy Minister of Education and the assistant deputy minister to

Terrace three weeks ago. After their meeting there with teachers and

the board, a procedure was agreed upon by both sides. Part of that

procedure involved transfer appeal hearings for the two principals who

had been transferred back to the classroom. Those appeals are taking

place now under very liberal terms of reference. Also, the strike was

initially averted.

Since that time, a little over a week ago

a work stoppage occurred, consisting of about four-fifths of the

schools in that district. Schools are still open in Hazelton, Stewart

and several other areas, but in Terrace itself and its environs the

schools have been closed for over a week.

During this past

week my deputy minister has been in touch daily with teachers'

representatives and with the school board of Terrace, and has assisted

in trying to bring a resolution to this difficulty. It has not been

successful yet. There have been problems with the

interpretation of

conditions and with communication between the two sides. I most

sincerely urge — and have urged — the teachers of Terrace to return to

the classroom. There is absolutely no reason, either under the act or

in common sense, why those schools should be closed. The process that

was in place and agreed upon was underway. The appeals are being heard

and have not yet been determined. I regret that the teachers have not

seen fit to go back to the classroom.

I think it would be a

very dangerous precedent for me to intervene personally when there is

an illegal job action in school districts in this province, and to do

so without regard

[ Page 6272 ]

for

the prerogatives and the responsibilities of a locally elected school

board. I should also advise the House that the school board of Terrace

has had meetings with the teachers during the past couple of days, and

there were lengthy meetings yesterday. I do not intend to erode the

responsibility of local school boards when they are dealing with a

matter, and I will not do so.

I urge the teachers to return

to the classroom and to put their students first for the last week of

school. I would hope that would come about immediately.

Introduction of Bills

REAL ESTATE AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

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

a bill intituled Real Estate Amendment Act, 1981.

Bill

23 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.

MR. BARBER: I ask leave to introduce a bill for the second year in a row:

An Act to Amend the Capital Commission Act.

Leave granted.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE CAPITAL COMMISSION ACT

On a motion by Mr. Barber, Bill

M205,

An Act to Amend the Capital Commission Act, introduced, read a

first time and ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. BARBER: I ask leave to introduce a bill for the sixth year in a row: the Bikeways Development Act.

Leave granted.

BIKEWAYS DEVELOPMENT ACT

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, hoping it will pass this year, I beg to move that the bill be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for

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

Motion approved.

Oral Questions

KU KLUX KLAN ACTIVITIES

MR. BARRETT:

I have a question for the Minister of Labour, as the person responsible

for the Human Rights Commission. The Klan is at it again. I want to ask

the minister whether or not he has asked the Attorney-General to

investigate the carrying of arms by the Klan to see if there is any

violation of the Canadian Criminal Code because of the carrying and

flaunting of those arms in their public activities.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of discussions between the

Attorney-General and me with respect to this matter. This problem was

brought to my attention this morning by the press when I was leaving

cabinet. I had an opportunity around noon to read the

article published

in the Province to which I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition is referring.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt of the minister's sincerity, but I think

the Klan does. The Klan's spokesman, Mr. Saunders, is quoted in this

morning's paper. He "isn't concerned about threats from Labour Minister

Jack Heinrich that the Human Rights Code will be toughened to outlaw

the Klan. 'We'll just change our name, that's all,' he said." There

have been no threats from the Minister of Labour. There hasn't been any

action.

When will that minister release the McAlpine report so the people of this province can know what's going on?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the concern of the member — in fact all

members in the House. I would mention that we are concerned. We are

also concerned with the complexity of the matter. I want to advise that

this matter is being addressed. We are addressing it at this time.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, most of our members have carried this question. I have

abstained from getting directly involved, because I had hoped that the

minister and the government would come to their senses. Must we now

wait for someone to be killed in this bad racist atmosphere because the

government is refusing to take the action that is so obvious? When is

the Attorney-General going to act on this? When are we going to have

some leadership? We have racism in this province, and you've sat and

done nothing for two months or more.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, when is that minister going to show some leadership and take some action? Shame!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. members, the purpose of question period is to ask

questions and not to make speeches, regardless of how short.,

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, this particular problem is being

addressed, and it will be addressed this session. I would expect it

would be much earlier than the opposition seems to want the public to

believe. I repeat this matter will be addressed during this sitting.

MR. BARRETT:

This is an item beyond opposition or government. The people of this

province expect leadership. I ask the minister again, for what reason

does he have to hide that report from the people of British Columbia?

Whatever it may contain, the report is a public document and should be

released, so that all citizens can deal with it in their own frame of

reference. Why are you hiding the report, Mr. Minister?

[ Page 6273 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

The report is not being hidden. That report was commissioned to

investigate the problem and to allow us as a government to respond the

way we should. In addition, the problem to which the Leader of the

Opposition refers has been here for some time. I sometimes wonder why

it wasn't incorporated in their legislation when introduced.

MR. BARRETT:

After some 80 years of history in this province, the Human Rights Code

was finally submitted to this House and welcomed by all members. That

code is always open to revision by all members. We have had racism as

part of the history of this province. It is raising its head again. I

ask the minister again, what reason is there in his mind to think the

people of British Columbia, as decent people, cannot handle that report

on their own, without political blocking by the government? Do you not

trust the people of British Columbia to deal with that report? What is

being hidden in that report?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr.

Speaker, nothing at all is being hidden. I can also advise all members

that that report will be released during this session,

MR. LAUK:

This is to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. On June It the

Attorney-General was asked whether Klan members carrying firearms had

permits. The Attorney-General replied that long guns don't need

permits. We have had similar technical answers from that

Attorney-General.

I am putting this question to you, sir,

through the Speaker. It is clear from all reports that Klan members are

presently carrying firearms — long or short; it's clear from the Klan's

intentions that the purpose for carrying such firearms is a purpose

dangerous to the public peace, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.

Has the minister requested or demanded of the Attorney-General that

charges be laid?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, that

particular question, with respect to the laying of charges, falls

within the ambit of the Ministry of Attorney-General, and I'm not

responding to that question. But I will tell you that those matters

have been the subject of discussion between me and the Attorney-General.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, I take it that the Minister of Labour has tried to urge on

that intransigent Attorney-General the laying of charges, and he has

refused to do so.

To the Minister of Labour: a man by the

name of Randy Saunders is making public statements — he calls himself

the Grand Titan or the Great Titan of the Klan. These statements are

taunting law enforcement officials, the administration of justice and

this very Legislature.

Has the Minister of Labour decided on

a plan of action to protect the lives and property of all British

Columbia citizens from the threat of the Klan?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I thought that I had answered that question earlier. I thought I made

it clear that as a government we are most concerned. There are some

complexities in addressing the problem. I will tell you that the

problem will be addressed during this sitting. I don't really think I

can say much more. I'll repeat again that the McAlpine report will be

released at approximately the same time.

MR. LEGGATT:

I direct this to the Minister of Labour. He's just stated that the

problem will be addressed during this particular sitting. I presume he

means the session. The problem is that there are people out there in

the Klan who are in violation of at least two sections of the Criminal

Code and one

section of the Firearm Act in the province of British

Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you got evidence?

MR. SPEAKER: May we have the question?

MR. LEGGATT:

Have you consulted with the Attorney-General to determine whether an

investigation has now been completed with regard to all the reported

violations of law by the Klan? Unless you lay charges, you look like

you're on their side. It's time you laid some charges.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I would only ask if the member has any evidence which he can bring forth. It would certainly be most helpful.

Secondly,

with respect to the laying of charges, I would suggest that he direct

his question to the Attorney-General. It doesn't fall within the ambit

of the Ministry of Labour.

MR. LEGGATT: My question

is directed to the Attorney-General. It's now been reported widely that

there have been eight Klan meetings, with cross-burnings. Armed men are

at these meetings. On the surface, clearly, it's a prima facie

violation of the law. Has the Attorney-General completed his

investigation? If so, has he decided to lay charges against this

dangerous organization for its many violations which are reported daily

in the paper?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: As the member for

Coquitlam-Moody well knows, investigations into matters of breaches of

criminal law in this country are made by the police forces. I wish to

assure him, as I have in the past, that every police force in the

province of British Columbia is charged with that very onerous

responsibility. In particular, this is the case with respect to persons

who may be unlawfully carrying arms or using them for purposes other

than those for which they may be lawfully permitted to carry them.

These investigations are underway, have been continuing and will

continue until such time as the police forces can place before Crown

counsel in this province evidence upon which charges can be laid. When

such evidence has been placed before them, charges will be laid and the

perpetrators will be dealt with in the courts of this land.

Let

me also say, however, that while the investigation of such conduct is

the special responsibility of the police forces and law enforcement

agencies in British Columbia, that does not take away from the citizens

in this province the right to come forward when they are possessed of

information upon which charges may be based. If any citizen, be he a

member of this assembly or not, has such information, then it is the

obligation of that person as a citizen of this country to come before

the law enforcement agencies and lay that information before them,

because such information is a part of the continuing investigation.

That is your responsibility as a citizen. It is indeed the

responsibility of those people who are in the press in the responsible

administration of their part as citizens of this province.

[ Page 6274 ]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER:

I would call on several members of this House, the first member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and

particularly the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), and remind

them that a call for order in this House is still a call for order, and

compliance is expected. If compliance is not forthcoming, then of

course other remedies must be employed.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. LEA:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I know Your Honour can't look

everywhere at the same time, but I do find it disconcerting that when

members on both sides of the House are yelling at one another — and we

were as guilty as anyone — you only noticed our side. I would draw your

attention to look both ways.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair

seeks to apply the standing orders as fairly as possible. However, once

the Chair has called for order the Chair must then direct his attention

to those people who do not comply.

MR. HOWARD: On the

same point of order, Mr. Speaker, when Your Honour was on his feet he

looked at both sides, and the Attorney-General was one of those

involved in conversation while Your Honour was on his feet, and so was

the Premier in a lesser way. I only draw that to your attention for

future guidance, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, the point is well taken.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, before calling the business of the day, might I have the

attention of the hon. members on both sides of the House and mention to

them that the hon. member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) has in

hand the expression of good wishes of this assembly to His Royal

Highness Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer upon their forthcoming

marriage. If the members would be kind enough to attend the hon. member

today and tomorrow to sign the material, it would be greatly

appreciated.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

LANDS, PARKS AND HOUSING

(continued)

On vote 149: minister's office, $156,974.

MR. KING:

I thought the minister would be on his feet to explain and attempt some

rationalization of the very grave discrepancies which my colleague the

second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) has outlined in terms of the

administration of the criteria for lease land in the province of

British Columbia. My colleague read a letter from a constituent of mine

complaining about the very spectacular increases in lease land costs

that they have experienced. They are senior citizens, and just to quote

again from one paragraph: "We are both old-age pensioners, and this

hits us pretty hard. When we bought this place in 1970 the rent was

$170. It went to $300 and now $600, in addition to all the increased

taxes, which are now up to $412.97."

I have all kinds of

letters here indicating similar problems for people — particularly

seniors — who have had recreational lots on Shuswap Lake and various

other lakes. This government's policies are forcing those people to

remove themselves from those recreational lots. The result is going to

be, of course, that people with money will be able to move in and

acquire the lakefront leases, because they can afford the punitive

increases that this minister is imposing upon them.

answered my letter on behalf of these constituents, saying that a new

formula had been worked out. He's going to rationalize all the

different forms of tenure on Crown land. There's going to be a

consistent formula applied to the lease costs. That's what the minister

said. That's fine with me. That sounded like a pretty good way to deal

with it, so that everyone is treated fairly and equitably. I have the

minister's letter here, dated February 20, this year. He gives the

formula and points out the need to rationalize and bring some equity

and consistency to the cost for Crown land leases. Lo and behold, we

find that a group of the minister's friends in his own riding have

acquired a choice parcel of Crown land within a centre where a park was

to be established for the public of the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're crazy.

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, if I'm crazy, I certainly have a lot of company. The B.C.

Forest Service designated the area as park. They object to the cutting

out of this piece of property and awarding it to the minister's

friends. The Big Bend recreational association in the minister's own

riding objects. Are they crazy too? They're your constituents, Mr.

Minister. The Golden newspaper — the Gazette ,

I believe — objects and has written an editorial. Is that newspaper

organ and its editorial staff in your own riding crazy too, Mr.

Minister? Everybody's out of step but the minister, it would seem. But

the most compelling fact is that not only were they awarded this land;

they got preferential rates. Four acres and something for $1,800, was

it, my friend? That's quite different than this group of senior

citizens who have seen their property lease costs escalate 150 percent

over the last six years, and quite different than a number of others.

have a couple of people in the Premier's riding who have written to me.

They hold a recreational lease on Shuswap Lake. These are two elderly

gentlemen, senior citizens, and their names are Russh Martin and Percy

Martin. They point out that the yearly increase in lease costs for

their land could have been accepted if it was somewhere around the

inflation rate of 7 percent. But no, sir, they've had an increase of

100 percent. I'll quote briefly from the memo they sent to both the

Premier and myself: "We wish to make the following points. Our lease

rental was increased last year from $150 per annum to $300 per annum,

an increase of 100 percent." They're senior citizens, and they don't

get a preferential break.

I ask the minister why. What is it that allows certain friends of the minister...? I believe he knows Mr. Cotton

[ Page 6275 ]

and

Mr. Genier. They're active in the Social Credit Party in Golden, aren't

they? How come they get four acres of choice Crown land at Esplanade

Bay on Kinbasket Lake that was designated for park purposes to be used

by all the public of the province of British Columbia? It was

designated by the Forest Service, by regional directors of the

minister's own ministry, and certainly by the public in his own riding.

How is it that they got this land pieced out of that park designation?

And how is it that they got that chunk of four-point-some acres for

$1,800? That's completely inconsistent with the application criteria

which the minister has laid down to the senior citizens of this

province and others who hold recreational leases around Shuswap Lake.

How come the double standard? I want to hear the minister explain.

This

minister seems to be stricken with political rigor mortis when it comes

to answering for the lack of any initiatives by his own ministry. The

minister seems highly active, though, when he's dispensing gravel pits

and pieces of Crown land to friends of his. I would think that the old

political piranha would be prepared to get up and justify this

inconsistency, explain it and try to rationalize it. I look forward

very much to hearing that. He shouldn't be so concerned, Mr. Chairman,

with getting his estimates and his own paycheque approved by this

Legislature that he sits there dumbfounded and fails to respond to

these serious charges of political patronage.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Be serious then.

MR. KING:

Never mind the laugh; we want some straight answers. We want to be able

to tell the people in our tidings who write pathetic letters — these

seniors who are pointing out the onerous and spectacular increases

they've experienced — we want to be able to persuade them and say:

"Look, you're not being discriminated against and shafted simply

because you are not political friends of that minister." They're going

to ask questions when they see this select group in Golden who have

received this fortuitous grant apparently at the behest of the

minister's political intervention, which overruled all the local

agencies involved — Forests and Lands, Parks and Housing — who had

designated it and recommended it as a public park area. So I want the

minister to respond, and I want him to respond to the substance of the

argument, which is simple and clear: why the inconsistency? Why is

there one standard for a group which appears to contain personal

friends of the minister and a different yardstick altogether for the

senior citizens in my riding? I want to understand that equation, Mr.

Chairman.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Chairman, I've

just listened to the usual diatribe of innuendo and smear from the

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke. I'm accustomed to hearing that from him.

He has a qualification here in the House of suggesting wrongdoing — and

he does it very well; he does it in an almost believable fashion.

That

second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) has come out of his closet at

last. First, before he comes into the House to make some wild

accusations against the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, he sneaks

up into the press gallery and releases a press release. Hopefully he

will smear the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing — oh, what a great

move! You're very clever, Mister Second Member for Victoria. Are you

ever clever! You seem to know a lot of things, but you're pretty dumb

on lots of things.

You accused the minister of intervening

on behalf of the Cot and Gen society for obtaining a ten-year lease of

approximately four acres of land on McNaughton Lake. In that respect,

yes, I'll have to say that I have intervened. These are constituents of

mine who have written to me. I intervene on behalf of more people than

constituents from my constituency; for the sake of fair play, I will

intervene. I have intervened this week alone in the tidings of Skeena,

Omineca and Okanagan North, because people felt they had not been dealt

with fairly by government, and I intervened on their behalf. It is the

same situation with the Cot and Gen application. They had been

attempting for over two years to secure a shoreline lease on the Mica

pondage. In frustration they came to me — I am their representative, in

case you don't know it — and they asked me if I could possibly help

them. I said yes, I would.

Now the Cot and Gen society was

established on the recommendation of the regional office of my ministry

in Cranbrook. They suggested that that society be formed and that that

would be a more appropriate vehicle for them, as a group of about 20

people, to lease shoreline land for recreational vehicle use. They

suggested it would be more appropriate if it were done through a

society, and that's the reason the Cot and Gen society was established.

goes to show you that the member really makes some accusations without

knowing too many of the facts. This morning he called them the Cottage

and General Camp Society. Really, that isn't what Cot and Gen means.

Cot and Gen is a society that was formed by Mr. Ed Cotton and Mr. Ron

Genier, and that's what the "Cot" and the "Gen" stand for — for Cotton

and Genier, an abbreviation of these two names. It doesn't stand for

Cottage and General Camp Society, as the second member for Victoria

suggested.

I want you to know, despite the innuendos

suggested by that smear artist over there from Shuswap-Revelstoke, Mr.

Chairman, that none of these....

MR. BARBER: On a

point of order, the minister's phrase "smear artist" is an offence to

every member in the House. I ask the Chairman to require a withdrawal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the minister so withdraw, as the member has found that remark offensive.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm rather surprised that the request comes from him, but I'll withdraw.

MR. LEA:

On a point of order, I'd like the minister to withdraw his last

statement towards the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber). We know

what it meant. It was with obvious inference that he was transferring

what he said about the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke to the first

member for Victoria. I would like a withdrawal of that.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, you're twisting them.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, in this particular instance another member has felt that

there was an imputation. Again, in the tradition of parliamentary

rules, would the member withdraw any imputation? Did the member make an

imputation? If so, would the member so withdraw.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, I made no imputation, Mr. Chairman. The point I was trying to make was that I'm

[ Page 6276 ]

surprised

that the first member for Victoria was asking me to withdraw when the

accusation was not directed towards him but towards another member.

MR. LEA:

On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, you've asked the minister to

withdraw. Obviously, there was an inference from what the minister

said. He was transferring his remarks from the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke to the first member for Victoria. He can be as cute

as he likes. This whole Legislature knows exactly what he was trying to

infer or imply. I would ask that in the interests of parliament getting

along that the minister, instead of trying to be cute, withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, it is very difficult for the Chair to interpret an

intention by a member. Nonetheless, it is the responsibility of the

Chair, once having had the point raised, to ask the member who is

alleged. If an offence took place in that member's mind, would the

member so withdraw any imputation.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Sure, if it bothers the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), certainly I'll withdraw. I'm really surprised.

want to respond to some of the allegations made by the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke, suggesting that these were political friends of

mine. Ed Cotton and Ron Genier are not members of the Social Credit

Party. Those two individuals have never worked on my behalf in any

campaign. They also attempt to leave the suggestion that the issuance

of shoreline leases is an unusual occurrence in the province of British

Columbia. There's nothing unusual about people leasing shoreland in the

province. We have a policy in which shoreland is ]eased, in most

instances for a 30-year duration — prepaid leases. In this particular

instance, the prepaid lease is not for a 30-year period; it's for a

10-year period. We deal with approximately 6,000 recreational leases in

the province. There's nothing unusual with this, with the exception

that we haven't given these people the same kind of consideration as

far as duration of time is concerned as we do to other shoreland leases.

The

area is adjacent to a forestry recreational site established by the

Ministry of Forests. Essentially, the development of that forestry

recreational site....

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, there is a funny gassy smell coming into this room.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: No, not the minister. Would it be possible to ask that someone check or something because it's beginning to really bother us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the halls are being

worked on with some sort of solvent. I noticed that the staff is using

masks to clean that. Nonetheless, hon. members, I will make immediate

inquiries to try to ascertain just what is taking place.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Well, Mr. Chairman, I was just saying that the site which these people

have is a prepaid lease for a 10-year period. It is adjacent to a

forestry recreational site, which was essentially developed by the

members of the

Cot and Gen Camp Society. It is essentially

occupied, almost in its entirety by the Cot and Gen Society. They spent

hundreds of dollars developing the forestry recreational site, plus

hundreds of hours. Now they're prepared to abandon their work and

dollars so that the general public will have a site by which to reach

the Mica pondage. They're prepared to spend their dollars to develop an

alternate site. It's not their first choice, but they recognize that

even though the area is very remote and not close to the Trans-Canada

Highway — as the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), who knows

downtown Victoria very well but doesn't know the far reaches of my

riding.... The area is not very close. In fact the area is about 35

miles off the Trans-Canada Highway on a gravel road. They're prepared

to abandon the other site which they worked so hard to develop, in

order for the public to have some place to go.

The member

also called the area the McNaughton Reservoir. It was really never

known as the McNaughton Reservoir. It was named by a cabinet minister

in the NDP government of years gone by, Bob Williams, against the

wishes of all the people in the area and the people from Valemont,

Revelstoke and Golden. He superimposed the name of McNaughton on this

reservoir, and called it McNaughton Lake. As an old anthropologist, the

second member for Victoria would have some support for the changing of

the name back to Kinbasket Lake, a very historical name that deserves

recognition.

One is led to believe from what the second

member for Victoria says that there's very limited shoreland on the

Mica pondage or on Kinbasket Lake, but there are thousands of miles of

shoreland. There are many areas suitable for park development, other

than this little site. This little site is one which has been described

by the member as a beautiful area. It's quite obvious to me that it has

a rugged beauty. It's not a Shuswap Lake, I assure you of that. The

area in question is located on a draw-down reservoir. You tend to

forget that. The area has draw-down of 200 feet from the site.

Then

you and the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) attempt to make

value comparisons of a draw-down reservoir in the Big Bend country with

lots on the Shuswap Lake. It's just like comparing apples and oranges.

That's almost as stupid as the comparison made yesterday by the member

for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) of land values at Masset on

the Queen Charlotte Islands with those in the Colwood area. That's

almost as asinine as the statement made by the member for Esquimalt. I

recognize that the Ministry of Forests has recommended the site be an

80-acre provincial park. Certainly they lobbied heavily for this. The

responsibility of establishing provincial parks in this province does

not rest with the Ministry of Forests; it rests with my ministry. My

ministry has not suggested that at this time there be a park

established on the north end of the Mica pondage or at Esplanade Bay.

Forestry certainly recommended this. Our ministry and officials of my

ministry see the need down the road, 10 to 15 years from now, possibly

for a provincial park. Whether this is the logical site or not would be

the subject of a further investigation. When the need arises this lease

will have expired. So the option of considering the Esplanade Bay will

be in place. I would suggest that there are other locations more

favourable than Esplanade Bay for the establishment of a provincial

park when the time comes.

The member questions the lease

fee. The lease fee was not one established by the minister. You attempt

to leave the inference that the minister said: "Let's just charge them

$1, 898." That assessment and that figure were determined by

[ Page 6277 ]

the

fact that the area, in question is very remote and has limited access.

That area can be reached only for about four months a year, over a road

which these people improved when they were improving the former

forestry recreational site, and which they've had to improve again in

order to gain access to the property they'll be leasing. I want to

assure you, Mr. Second Member for Victoria, that the determination of

the price was made by professionals in the Ministry of Lands, Parks and

Housing, not by the minister. If you continue to challenge that figure,

you in fact are challenging the integrity of those professionals who

have determined that value.

MR. HANSON: It is clear

that the minister does not appreciate what the issue is. The issue is

as follows. The Ministry of Forests, which presently has jurisdiction

over this piece of property — it was set aside as an engineering

reserve — was cognizant of the fact that the recreational attributes of

that area were good. They were willing to turn over the jurisdiction of

that piece of property to the parks branch — not today, not tomorrow,

but sometime in the future. Was that based on the minister's own

assessment off the top of his head? No, it was based on a study by a

contractor. Public money was paid for a study, and the recommendations

were that that particular site had very positive recreational

attributes.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Who said that?

MR. HANSON:

The parks branch conducted their own inventory of the

McNaughton-Kinbasket reservoir. On the application form from the Cot

and Gen Camp Society they refer to it as the McNaughton Reservoir. The

members themselves — Mr. Cotton and Mr. Genier — refer to it as the

McNaughton Reservoir. If you want to call it Kinbasket, that's fine.

But, you know, he's throwing anything in the way to obfuscate. Here we

have a minister of the Crown and two separate ministries of government

— impartial, acting in the public interest — who do an inventory of the

reservoir and say that here is a key, prime recreational area for the

public, not for a group of constituents who happen to phone you or know

you or complain to you. You have a responsibility that goes beyond the

Cot and Gen Camp Society. You have a responsibility to all the people

in Golden and to all the people in the area who might like to use that

reservoir. Mr. Chairman, that particular piece of property which has

been alienated on this lease for this group is in the middle of the

park. There's going to be a park around it. There's going to be an

80-acre park with an exclusionary lease right in the middle of it,

because the minister directly intervened for whatever reason. We can

only imagine what.... The people of his constituency must be scratching

their heads and wondering why he would do that.

If you could

just draw a mental map of this particular location, it is the closest

location to the Trans-Canada Highway link. It is the closest prime

recreational site to Golden. Not only were the local ministry officials

— the Ministry of Forests' and your own ministry's officials —

absolutely struck dumb by your direct intervention, but the citizens'

groups and the Big Bend Resource Council.... It's really incredible.

You don't seem to appreciate the fact that when you alienate for the

direct functioning and servicing of a small group in an area that's

supposed to benefit everyone, that's where you fall down.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

I want to correct the member. He suggested that the Cot and Gen Camp

Society applied for a parcel of land on the McNaughton Reservoir on

McNaughton Lake. Yes, that was its name at the time they filed their

application; the name has been changed since that time.

MR. BARBER: Oh, come on!

HON. MR. CHABOT:

He's suggesting they made an error in their filing. But it's been

changed, and thank God for that. It's been changed to conform to the

wishes of the people in Valemount, Revelstoke and Golden, which were so

arbitrarily set aside by the former socialist government of this

province.

The member almost leaves the impression that these

20 people from Golden are really not part of the public, that

apparently they are friends of the minister but they're really not part

of society; they're not part of the community of Golden. Oh, no,

they're not part of the public. What they've done, in fact, is they've

moved away from a site which they developed with their money and their

equipment, through many hours. It's now been freed up because they are

no longer occupying it. They have freed it up so that the additional

public from Golden.... And the Trans-Canada Highway is 35 long miles

away by gravel road; it's not the closest site on the Mica pondage from

the Trans-Canada Highway.

He goes on to leave this

inference: "Here we are. We're going to have an 80-acre park. The park

is on the horizon. There's going to a little pocket of four acres of

shoreland that's going to be interfering with this 80-acre park." I

suggested to you.... You weren't listening. You never listen. You

always have a closed mind. You're too anxious to issue press releases

and then come in here and attempt to justify those press releases that

you sneak up into the press gallery. That's what you're so anxious

about, and that's why you're talking. Even though I've proven you

wrong, you have to try to justify the press release you issued just

before you stood up to talk at 11:30 this morning. I'll tell you, there

is no intention whatsoever of establishing a park in that particular

region, where there is alienation, be it by lease, Crown grant or any

other way.

I'm saying to you that we do not establish

parks on recommendations of the Ministry of Forests. That parcel of

property was not under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Forests. Its

title was still under control of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and

Housing. It was deemed appropriate at the time that this land should be

leased for a short period of time — for ten years — and when the time

came for the need for a park on Kinbasket Lake, 10 to 15 years down the

road.... Don't try to leave the impression that there is a need for a

park at that end of the lake at this time. There isn't and there won't

be for 10 to 15 years. At that time, in evaluating all the sites for

which access would be readily available, Esplanade Bay would be one of

the sites which would be taken into consideration.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. KING:

The minister has admitted that he intervened when he received a

complaint from some people that they could not get any redress to their

alleged problem or improper treatment by the staff of his ministry and,

I presume, the Ministry of Forests. He made a decision granting this

acreage to a little community compact group. I don't know who they

[ Page 6278 ]

are.

Maybe they're political friends of the minister, and maybe they're not.

I don't know. That really is not the issue. The minister can get up and

cry crocodile tears about alleged slander and mudraking on this side,

but he misses or chooses to ignore the point. The point is that a

cabinet minister has no right to take unto himself the power to

override regulations and dispense favours, to become a personal court

of last resort for the people of the province.

In every

other area of government jurisdiction, usually great pains are taken to

ensure that any appeal apparatus is at arm's length from government.

The reason for that is that the taint of political partisanship should

not be evident or a factor in considering any appeal. Historically,

governments have recognized that when a politician per se takes unto

himself, in the secrecy of the cabinet room or in the secrecy of his

office, the authority to override the technical decisions of staff in

the public service, it leaves room for inconsistency in

decision-making. It leaves room for partisanship in terms of whose

appeal is accepted, who receives preferential treatment and who does

not.

There can be no harder evidence than the letter my

colleague and I read into the record from the Milligans regarding their

recreational lease on Shuswap Lake. They are an elderly, senior citizen

couple, and he closes the last paragraph of his letter by saying: "We

have a cabin on our lease lot. It is strictly for our family to come

for their holidays in the summer. This cabin is not winterized — no

water." They have to pack it in. "There is an outside toilet. The

access road to the lease lot is partly on the deeded lot. Hoping you

can help us...." These people had a 100 percent increase in their lease

in one year under that minister. I wrote to him and appealed. I said:

"I think that's unfair treatment." I want to read a

section of the

minister's response to drive home and emphasize the inconsistency

between the treatment his select group of friends in Golden received

and the treatment that senior citizens in my riding and the Premier's

riding received. First of all the minister traced the variety of

recreational leases that are available, and he said: "We have to get

rid of them, and we have to find consistency through one form of lease

tenure." I agree with that; that's sound thinking. He closes by saying:

"The

variation in rental rates might quite conceivably have reached 300

percent. Such an inequitable situation was completely indefensible and

could not be allowed to persist. Recognizing these facts, I instructed

the executive of my ministry to develop a new policy designed to

eliminate anomalies that I illustrated in the foregoing, and to produce

a policy that would be applicable to all these situations and that

would have a common and defensible base in line with this thinking and

as a result of the new policies now in place."

He didn't say

anything to me in this letter or to my constituents about that new

policy containing an appeal to the minister in the secrecy of his

office so that he might override the policies and strategies his

ministry officials had developed. When his regional staff in the Golden

area advocated the development of this particular acreage at Esplanade

Bay for a public park, the minister held it was unfair and arbitrary,

and he overrode them. The point is that you have intervened politically

on behalf of constituents in your own riding through an unstated policy

that is not available to the rest of the people of the province of

British Columbia. That's the issue.

I have nothing against

the minister personally; he's kind of a cuddly little fellow. But I

don't trust that minister to sit in the secrecy of his cabinet office

and pass his political judgment on the merits of a case affecting my

constituents. I don't trust anyone on that side of the House to sit in

secret chamber and rule on the merits of the case without a full and

open public hearing. This is the party that introduced the dirty tricks

and phony letters to the people of British Columbia, and the minister

now asks us to trust him to preside over some system of secret

political appeal.

You can call it mud-slinging if you want,

Mr. Minister, but if you are not bright enough to understand the

implications of this kind of dangerous political intervention, fraught

as it is — no matter who the minister may be — with all the scope

imaginable for abuse, patronage and favouritism.... I hope the minister

is honest enough not to use that. The point is that systems of appeal

set up judiciously and fairly do not provide the scope for that kind of

abuse.

The minister should recognize that as the issue, not

whether Genier and Cotton are friends of the minister or not. I don't

know who they are, and I don't care, but it angers me when I find

senior citizens in my riding and other parts of the province who have a

different yardstick altogether — one that's outlined by the minister in

this letter — applied to their interests, their rental lease fees and

their tenure on the land. The minister himself uses the word

"consistency" — "to achieve consistency and eliminate anomalies." When

the minister intervenes personally and makes a political decision in

the secrecy of his office, free from any public input, from any

representation by the people of Golden, from any representation by even

the ministries involved — and the Ministry of Forests was involved —

from any representation by the Big Bend recreational society and indeed

free from any representation by members of this Legislature, then he is

taking unto himself dangerous powers that should not reside under the

political opportunities and proclivities of any minister of the Crown

in any jurisdiction in Canada.

That's the issue here, and

the minister has been around this House.long enough to understand that.

That is what he should respond to. If the minister feels an appeal

apparatus is necessary, because there's arbitrary treatment by some

technical staff in his ministry or elsewhere, fine, I'd welcome that.

But let it be an appeal system that is publicly articulated. Let it be

an appeal system that provides for a full and open public hearing, not

a secret hearing in the minister's office. And let it be free from

political domination. It's as simple as that.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Well, I've heard a lot of buffing and puffing from the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke about the policy of recreational leases, suggesting

that there isn't consistency. I want to assure that member that there

is consistency in the treatment of recreational leases in the province.

The

member fails to understand that there is a difference in valuation of

lots between those on Shuswap Lake and those on Kinbasket Lake. He

fails to understand that the value is substantially different. He fails

to take into consideration the remoteness of Kinbasket Lake versus

Shuswap Lake, and the popularity of Shuswap Lake versus Kinbasket Lake.

He fails to take into consideration the fact that Kinbasket Lake is a

draw-down lake that has very limited use. Shuswap Lake can be used

virtually 12 months a year. You can't use Kinbasket Lake for that

period of time. He's trying to compare a beautiful lake like Shuswap

Lake with a draw-down reservoir such

[ Page 6279 ]

Kinbasket Lake. He doesn't seem to understand that there's a difference

in geography and that there are different values, Consequently, values

on Shuswap Lake are substantially higher than they are on Kinbasket

Lake at this particular time.

Now, the member leaves the

impression that I overrode regulations, which is really a bunch of

nonsense. I didn't override any regulations. All I did was probably act

as an expediter. There appeared to be a bit of a conflict. The Ministry

of Forests felt the area should be a provincial park; the Ministry of

Forests does not make decisions on provincial parks. This ministry

does. I felt that the application was a reasonable one, and therefore

should proceed, despite the fact that forestry suggested it should be a

park. We have our conflicts with forestry on other issues and in other

regions of the province too.

I want to assure the member

that this lease is consistent with our policy of prepaid leases on

waterfront since our new policy has been put in place. The only way

shoreline land is made available now is by prepaid lease. The only

difference here is that we weren't prepared to give these people the

same kind of consideration that is given to other people who lease

recreational shoreline. While we were prepared to give other people 30

years, with these people we felt ten years was sufficient, so that at a

later date we could assess whether that land might be needed for a

provincial park.

MR. HANSON: The minister keeps missing the point. In fact, he's twisting the facts around a little bit.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Just yesterday the minister had to withdraw that same

remark. I'll ask the second member for Victoria to do the same thing.

The Chair finds that unparliamentary. Will the member please withdraw?

MR. HANSON: I withdraw, Mr. Chairman.

In the Golden Star

of Wednesday, May 13, we have a statement from a forestry official at

the local level, who indicates the history of this particular event. He

says:

"Once the dam was built and the

engineers moved out, the Forest Service and local industries cleaned up

the area and established it as an unofficial park with some of the

usual outdoor amenities. Then the ministry asked the Forest Service" —

this is this minister's ministry — "and its own parks branch to

recommend the best future use for the five-acre site. In response the

Forest Service, about a year ago, recommended it be expanded to 80

acres and that it be turned into an outdoor campsite area, picnic area,

boat launch, beach and fishing hole."

This particular

individual, a man by the name of Gill, points out that the area has

been used extensively by the public over the years. He says that "the

public would have given it its highest use." Listen to this, Mr.

Chairman: "The parks division has indicated that Esplanade Bay was one

of the areas under consideration for parks in the region, but it was

the key one." These are your regional officials; they're not the

Ministry of Forests and they don't run the parks and so on. Your own

ministry officials wanted it as a park and indicate that it will be a

park all around the Cot and Gen exclusive site.

Listen to this: "The Kootenay Development Association, an

intergovernmental body, had also backed the Forest Service parks branch

recommendation. However, there's not much more that this regional

official can do about the decision at his level." Obviously not,

because the minister made the decision. Then there's the point that my

colleague for Shuswap-Revelstoke is indicating. I don't think the

regional officials had anything against the Cot and Gen Camp Society

having a lease, but they wanted it outside of the 80-acre proposed

public park. They didn't mind them down the road a bit or up the road a

bit. But they're in the centre of what is to be proposed as a public

park. The minister even agreed that the public use of that area is

going to justify a park sometime down the road. Maybe not today, but

it's being set aside. It was set aside by the Forest Service out of the

provincial forest for that purpose. It was set aside from the

provincial forest by the Parks branch for the same purpose. But you

couldn't keep out of it. You had to pick up the phone and phone the

regional official and say: "Issue a letter of commitment to these

people, and then later on we'll have the legal staff draft up the

contract." That's what you do. That's the way you do business.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: The member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) asked me how I know it. I know it.

You

shouldn't operate that way. Your should allow the local people and your

local competent staff to plan an integrated way and make

recommendations to you. Then you should pick the right recommendations

on your own political judgment. But you shouldn't provide little land

sandwiches to people for no reason whatsoever that preclude good solid

public options later on. That's what you do. You preclude future

options that are of benefit in the broad beneficial public interest.

That's what distinguishes you from us. You do it on a special ad hoc

basis, off the top of your head, and preclude all other possibilities.

Go ahead.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member fails to

understand that what took place is consistent with policy. I've

indicated to him that at this time there is no need for a provincial

park at that site or any other site in the area of Mica pondage. The

member fails to understand that this is going to be a recreational

vehicle park. There are not going to be any permanent structures

established there. The lease is for a 10-year period.

MR. HANSON: Nobody else can go on it.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

What kind of nonsense are you talking about. We have over 6,000

recreational leases in this province. Are you going to use the same

argument there because we've leased land on lakes throughout British

Columbia to 6,000 British Columbians? Nobody can go on it, and we

shouldn't be leasing it: is that your argument? What kind of nonsense

is this that I'm hearing? What I'm saying to you is that we've issued a

lease of four acres of land for ten years, because we don't consider

that there is a need for a provincial park there or anywhere else in

that vicinity between now and the expiry of that lease. When that lease

expires or comes close to expiring, we will be in a position to assess

whether there is a need for a small provincial park on Kinbasket Lake

at that time. This draw-down reservoir will determine that down the

road. In the meantime this lease does not interfere with that future

option. That decision will be made at a later date.

[ Page 6280 ]

MR. KING:

I'm at the other end of this draw-down reservoir from the minister, and

I know a little bit about it. In fact I hunted up there for many years

and I'm intimately familiar with the surroundings of Kinbasket Lake.

AN HON. MEMBER: And you missed him.

MR. KING: Yes, I never ran across the minister up there on one of my hunting trips.

The

minister is wrong. I don't think he's giving an accurate picture to my

colleague when he says there are so many thousands of acres around

Kinbasket Lake, implying that they're all available for public

development. That's just not so. The reservoir was not adequately

cleared by B.C. Hydro. That's creating a problem in many of the areas

in terms of access. Floating debris on the pondage, the draw-down that

the minister refers to, has created many steep embankments that are

unstable and not appropriate for public development for parks or

anything else. So while there is a great deal of acreage, there is just

not that much acreage that would be available or appropriate for public

use. The minister knows that. But again, that's not the point. The

minister is a skilled politician. He is the old political piranha. He's

been around a long time and he avoids the central issue very cleverly.

He said to me: "Well, there's a big difference between Shuswap Lake and

the McNaughton reservoir. Land's valuable." That's not the issue

either. In fact, the particular people who were complaining of the

unjustified, unconscionable increases on their recreational leases here

have to go 50 miles by boat to their property, Certainly that's no

closer to the centre of population than areas on Kinbasket Lake. But

that's not the issue. The minister tries to divert attention.

The

simple issue is, and the minister has admitted it, that he intervened

and made a political decision on behalf of this group of people at

Golden to acquire this land against the recommendations of not only

Forestry but his own regional officials, against the recommendation of

the Big Bend Resource Council and — according to the Golden newspaper —

against the wishes of the majority of the people in his own riding. He

did that in a political way. He reviewed it, and in the privacy and the

secrecy of his office, he came to a political decision that overrode

the recommendations of his regional staff. The issue is that that kind

of political consideration is not available to the rest of the people

of the province of British Columbia. It lends itself to abuse,

patronage and preferred treatment by that minister or any other who

takes unto himself that kind of excessive secret power. That's what's

wrong. We don't want to hear about the differences in land evaluation

between the Shuswap and the Kinbasket Lakes. I don't care whether it's

Timbuctoo. Every citizen in the province of British Columbia is

entitled to one standard of justice — that's the issue.

Under

the scope of the rules that you've enunciated yourself here today, they

can get to the minister and he will make a decision. That leads me, and

I'm sure most members of this House, to the inevitable conclusion that

that kind of process is rife and rampant, with a propensity for abuse.

That's the issue.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I don't know how frequently I have

to explain to that member over there that our policy is consistent as far as

recreational land is concerned. Our policy is consistent. I tried to explain

that to him, but he apparently won't listen. He suggested first of all that

I overrode the wishes of the Big Bend Resource Council. I want him to know that

the Big Bend Resource Council has never expressed its views on this application

of land lease to me.

MR. HANSON: You caught them by surprise, that's why.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's been in the works for almost two and a half years.

MR. LAUK: In the back room.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

If you call the regional office and the land inspectors in Cranbrook

"the back room" I guess you're entitled to that point of view. I would

expect a little bit more from a big, city-slicker criminal lawyer like

the first member for Vancouver Centre. He says that the Golden Star,

which speaks for the people of the community of Golden, were opposed to

this lease. He's reflecting upon an editorial which expresses the

opinion of one man. That editorial doesn't express the opinion of the

residents of Golden — not at all. He is suggesting that I overruled the

wishes of my regional staff. That's a bunch of nonsense. I tried to

explain that to him. It's not true. What I did, essentially, probably,

was to override the wishes of the Ministry of Forests, which wanted to

see a park there now. They wanted to refuse the right of these people

to enjoy shoreland for a short period of time just as 6,000 other

British Columbians have.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, what I'd like to d now is proceed on a few broader policies that the minister has undertaken, and allow Hansard

and history to place the Cot and Gen society in the context of the

broader picture. I think a pattern emerges of single use,

narrow-mindedness, ad hockery, and political intervention in

policy-making and decision-making. It's really hard to believe that

this minister is one of the most powerful ministers of government, in

the sense that this Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing along with the

Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) controls about 90 to 95

percent of the land base of British Columbia. Here in this House we

tend to look at things in terms of artificial, manmade structures of

ministries, authorities and jurisdictions, but in actual fact the broad

base, the economic future of the province and the decent planning for

the future rests with this minister and the Minister of Forests. When

you look at the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing and you know the

record of this minister, it is almost like putting the fox in with the

chickens. It's incredible, because he has one view of land, and that is

real-estate oriented — it is land as a commodity for development. It is

a single-use orientation, and that's the travesty.

The

history of our land use in British Columbia, right from James Douglas

almost to the present time, was that we looked at our land as a source

of a great number of economic, aesthetic and recreational attributes.

In the great land base of British Columbia we support our forests, and

we all know what percentage of our economy is based on our forestry. We

often hear the figure 50 percent. Mr. Chairman, it's much higher than

that when you look at the other values: the wildlife values, the

tourist values, the recreational and aesthetic values. Probably 70

percent of every dollar in British Columbia comes from our forest land

base. This minister embarked upon a series of policy directions early

last year that brought this thing to a horrible crunch. Do you know that

[ Page 6281 ]

a very short period of time he was able to mobilize against himself the

broadest-based, most disparate group of people that you could ever

believe? Everyone from the Council of Forest Industries and all of the

associated woodworkers' unions, to the B.C. Federation of Agriculture,

the B.C. Wildlife Federation, the independent truck loggers, the

independent foresters, the agrologists, the fish and wildlife clubs,

the game clubs, and on and on — you got them all mad at you. Why was

that? Do you know why? Because he embarked upon a policy of putting up

for auction what he called the agricultural lease-to-purchase program.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're against farmers.

MR. HANSON:

The B.C. Federation of Agriculture didn't want that program. They

represent thousands of farmers, and they said no to your stupid program.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I know why. They want a monopoly.

MR. HANSON:

Your Premier had to come in and stop you, it was so bad; he had to come

and put a moratorium on it in the deferred planning areas.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Nonsense!

MR. HANSON: It is not nonsense; it's absolutely true, and you know it.

The

land base of British Columbia is a valuable thing, and we must protect

it for future generations. We need Crown land for housing, but we need

it in a planned way. It is not easy to make some of these judgments, I

know that, because where people want to live and grow food and trees is

often the same piece of land. But all land is not created equal, Mr.

Chairman. There are lands that are better for agriculture than others,

and there are lands that are better for growing trees than others. We

have to start looking at the appropriate lands for housing, and we have

to make Crown land available for housing — undoubtedly, we agree — but

not the way you did it. Because the way you did it, you allowed up to

520 hectares. Most people don't know what a hectare is — but 520

hectares is about 1,300 acres that a person could buy on an auction.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, it's 1,280.

MR. HANSON:

I stand corrected: 1,280 acres. That's a lot of acres. And do you know

what all of those organizations objected to? It was because that land

was growing trees and was prime recreational land. That land was prime

wildlife habitat, so he got everybody mad at him. How many houses would

they have on these 1,280 acres? One. That's one house for 1,280 acres.

They were supposed to chop the trees down within ten years. So they had

prime forest land — a valuable renewable resource for the future of

British Columbia. It takes a long time to see a tree grow; it takes 60

to 80 to 100 years, depending on the site, before you've got a

marketable tree. But he embarked upon this program: 1,280 acres. Now

who can afford that? It was only the very wealthy, Mr. Chairman, and

that's why the B.C. Federation of Agriculture said it was a bad scheme

and asked the Premier of the province to please stop it.

Many

people are starting to understand that the forest land base of the

province is in for a big shock in the future. We've cut more trees than

we should have over time. The management of our forests was not what it

should have been over the long years of Social Credit management in

this province. The Socreds didn't just emerge in 1976. They have

managed our forests and fisheries and our other resources since 1952.

That fall-down effect that we're hearing is a big surprise, that we

don't have enough trees to supply our pulpmills and so on. We inherited

that legacy from 30 years of Social Credit mismanagement of our

resources in this province — the fall-down effect.

I'd like

to just touch on a very interesting thing which was carried out by the

Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing. About a year or so ago a public

opinion poll was carried out by the ministry. It canvassed the views of

the public regarding the disposal of our heritage, the disposal of this

Crown land that is there for us and for future generations. It was

surprising what a commonsense approach the public basically has about

our Crown land. They public does want access to it, but they want it

done in a planned way, phased in and coordinated.

I'd just

like to read to you from "Public Attitudes Towards Crown Land in

British Columbia." Here are a few

summary comments: "The study also

determined that the public feels that three basic conditions should be

met before individuals are allowed to purchase Crown land. One

condition is that the purchaser must be a Canadian citizen." There's a

very strong feeling that we don't want absentee owners of our Crown

land. We don't want people coming in from other countries, alienating

land and just holding it for speculative purposes. In other words, the

history of the stewardship of land in our province has been for

beneficial purposes. We want people to have it and use it, and their

families to enjoy it. We don't want it for speculative purposes.

Another condition was that the land must not be used for speculative purposes.

"The third condition is actually a set of guidelines governing

the use of land. Failure to conform to these guidelines would invalidate any

sales arrangement between the province and the individual." That has been a long-standing provision in our management of lands: land for

beneficial uses. If a person were speculating with it or not using it properly,

it would revert to the Crown for someone else to use in a beneficial way.

The study goes on to point out that the public was very concerned about planning.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

On a point of order, the member is quoting from a document. I wonder if

there is provision for the document to be tabled in the House after

he's finished using it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Documents are

not tabled in committee, hon. minister. On past occasions when this

question has arisen in committee, normally a member who has quoted from

a document might give another member an undertaking that the document

will be tabled when the House convenes. However, that is all that the

Chairman of the committee can say about the particular question that

the minister asks.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to make the following offer to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing.

[ Page 6282 ]

If you will provide us with the list of lottery grants that were turned down, I will provide you with this particular list.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not relevant.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's blackmail. No guts, eh?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'm sure the ruling is quite clear.

MR. HANSON:

The survey "Public Attitudes Towards Crown Land in British Columbia"

goes on. There's a heading, "Planning Issues." It states: "While there

is wide support for any initiatives to make Crown land available to the

public, the persons interviewed asserted that Crown land should be

allocated on the basis of a well-researched land-use plan." It's very

firmly established in the public's mind: "Yes, we want Crown land, but

we don't want ad hockery; we don't want stupid stuff; we don't want

your kind of agricultural lease plan."

dominant concern of respondents was that wildlife and environmental

considerations should be a central factor in determining what land is

offered for sale or lease."

"Employment growth

and other economic benefits resulting from the development of Crown

land were also priority considerations.... Nevertheless, most

respondents favoured the development of a management plan capable of

resolving potential land use conflicts on the basis of a thorough

review of the costs and benefits of particular uses."

The

point I'm making is that yes, the public wants Crown land, but they

don't want it at any cost. They also indicate that they don't want all

Crown land dumped on the open market at. once. They want their children

to have the opportunity to have a small piece of property they can

enjoy for recreational or economic purposes or for a residence. That's

clearly established in the public mind.

I'd like to go

through a couple of the reactions that various segments of our society

had to the policy directions of this minister. The first one was a very

interesting paper by the Association of British Columbia Professional

Foresters. Just to read into the record, here are the responsible

organizations in this society who indicated outright opposition to this

minister's program. It's a brief to the cabinet of the government of

British Columbia submitted by the Association of B.C. Professional

Foresters and endorsed by the following: Federation of B.C.

Naturalists; British Columbia Wildlife Federation; Canadian Institute

of Forestry; Canadian Paper workers Union — are you getting the idea of

the diversity and scope of opposition? — the Cariboo Lumber

Manufacturers Association; the Council of Forest Industries of British

Columbia, a very large influential group; the Interior Lumber

Manufacturers Association; International Woodworkers of America;

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

Canada; the Truck Loggers Association; everybody from soup to nuts.

I'd

like to read you one of the statements they make in this report. Again,

we're getting back to the 1,280 acres available to a British Columbian

if he had enough money to afford it, with no guarantee that it would be

put into agriculture or that he couldn't take the trees down, flog the

timber and move on. That's the kind of program it was — incredible.

This is from page 5 of the report: "Auctions of agricultural leases

have been held in several interior communities recently without,

apparently, cost-benefit analyses...." That flies in the face of that

public-opinion survey that was conducted. No cost-benefit analysis was

being done on the lands in question. "It seems unwise to us that the

existing forests and other values of these lands should be wiped out

without any analysis of whether the economic benefits to be derived

from clearing the land are greater than those to be gained by leaving

the land in timber production." This is a province that relies heavily

on its forests and other resource attributes, and not even a

cost-benefit analysis was done of those agricultural lands that were

put into auction. It's absolutely incredible.

Now I'll go on to another one. This particular report was submitted

to the government of British Columbia on May 12, 1981 — fresh, still

warm. This report is called "Forest Land for the Future." It's by the

Forest Industry Task Force on Forest Land for the Future. I'd like to

read into the record the following:

"In light of timber supply deficits forecast by

the Ministry of Forests, as well as growing not satisfactorily

restocked backlogs and continuing shortfalls in annual seedling

production, it would seem that the current alienation of Crown land by

the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing is working against the goals

and objectives of the government as established in the Forest Act."

Here

we have one ministry of government working absolutely contrary to the

Minister of Forest (Hon. Mr. Waterland). And the minister shakes his

head in agreement. The battle between the Ministry of Forests and the

Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing could not be resolved until the

Premier came in and clonked their heads together.

To continue:

"For

example, in the northern interior the agricultural lease program has

generated an avalanche of applications for prime-site forest land. Such

programs demonstrate at best a wavering commitment to integrated or

multiple-use resource management. In the absence of studies on the

consequences of earlier land-disposal programs or evidence on the

failure rate of developing marginal agricultural land, to proceed with

further land withdrawals unnecessarily jeopardizes the forest-based

economy."

This is a serious charge, because given the

magnitude of our forest-related economy, to have the Forest Industry

Task Force say that the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing was in

fact jeopardizing the whole economy of British Columbia by embarking

upon a program of disposal of prime forest sites is really a shocking

and strong statement.

They made the following recommendations on behalf of the forest industry of British Columbia:

"Crown

land disposal programs should be suspended pending (

a) completion of

the Forest Service program to establish and gazette all provincial

forests, thereby protecting the vital forest land-base and preserving

future land-use options; (

b) the development of a comprehensive

land-use decision-making framework which evaluates land-allocation

proposals based on: (1) the capability of the land; (2) multiple use

potential; (3) full assessment of the social and economic costs and

benefits of alternative uses; (4) maintaining the stability of

forest-dependent communities."

[ Page 6283 ]

They

go on to emphasize a strategy to integrate multiple use with provincial

goals in industrial development and economic and social policy.

This

is not bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo. This is the forest industry of British

Columbia, pleading with the cabinet to which this member belongs,

asking for some reason and common sense in the policies he's embarked

on undermining the forest industry of the province: single use,

alienating multi-use options for ever and a day.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Single use.

MR. HANSON: Yes. Write that down, think about it and study it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're against it?

MR. HANSON: I'm for multiple use.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're against single use?

MR. HANSON: I'm for planning, integrated use and common sense.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Are you against single use?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The minister will have ample opportunity to reply.

MR. HANSON:

When I started my remarks about this so-called — I underline "so

called" — agricultural lease program, the Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing jeered across the floor: "Are you against farmers?" Here we

have the B.C. Federation of Agriculture's statement on this program.

I'd like to read it into the record. It's headed: "Farmers Request

Crown Land Moratorium."

"The B.C. Federation

of Agriculture today called upon the provincial government to declare

moratoriums on two aspects of land-use policy in this province. In a

special presentation to cabinet, the 12,000-member federation requested

an immediate moratorium on the sale of Crown land under Lands, Parks

and Housing Minister Jim Chabot's new agricultural lease policy."

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The committee has been reminded many times that a personal reference is

unparliamentary. We refer to a minister by his portfolio or to a member

by the riding he represents.

MR. HANSON: It

continues: "The policy announced in August by the minister was aimed at

promoting the provincial government's commitment to greater

self-sufficiency in food production by making parcels of arable Crown

land available to farmers."

HON. MR. HEWITT: Right on.

MR. HANSON:

The Minister of Agriculture says: "Right on." The next sentence in the

release on the position of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture,

representing 12,000 farmers in British Columbia, is: "But the

agricultural delegation that met with cabinet this morning said the

first sales of Crown land under the policy have been made at prices

which do not reflect agricultural values, and to individuals who do not

appear to be primarily concerned with food production." Now that's a

very serious charge.

Regarding Crown land being made

available for an agricultural lease program, the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture says that the prices don't reflect any agricultural values

and that individuals who do appear to be primarily concerned are not

concerned with food production. So there we have it. Who are these

people who are getting these 1,300 acres? You're not making Crown land

available to the people who need it and who could really use it.

goes on. There's editorial after editorial. "Loss of the Forest." "The

breadth and depth of concern over the government's release of 15,000

hectares since July of 1980 under its lease-to-purchase program could

hardly be greater, judging from the delegations that represent all the

major forest industry associations, labour unions, etc."

Was it just the forest industry and forest industry unions that were upset? Here's an

article in Commerce B.C. ,

December 1980. There are just a couple of lines here. It says: "The

issue is clear. The disposition and use of public land is too important

an issue to be left to political expediency and transitory public

demands. The land sale program should be severely curtailed — if not

stopped altogether — until a coherent long-range land-use strategy is

devised by the cabinet." That's a serious charge, you know: no coherent

policy, no coherent strategy. Just ad hockery, based on what delivering

land to the wealthy?

"Truck Loggers Attack Land Policy." It came to the point where the

East Kootenay Wildlife Association, with a large number of other groups, had

to ask the Premier of the province to intervene between the Minister of Lands,

Parks and Housing and the Minister of Forests. Here's a telegram: The Kootenays

is a great wildlife area and a great tourist area. It really is. Unfortunately

it has poor representation at the moment, but it's a great area. I'm

sure that the people of those areas will overcome their present difficulties.

The telegram reads:

THE EAST KOOTENAY WILDLIFE ASSOCIATION REQUESTS THAT THE FOLLOWING

OCCUR PRIOR TO ANY CROWN LAND BEING ALIENATED FOR AGRICULTURAL REASONS IN THE

KOOTENAY REGION: THAT A COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS BE COMPLETED OF THE LAND TO PROVE

THAT ALIENATION OF THE LAND FOR AGRICULTURAL REASONS WILL GIVE THE BEST LONG-TERM

ECONOMIC RETURN OF THE LAND FOR THE CITIZENS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA.

That's

what land management is all about, and that's what it's been about

since James Douglas was around. Unfortunately when this minister came

on the scene and started to view Crown land strictly as real estate

under the Premier's direction, all hell broke loose. Everything started

to fall apart.

SHOULD THE ECONOMIC RETURN FOR AGRICULTURE OUTWEIGH THE BENEFITS

FROM FORESTRY, GUIDING, HUNTING, FISHING, TRAPPING OR OTHER FORMS OF OUTDOOR

RECREATION, PLUS GRAXING AND TOURISM, ETC., OVER A GIVEN PERIOD OF TIME, THEN

AGRICULTURAL USE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED THE PRIME USER, GIVEN BOTH GAINS AND LOSSES.

In other words, weigh up the cost benefits in a multiple, integrated, complex,

sophisticated way of looking at land, not his way and not that way.

This is to the Premier of the province:

WE THEREFORE ASK THAT A MORATORIUM BE PLACED ON CROWN LAND SALE

OR LEASE PURCHASE UNTIL A COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS IS COMPLETED. IT

[ Page 6284 ]

IS ESSENTIAL THAT THIS ANALYSIS TAKE PLACE. PLEASE REPLY. C.C.

PURDY, EAST KOOTENAY WILDLIFE ASSOCIATION, KIMBERLEY.

The opposition came from every direction. I'll quote some headlines: "Land Sales Plan Called A Disaster," Province , December 18, 1980; "The Big Giveaway," Mike Halleran in the Sun

in November of last year; and "Crown Land In B.C. At Fire-Sale Prices."

There's no planning, no planning, no planning. Here's another one from

a major background paper in the province: "Forestry Professor Urges

Immediate Turnabout." This "ridiculous, ill-conceived forest conversion

program must be dropped."

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Going

back to my introductory remarks, so much of our future and our present

economy depends upon rational planned management of our land base. It's

under the stewardship of that minister. We've seen a number of

examples. I pointed out how in a totally uncoordinated way he

intervened in an area that was going to be a park of the future for the

people of the Golden area. Before we knew it he intervened and

overruled the Agricultural Land Commission when a former political

associate of his applied for the land to be taken out as a gravel pit.

It was really an incredible thing you did there.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Be careful now.

MR. HANSON:

He warns me to be careful. It's a matter of public record what he did.

He assisted in the overturning of an Agricultural Land Commission

ruling to get land for a gravel pit worth $7 million taken right out of

the middle of the agricultural land reserve for a close political

associate. Then we have the case at Esplanade Bay. But the broader

picture is much more important. This minister embarked upon a policy of

trying to dispose of large portions of land, and he called it a

so-called agricultural land lease-to-purchase program. It was an

abysmal failure opposed by every sector of our society. He actually has

hurt the economy of British Columbia through his poor planning, and he

even had to be slapped into place by the Premier of the province.

British

Columbia is a beautiful place and wonderfully endowed with resources.

But our land requires a lot of planning. We have extensive mountain

ranges and very little lowland and well-drained floodplain areas, which

are the best growing sites for trees and also the easiest sites for

development of urban areas for residential sites and so on. Those

well-drained, enriched soils are also the lands that are best for the

production of our food supply. As limited as it is, with only 5

percent, that is a precious resource that we must protect at all costs.

To alienate prime forest lands without a cost-benefit analysis for

single-purpose so-called agricultural purposes of dubious economic

benefit to the people of the province or even the owners of the land

was really a ridiculous and tragic policy embarked upon by this

minister.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to

make a correction from this morning. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf)

stated that Iskut was on Telegraph Creek Road. It's just about 100

miles south on the Stewart-Cassiar Road. Dealing with what the member

for Omineca was speaking of, I'd have to state that I agree with what

he was talking about concerning the inflated prices on Crown land. In

the far north it's often much too high.

One question I would

like to direct to the minister — maybe Mr. Johnson could help out on

that — is concerning the application of Crown land up in Good Hope

Lake. It was stated that there was B.C. Hydro and B.C. Tel to the

serviced lots. B.C. Hydro is within 150 miles down in Dease Lake, and

B.C. Tel doesn't go up that far; it's CN. Maybe the minister could have

that changed so it doesn't mislead anyone who is applying for certain

spots of Crown land up north.

Another suggestion to the minister, Mr. Chairman, is that hopefully the minister

could find some type of a new lot draw outside of Cassiar, since there is a

definite need for many residents in the Cassiar area to receive Crown land.

Presently there are two lot draws going on: one up in Good Hope Lake and the

other down in Dease Lake this spring. But there is a definite need for the workers

who live in Cassiar to have Crown land outside of the town company. Once again,

it's all too often that we find Crown land prices that are inflated in isolated

areas like Good Hope Lake, Dease Lake or Germansen Landing compared to Crown

land across this province. Maybe the minister could state how the prices for

Crown land lots, particularly at Good Hope Lake and Dease Lake, are arrived

at. It's approximately $5,500 for each one of the lots. Many residents

are asking how you arrive at this figure of $5,500, for instance in Good Hope

Lake, when there is very little owned land in the area. How do you base that

comparison?

Another

question I would hope the minister could answer is that on the

lease-to-purchase land it says that either party can withdraw from the

program within three years. Is that correct?

HON. MR. CHABOT: What's that?

MR. PASSARELL:

On the lease-to-purchase, either party can withdraw after three years.

Once you put your bid in — the $250 or $750 for the bid — and your bid

is accepted, you have three years to take up the Crown land. That's

right, Mr. Minister? Okay.

If it states that either party

can cancel within three years, what happens if you accept it? You put

your $750 in, then you can take the option on

schedule A or

schedule B

either to pay cash or you have a year to pay the remaining money back

to the Crown. What happens if you're billed that first year and the

Crown doesn't accept your lease? When you pick up a bid, the option on

schedule B states, if I'm not mistaken — and the minister or Mr.

Johnston could correct me on this.... Do you receive the Crown land?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman I the member for Atlin constantly

refers to people who aren't present, suggesting that they are present.

I wish he'd refrain from that.

MR. PASSARELL: Thank

you, I'll just direct it to the minister. When you take

schedule B on

the lease-to-purchase on the bid draw, is it that you have to pay the

remaining price of the land back within one year at I percent under

prime? Is that correct? Just shake your head one way or the other. It

was brought to my attention that if you take

schedule B instead of

paying cash for the outlay of the Crown land, you have a year to pay it

back and that you get it at I percent under or over prime. Maybe the

minister could state the reason for that. If it's I percent under, how

is that? Does it increase as the prime rate goes up weekly, or is it

set at a certain option? When you

[ Page 6285 ]

picked

up the land, for instance, on June 17 and the prime rate was at 19.04

for the remainder of the year, to purchase back or to pick that up,

would it be set at 18.04 or would it constantly go up as the prime rate

would go up? That's just a question that I would like the minister to

answer, because I've received some correspondence from individuals

who've picked up Crown land.

Another suggestion I would hope

the minister could look at is that there are a number of native people

who are living outside of Good Hope Lake. They've lived in that

particular area for approximately 10 or 15 years. They've been

squatting on the land. They want to receive title, and they don't know

how to go about it. Maybe the minister could state how they can do it.

They've written a number of letters, but they've received copies back

from the Smithers office that have left them in a dilemma. Maybe the

minister could stipulate how people who squat on land for 10 or 15

years go about getting title and what the cost is. Is it similar to

picking up Crown land? Do you have to bid on it? This has come about

now because B.C. Assessment has come around and started to assess some

of the cabins that these individuals are living in. As a further

suggestion to the minister, it might be a good idea for the Lands

office in Smithers to contact the UNN to see if this problem can be

resolved.

I've raised a number of questions with the

minister. I would certainly hope that he might be able to shed some

light on some of them.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman,

first of all I'm wondering if the member could answer one question for

me. Have you apologized yet to Governor Hammond of Alaska for the

misleading statement?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We're on vote 149.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Chairman, the member asked how we determined the price of the

parcel of land that he bought at Good Hope Lake. It's determined by

comparables. Cost of development of those lots is also taken into

consideration. I forget just how many there were at Good Hope Lake — 11

or in that neighbourhood. You were fortunate to have picked up one of

those lots — about one acre for about $5,000.

MR. PASSARELL: It was $5,400.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

You've put your $750 down, and you have a specified period of time in

which you must build a habitable dwelling on your parcel of land.

HON. MR. HEWITT: He bought one?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, he bought one. He was in the lottery draw.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Are you playing favourites with the opposition? Is he a friend of yours?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

They're inconsistent. It seems to be all right if an NDPer gets some

land; but if somebody happens to live in Columbia River, it seems to be

wrong. The member for Atlin got some Crown land. I suppose I'll be

hearing from the anthropologist, the second member for Victoria (Mr.

Hanson), what his views are about the member for Atlin, a member of

this House, getting Crown land at Good Hope Lake.

HON. MR. HEWITT: How many other people wanted that lot?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I wonder how many other people wanted that lot, but the member got it.

There's

a specified period of time within which you must develop a habitable

dwelling on the lot before you can get title. You've asked some

technical questions on interest rates. I know that our interest floats

and is adjusted quarterly. If you write me a letter, I'd be glad to

Crown land that you've acquired up at Good Hope Lake.

You

asked a question about trespassers who have illegally occupied Crown

land for some considerable period of time and now are seeking title,

wanting to legalize the illegal occupation of those lands. I suggest

that wherever it is possible the Crown will convenience these people in

legalizing their property. However, there are circumstances in which,

in the public interest, a trespass should not be legalized. I would

think that in most instances in your constituency those who have sought

title should not experience too many problems in securing title.

there are any delays.... Of course it would involve an inspection of

the land in question by an inspector from Smithers, a long way away. I

guess they go up only periodically, so that could cause some delay. But

if there is undue delay in receiving title — and I think in most

instances title would be granted to these trespassers — I would suggest

that you write to the minister. The minister will be ready and willing

to intervene on behalf of your constituents in Atlin.

MR. PASSARELL:

The minister was a bit mistaken concerning the Crown land I secured up

in Good Hope Lake. The minister should be aware of when bid draws are,

since he's the minister. Just to set the record straight, there were 20

lots up on a bid system in Good Hope Lake on September 15, 1980. At

that time I felt that it would not be of particular value for me to

apply for Crown land in a bid system, because of my position. So I

waited the customary six months and then went in and picked up the

Crown land for cash. It was only one lot that was picked up out of the

20 drawn September 15, 1980, in Good Hope Lake. The 19 remaining lots

that were on a cash-come basis. So for the minister to state any

improper motives on my part would be....

HON. MR. HEWITT: Special treatment.

MR. PASSARELL:

The Minister of Agriculture says: "Special treatment." There was none

whatsoever, Mr. Chairman. It may be that the member who is speaking

from his chair now — the Minister of Agriculture and Food — is able,

because of his financial capabilities, to go out and buy 50 or 60

hundred thousand dollar lots in this province. There are some people in

this party and this province, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, who need

Crown land. I think that's the whole situation, and what we're

discussing today.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, could you bring the Minister of Agriculture to order?

[ Page 6286 ]

The

position is that there are a lot of young couples who cannot go out and

afford land in this province. Some of the inflated rates for picking up

Crown land that the ministry has brought upon residents of the north

should be changed. Individuals living in rural and northern areas

across this province should be able to secure Crown land at reasonable

prices they can afford. Members from the south, like the Minister of

Agriculture and Food, who lives just outside Vancouver — in Penticton;

that's the lower mainland — and who shouts from his seat, should be

aware that many individuals who live up in the north, young couples and

old, should have the right to pick up Crown land at a reasonable price,

whether it's in the Kootenays, Omineca or Boundary-Similkameen. And

residents of Atlin should too.

The minister is talking about

my picking up some Crown land. Well, we're going to build our first

home and use this government's program of first-home mortgages. Is that

still in existence, where you can pick this up cheap — you can pick up

mortgages at reasonable rates — or was that exhausted within a day or

two of its inception? Whatever the case is, my picking up a Crown grant

in Good Hope Lake did not disallow anyone else who wanted to pick it

up. I guess, since the time I picked up my land approximately two

months ago.... I'll stand corrected, but I don't believe there has been

another individual who picked up the Crown land. But that's

nickel-and-diming it. I think we have more important things in this

House to discuss than personal attacks on individuals in this

Legislature.

There are a number of questions we have

directed to the minister. The minister got up on a fictitious point of

order, or something, talking about the Governor of Alaska. I certainly

hope that the minister has more on his mind than discussing individuals

in this House. We have problems with Crown land. Individuals across

this province living in rural and northern areas need to receive Crown

land so they can build homes and bring a benefit to the economy of

British Columbia.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, in

response, I didn't get up on a point of order while he was speaking. I

got up in response to the questions he'd put to me a little earlier. As

I was trying to respond to his questions, what was going through my

mind was whether he had responded to the false allegation he had made

about the Governor of the state of Alaska — and whether he had

apologized, because he did upset the Governor of the state of Alaska.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. member. I must ask the minister to confine his

remarks to vote 149. His remarks are not relative to the present

estimate.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I'll respond

to the other question put to me by the member. The member wants to know

whether he personally — and it seems to me that I'm dealing with all

these personal problems today — would be entitled to a second mortgage

under my ministry's housing program. You're not only entitled to the

$5,000 second mortgage, Mr. Member. Because you have a child, you would

also be eligible for the $2,500 first-family home grant. It's one of

the two; you can't have both. The two conditions are that you have to

have resided in British Columbia for two years and you have to be a

Canadian citizen.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I do have a few

questions for the minister. The minister ended his response discussing

the second mortgage and the first homeowner's grant. I'll go on record

as saying that they're good programs. I support them. Because of

inflationary rates and other factors in the province and country today,

I would strongly suggest that those figures be increased. I would

suggest $10,000 for the first mortgage at this rate, and $5,000 for the

first homeowner's grant, under the guidelines you've established. It's

something to think about, Mr. Minister.

If we can afford to

subsidize Teck and Denison by billions of dollars on the northeast coal

deal, then surely we can afford to help.... We have young people in the

province today, particularly young, married people, who are attempting

to own their first home. The fact is that on the average wage paid in

this province today, people can't afford to buy a lot — never mind

build a home on that lot.

That brings me to the point I want

to make immediately with the minister. That is the availability of

Crown land. I'm very familiar.... I read the press releases, the

various journals that come out of the minister's office, the

advertisements in all the papers in the riding and all the rest of it.

I know that the minister is making land available to some extent. One

of the problems the minister doesn't seem to recognize, in terms of the

lease-to-purchase and lot draws for Crown land in some of these areas,

is that the people who need that land so they can get started in

building a home are not getting it. The people who are getting that

property — the recreation property on Powell Lake for example, or

various parcels of five-acre lots in various parts of our riding that

I'm sure you're familiar with, are people with money. You know the

process: 90 percent of actual value and all this stuff,

The

point I'm trying to make here is that in most cases the people who

really need the property are not getting it. That does really bother me

quite a bit. I know of many instances where people who don't need the

property at all are purchasing it for speculation only.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Those are two separate topics. We'll get to recreation land in a minute.

The

people who need the property are not getting it. A policy should be

devised so people in lower-income brackets.... The young people,

particularly, will never under the present system.... This government

and that minister — in spite of what he's been telling us for several

years — have failed to develop a housing policy for British Columbia.

That policy could have been enunciated in this Legislature under these

estimates. This government has failed to meet the housing crisis in

British Columbia today, as well as what I call the land crisis, for

many people. Waterfront lots in my riding that were selling for as high

as $30,000 a year or two ago, are now selling for $100,000 and

$125,000. The minister is very much aware of this.

While I

have the floor, I want to point out to the minister and Legislature

some of the people who do get a lot of Crown land. They're called the

CPR. The CPR seems to have no trouble getting Crown land from the

minister.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Swap.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, you're right, Mr. Minister. There was a land swap with the CPR and Pacific Logging

[ Page 6287 ]

where

you alienated, under your ministry and through

an act under your

jurisdiction, 5,000 acres of timbered, partly waterfront land which you

gave to the CPR without any type of assessment being carried out. The

Minister of Forests told me, in this Legislature, that it was under

your jurisdiction that this so-called land swap took place.

know what you're going to say. You're going to say: "We have this much

land, we've got this and that, bleat, blab and bloop." I've heard all

that stuff. What you didn't say is that the land you traded for does

not nearly come up to the value of the land that you gave to the CPR.

So you can see that the CPR has no problem getting Crown land full of

timber, gravel pits and waterfront in this province. The three pieces

of property you swapped that land for with the Pacific Logging division

of the CPR that had potential value as parks could have been obtained

by this government in different ways if it wanted to. There are other

ways of doing things. I've made an issue of this matter before in the

House, and I don't intend to go through the whole litany again. But I

just wanted it on record under this minister's estimates that this is

the minister under whose responsibility that transaction took place. I

know the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) was the prime mover.

He's just as guilty as you are, if not more so, along with the Premier

and the rest of your cohorts over there.

I have another item

for the minister: Hardy Island. Does that ring a bell, Mr. Minister?

Hardy Island is an archaeological site just off Nelson Island, with

Indian artifacts dating back about 10,000 years, according to

archaeologists and my colleague over here. I asked you to intervene and

you said: "No. What's the point of sewing a few old...." These

artifacts — the carvings, the gravesite and the whole thing — are

irreplaceable and part of our heritage, particularly part of the

heritage of the Indian people in this province. You could have

cooperated. PV Services, who own the island with clear title and are

presently logging the island, were willing to cooperate. Your colleague

the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) was willing to cooperate. The

only one who wouldn't cooperate was you, Mr. Minister. You never

cooperate.

I think those types of sites are too valuable to

be left under the jurisdiction of ministries like yours. In all

fairness, I do want to say that the Provincial Secretary has made a

commitment to me in writing that they will preserve at least portions

of that very valuable archaeological site. He understands that his

colleague the Minister of Lands is not prepared to assist and discuss

either a land swap or coming up with funds or anything else. The

Provincial Secretary is willing to assist. I'm pleased to say that

they're working on the project at this very moment, attempting to save

at least a portion of that very valuable site and part of our heritage.

You

don't have to answer that. You and I have been through this before, Mr.

Minister. I know your answer by heart, but you might want to get it

back on the record.

Last but not least, I wonder if the

minister could bring us up to date on the situation in regards to a

proposed provincial park on Okeover Inlet. I'd be very interested in

the minister's answer. With that, I'll take my place and anxiously

await the minister's reply.

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of

all, I'd like to respond to some of the questions put to me by the

member for Mackenzie, in which he talks about residential lard and

people .speculating in Crown residential land. I suggest to you, Mr.

Member, that there is no way in which you can completely eliminate

speculation. You can put in place as many safeguards as you possibly

can, but you can never completely eliminate speculation. We've done

that in making Crown land available for residential development in the

province. The guidelines are such that in most instances an individual,

who can acquire this Crown land at 10 percent less than market price,

must build a habitable dwelling on the site within a two-year period

and occupy it for one year.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I know all of those things, Jimmy.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

I'm just telling you that you can't completely eliminate the

speculative aspect of land. We've taken as many measures as we possibly

can without segregating our society and without somebody having to give

us a statement of his earnings in the previous year. We think that if

you're a British Columbian in need of land, you should have the right

as an individual — don't start suggesting real estate — to acquire land

to build a home on and to live in British Columbia.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I agree, but the people who really need it are not getting it. That's the point.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

The member suggests that maybe we should have an income test. I don't

know, Mr. Member from Mackenzie, where you want to draw the line.

Should an individual who earns more than $10,000 be denied the right of

acquiring Crown land, or should it be $15,000, or should every British

Columbian who makes his contribution to society in this province have

an equal chance? Your point of view obviously differs from mine in that

respect.

You talk about our first-home grant, family

first-home grant and our mortgages. Last year alone with the first-home

grant, family first-home grant and second mortgages we helped in excess

of 14,000. Outright grants for first-time home buyers were in excess of

$21 million. You suggested that there's a need for an escalation.

That's worthy of consideration. There's also a need for review of the

kind of upper limit we place on what the home value can be to which the

grant will apply, and that's under review as well.

The

member for Mackenzie talks about land exchange with CPR, Pacific

Logging and the province. I want to assure that member that any land

exchanges that take place between the province or any group within the

province are subject to appraisal. There's no difference between this

land exchange and any other land exchange. Appraisals take place in

every instance.

You've mentioned that the acquisition of

Hardy Island is being looked after by another ministry of government,

probably through the right ministry now. I indicated that there was no

urgent need for the expenditure of — if I remember correctly — $1.5

million. I forget the specific figure involvement. We didn't have the

money. We had higher priority areas as far as provincial park

development was concerned on Hardy Island. I'm glad to hear that the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), under the heritage conservation

branch, is having a look at preserving those artifacts.

the moment there's nothing new on Okeover Park. I've had some

correspondence of late from the regional district. They seem to be a

little confused by a letter I've written them. I think I read in the

Powell River Crier — or some

name like that — that they're writing to me for an

interpretation of my

last letter. We've been listening to the wishes of the people in

[ Page 6288 ]

the

area. There's no doubt about that. However, I have people in my

ministry who are very determined to establish a nice little provincial

park at Okeover Inlet that really doesn't interfere with mariculture or

anything else but does provide the opportunity for people to have an

overnight camping facility — just a little one. They've certainly

pressured me, but we've listened, as we generally do, — to the wishes

of the people in your area.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Just to

clarify two points very quickly, first of all I'm pleased to see the

minister has at last identified the reason why contamination and

pollution of a very valuable mariculture area is not required in that

particular location. The regional district has come up with five

alternate sites for a park in that area. I'm pleased to see the

minister finally understands this. The point I wish to clarify so it's

on the record is that I have in my possession a copy of the agreement

between Pacific Logging of CPR and the government of British Columbia,

dated November 5, 1980. If the minister would take the time to examine

article 2,

section 2-02 he will see that this whole transaction and

agreement was signed with the CPR without any appraisal whatsoever of

the worth of that 5,000 acres of Crown land. I just wanted that point

on the record, Mr. Chairman. The statement I make is absolutely true

and correct as identified in this agreement with the provincial

government.

MS. SANFORD: Since speaking this morning

I've been waiting patiently for answers to the questions I raised with

respect to Buckley Bay. I hope the minister has made a record of those

questions so he will be able to get up and answer them this afternoon.

Do you want them again?

HON. MR. CHABOT: No.

MS. SANFORD:

On May 29, a letter was sent asking for the Baynes Sound committee to

be involved in the final review procedure. Will the minister grant them

that right? That's question number one: the right to be involved in the

final review procedure, which was given to them some time ago. They

were promised that they would be involved. Number two: where is the

mariculture study at this point, as it was announced a year ago? Have

you found them now?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Buckley Bay is

the spot where M&B want to develop a dryland sort for bundled logs.

It's an old, abandoned coal-loading site next to the slip for the ferry

that goes across to Denman Island.

First of all, I'm rather

surprised. The member talks for only one part of her constituents, only

one group. There are opposing groups, as far as this bundled log

dryland sort is concerned. You talk for the people on Denman Island and

Hornby Island, but you forget to talk for those on this side — on

Vancouver Island. I've received a petition from at least 300 people who

say they want that dryland sort.

AN HON. MEMBER: Table it.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

I'd be glad to table it. I don't have it here. I'm not quoting from it,

as you did. I hope you'll have the respect to table those documents you

were reading from when we go back into the House.

MR. KING: Where do you think you are now?

HON. MR. CHABOT: We're in committee, Mr. Member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, in case you didn't know.

However,

there are 300 people out there who have petitioned me and who say: "We

need this dryland sort. We don't really believe that it will interfere

with mariculture. We need the jobs. We need jobs!" Are you against

that? Are you against those 300 people who say they want jobs?

I've

had meetings with the director of marine biology, who really didn't

identify any interference from this dryland sort, based on the most

sensitive environmental guidelines ever set down for log dumps in the

history of this province. Those will be used at Buckley Bay. All kinds

of precautions will be taken. The director of marine biology did not

suggest that there would be any adverse affect on the mariculture in

Buckley Bay. You can come up with all kinds of alternate

recommendations for the transportation of logs at this time, but I want

to assure you that we've given approval in principle, provisional upon

M&B putting together an acceptable development plan — acceptable to

the Ministry of Environment and this ministry. Essentially we've told

that opposing group from Denman Island that they would have an

opportunity to review the plan. They have an opportunity to give input

to MacMillan Bloedel about their plan. Once the plan is finally in

place, I'm ready and willing to allow them to review the plan and make

suggestions — not suggestions that destroy the approval in principle to

proceed, but suggestions that could possibly improve the environment of

the area. If they have some suggestions I'd be glad to hear from them.

You

talked about the study on mariculture. I'm afraid you'll have to ask

that question of the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers), because

the study comes under his ministry.

MS. SANFORD: I

mentioned this morning that the minister refused to take the problem of

the log dump and the environmental consequences seriously. That

certainly has been borne out again this afternoon.

How many

times have we been assured by a Social Credit government that there

would be no harmful effects on the environment from this or that

project? In the constituency of Comox we have had ample examples of

what happens when we hear the promises made by a Social Credit

government regarding the environment and projects. Buttle Lake is in

the constituency of Comox; Western Mines is part of Comox constituency;

Utah Mines was part of the constituency of Comox until they changed the

boundaries before the last election. We know what's happened in all

those areas. We had the same assurances then as we're getting now from

this minister with respect to projects, and the fact that they won't

have any harmful effect on the environment. It makes no sense not to

consider the alternatives proposed by people who are knowledgeable, who

do the work and who examine the alternatives that would be acceptable

environmentally and in their social impact.

The minister

talked about jobs. The only thing they are doing is moving jobs from

one part of my constituency to the other. There are virtually no new

jobs in this project. There is already a log-dump site available in the

constituency of Comox — Mac-Blo's.

For him to try to tell me

that I'm not concerned about jobs or that I'm concerned about only one

issue here.... I'm attempting to look at the social as well as the

environmental impact of this. I refuse to accept the assurances of any

Social Credit minister with respect to the protection of the

environment, particularly in projects like this.

[ Page 6289 ]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. CHABOT:

The member can huff and puff all she wants. She can talk about Western

Mines and Utah Mines and issues that far predate me. The decision

probably wasn't made by my ministry but by another ministry. I'm

suggesting to you that you are attempting to create fear of the dangers

of this. I've been given assurances by marine biologists that this....

MS. SANFORD: We've been assured before.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Well, you have to take the best professional advice you possibly can.

I've been assured by marine biologists that there'll be no impact on

mariculture in that area. Based on the best of advice, the project has

been approved.

MR. PASSARELL: We'd like to discuss

the last aspect of the minister's estimates; that is, parks. The B.C.

provincial park system now encompasses approximately 5 percent of the

land base in the province. Many groups are asking for a 1 percent

addition to the 5 percent to make parks 6 percent of the land mass in

British Columbia. This is one of the positions put forward by the

Federation of B.C. Naturalists. Why? We find that additional parks

would to a certain extent provide wildlife protection, as well as

additional recreational opportunities for the increased population

growth in the province. I would certainly