1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th 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)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 19, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6207 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Environmental Protection Act (Bill M209). Mr. Cashore

Introduction and first reading –– 6207

Ministerial Statements

Drift-net fishing. Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm 6208

Mr. G. Hanson

University Endowment Lands. Hon. Mr. Dirks –– 6208

Mr. Williams

Oral Questions

National sales tax. Mr. Harcourt –– 6209

SUCCESS program. Mr. Barnes –– 6210

Unemployment insurance. Mr. Clark –– 6210

Native education, Mr. G. Hanson 6211

University Endowment Land Park Act (Bill 16). Second reading

On the amendment

Mrs. McCarthy –– 6211

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 6215

Mr. Guno –– 6217

Hon. Mr. Michael –– 6217

On the main motion

Mr. Harcourt –– 6218

Mr. Bruce –– 6219

Mr. Gabelmann –– 6220

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 6221

Mr. Rabbitt –– 6224

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 6225

Hon. Mr. Dirks –– 6226

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Government Management Services estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Michael)

On vote 31: minister's office –– 6227

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Clark

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. REID :

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce a very special guest

to Victoria and the parliament buildings. On the floor with us today is

the Hon. Michel Gratton, the Minister of Tourism of the province of

Quebec. He is in British Columbia with his chief of staff, Jean-Bernard

Villemaire, who is also in the precincts. They are attending, with

1,200 tourism trade people from across Canada and around the world,

Rendezvous Canada at the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre. It's a

very successful fair, and we are very pleased to have the Hon. Michel

Gratton with us today. Would the House make him especially welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

All of us have very capable staff in our constituency offices, and I am

sure they are often very busy, particularly at this time of year. My

office gets extra busy from time to time because we receive calls not

only from the constituency but from throughout the province. Both the

second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen) and I, who share the office,

are particularly pleased to have such wonderful staff as Carol Rogier

and Lauretta DeVries. They are with us today, and I would ask the House

to make them welcome.

MS. A. HAGEN : It's always a

pleasure for members of this House to welcome former MLAs to the floor

of the chamber; today it's my particular pleasure to welcome Dennis

Cocke. Dennis was Health minister from '72 to '75, and that position

has a reputation that has gone with him ever since he first graced the

office in 1972. Dennis calls it as it is, and I know we on this side of

the House have very much enjoyed having him with us today. I'd ask all

members to join in welcoming him again to the floor of this chamber.

HON. MR. VANT :

Today, Mr. Speaker, a young lady is sitting in your gallery. She used

to work for the great Cariboo radio network in the great constituency

of Cariboo. This young lady is more secretive than some members of this

House in divulging information to the press. I don't know how old she

is, but today is her birthday. Would members on both sides of the House

join me in saluting Margot Sinclair on her birthday.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : It is indeed a pleasure for me to rise on behalf of

the second member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) and myself to introduce 23 grade

11 and 12 students visiting British Columbia on an exchange program with the

North Delta Secondary School. They are from St. Hyacinthe, Quebec. I would like

to say that my two oldest daughters had the opportunity to exchange to the same

high school. I would like this assembly to please make them welcome to beautiful

British Columbia.

HON. MR. DUECK :

I would also like to rise in this House and welcome my predecessor's

predecessor's predecessor — the Health minister who was in this House

doing the same job I'm doing. I have had occasion to meet him many

times at different functions, and I respect Dennis Cocke. He has also

done a terrific job at the Royal Columbian Hospital Foundation, and I

welcome him here in the House today.

MR. PELTON :

Hon. members, today is a very special day for me because seated in the

members' gallery with my wife Louise is our eldest grandson, Brent

Purcell. Brent is studying at the University of Victoria and today is

his twenty-first birthday. I wonder if members would make him welcome.

MRS. GRAN :

Seated in the members' gallery today are two young women who grew up

together in Langley. They're two young women who are very special to

me. One is my assistant here in Victoria, Tracey Roper, and the other

is my daughter Corinne. Would the House please welcome them.

MRS. McCARTHY :

I would like the House to welcome a former member of the Vancouver city

council who is with us today. It's an important day for her to be here

because she was one of the great proponents of the University Endowment

Lands park — former Ald. Helen Boyce.

Introduction of Bills

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT

Mr. Cashore presented a bill intituled Environmental Protection Act.

MR. CASHORE :

The Environmental Protection Act requires that all major projects, both

public and private, undergo an environmental review process as set

forth in

part 3. These include: fish-farms and other aquaculture

projects, dams, dredging projects, river diversions, wharves, major

public and forest roads, railways, airports, oil and gas pipelines,

power stations and major powerlines, pulp mills, oil refineries,

ferro-alloy plants, aluminium smelters and other industries, large

livestock operations, mines, aerial pesticide spraying, solid waste

incinerators, hazardous waste facilities and all other major

industrial, commercial or residential projects.

No major

development shall be permitted to proceed until it has undergone a

public environmental review process and has met environmental

protection standards. This process will ensure that all methods of

mitigating negative impacts on the environment are identified and put

into place prior to development taking place.

All public

costs and infrastructure requirements necessary to protect the

environment, such as sewage and solid waste disposal, will be accounted

for before development is allowed to proceed. This will ensure that the

proponent of the project, rather than the public, pays the true

environmental costs.

[2:15]

[ Page 6208 ]

The

environmental assessment process will be an open one, with full

participation of the public and the affected communities. Intervener

funding will be provided where necessary, to provide fair and

meaningful participation in the review process.

Bill M209

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.

Ministerial Statements

DRIFT-NET FISHING

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

The province of British Columbia is deeply concerned and troubled with

the desecration of marine wildlife by drift-net fishermen in

international waters off the west coast. Drift-net fleets from Japan,

Korea and Taiwan, under the guise of fishing for squid, release

thousands of miles of netting and set up an impenetrable wall to

capture salmon bound for North America. It is conservatively estimated

that more than 1,000 vessels in the North Pacific are drift-net

fishing. Each boat has 30 miles of netting. Together they could drop

enough netting to circumnavigate the world and then some Besides

catching squid and salmon, these nets scoop up tens of thousands of

dolphins, unknown numbers of whales, immature salmon and tuna, and

endangered species of marine life.

Also of concern is the

unacceptable practice of letting hundreds of miles of lost netting

continue to drift in the North Pacific, catching and entangling marine

mammals and sea birds. I am sure all British Columbians share the view

that this irresponsible practice is both destructive and wasteful, and

that it must not be allowed to continue.

There is something

wrong when we as a society allow others to plunder our marine and

wildlife without restraint. The B.C. government will not tolerate this

attack on our natural environment. The time for action is now. The

federal government must take a more aggressive approach through

diplomatic channels in an effort to resolve this most urgent and

pressing matter. I believe it is urgent, and I am pleased to say that

we have contacted the federal government. We are continuing to pursue

this through the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and we'll be in

touch with the federal minister responsible. I've already written the

Prime Minister, and we intend to pursue this very aggressively.

MR. G. HANSON :

We're pleased to hear the statement on the high-seas drift-net fishery

from the Premier. I would just like to remind him that we raised this

issue on the floor of this House over two years ago. We asked that

action be taken to stop an ecological disaster. It's strip-mining of

the ocean. We called it the curtain of death, which it really is.

Thirty thousand miles of monofilament line is laid every evening and

gathered up every morning. Sometimes, as the Premier suggested, pieces

break away; they ghost-fish and drop to the bottom of the ocean. When

the fish decomposes, they surface, and those nets fish again until all

life is gone in the North Pacific.

Mr. Speaker, we applaud

the action of the government. We're wondering about the two years'

delay and the interception of the salmon from British Columbia, Alaska

and Washington State. Perhaps the links that you've been mentioning

regarding the Alaskan and Washington officials.... Perhaps we could

discuss with the Korean, Taiwanese, South Korean and Japanese officials

the ecological disaster that's taking place there. It's a nightmare of

conservation. It should have been done earlier, but thank God it's

being done now.

UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENT LANDS

HON. MR. DIRKS :

Mr. Speaker, the eyes of this province have truly focused on the

proceedings in this chamber in the last 24 hours. Last night and indeed

this morning, I have received a number of phone calls from residents of

Point Grey and other areas of this province, from people concerned over

the debate on Bill 16. People are concerned that once again there might

be a delay in having the UEL made into a park for all British

Columbians in perpetuity.

I'd like to assure the citizens of this province, through this House, that this government is determined....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. The opposition House Leader rises on a point of order.

MR. ROSE :

Well, it does concern me a little bit, because statements of government

policy are the rule in ministerial statements. A ministerial statement

is not designed — according to the great parliamentary expert, author

George MacMinn — for the purpose of arguing a particular case or

putting forward a particular position.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE : We're in the bill; we can talk about that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

With the greatest of respect, Mr. Speaker, to both yourself and my

learned colleague, the minister is iterating this government's policy

towards parks.

MR. SPEAKER : I thank both the

opposition House Leader and the government House Leader for their

points. But I would suggest to the opposition House Leader that until

we hear the minister's statement, we don't know if he is making a

policy statement. You must raise your point of order then.

HON. MR. DIRKS :

Mr. Speaker, I wish to allay the fears of those citizens who have

called me over the last 24 hours. I trust that by making this

ministerial statement we will allay the unnecessary fears that this

park is in jeopardy. This government is com-

[ Page

6209 ]

mitted to this proposal and will reject any

attempts to delay or defeat the bill passing through this House and

creating this park in perpetuity.

MR. SPEAKER : The opposition House Leader. Are you responding to the minister?

MR. ROSE : No, it's on the point of order, Mr. Speaker. We'll have someone else respond to the minister.

I reiterate: such a statement arguing the case when the bill is before us is a blatant misuse of a ministerial statement.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Once again we have a desperate government that wants to play politics

with every issue. Let's get it clear: 1,100 acres was established as a

park in 1975, and all of the foot-dragging ever since has taken place

by that administration over there.

We have a leader, we

have a party, that has fought for social justice through wartime. We

have fought bigotry in the past, and we fight bigotry now as we hear it

in this chamber — what we've heard in the last couple of days. We have

a leader and a party that is insisting we begin to negotiate a

fundamental injustice in this country and in this province in terms of

settling native land claims. But more than that, we are a party that

believes in justice for all — in the lower mainland and the rest of

British Columbia. We think that in a rich land like ours we can have

justice both for natives and for the people who reside in the lower

mainland, in the form of the Endowment Lands park.

Your

kind of politics reaps the whirlwind. It also reaps the results in the

by-election and last general election in Point Grey. You will not fool

the citizens of Point Grey, you will not fool the citizens of greater

Vancouver and you will not fool the citizens of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER : The second member for Vancouver-Point Grey seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. PERRY :

I'd like to recognize in the gallery, once again, Mrs. Iva Mann. If any

single person has done the most to preserve the Endowment Lands as a

park, it's Mrs. Iva Mann. She reminded me that when the former Social

Credit government was about to hand those lands over to the university,

Iva Mann stood between that and the park.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

MR. PERRY : I'm acknowledging for the record, Mr. Speaker, the contribution

of that one woman, and I think it's appropriate that the House acknowledge

it again today.

Oral Questions

NATIONAL SALES TAX

MR. HARCOURT :

I have a question for the Minister of Finance, who last week stated he

did not have sufficient information to say yes or no to the proposed

national sales tax. Yet two of his colleagues have stated that the tax

will have a negative impact, at least in the two areas of tourism and

health care. Is the Finance minister now prepared to tell Michael

Wilson that B.C. does not want this new national sales tax?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I'm delighted that the hon. member opposite reads press clippings from

our side of the House — that's a useful exercise and a positive sign.

The

fact that members on our side are concerned about the national sales

tax is, of course, extremely valid. The points made by those hon.

members are, I think, accurate and obviously a cause for concern. I

similarly have expressed concerns about the national sales tax

proposal. For the benefit of the member, I might advise him that

"national sales tax" in the jargon of the trade refers to a merging of

both federal and provincial sales taxes. If the hon. member is

referring only to the federal sales tax portion of the national sales

tax program, then he should properly describe it as the federal sales

tax.

Because I am uncertain about the hon. member's degree

of knowledge on the subject, I am not quite sure how to address the

question. In any event, it might be useful to tell the House a little

more about the national sales tax proposal.

Many of our

colleagues across the country are expressing concerns similar to ours.

The federal sales tax proposal alone will have the effect of increasing

consumer prices in this country, exacerbating the inflationary spiral

and again putting the governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. John Crow, in

the position of raising interest rates in an attempt to contain

inflationary growth.

We all know in this House that that

would inevitably lead to wage-inflationary prices, and therefore this

government has made the federal Minister of Finance aware of those

concerns. As a consequence of communicating to the Minister of Finance

our concerns on a variety of fronts — not only the tax shift but also

the inflationary spiral and the possible inequities that might arise

when you apply this national program across provincial boundaries — he

is at the moment discussing the matter again with his colleagues. It's

quite possible, in the fullness of time and as a consequence of these

discussions and our own expressions of concern, that the federal

government might devise some amendments to the proposal which might be

more acceptable to all Canadians. It's a sincere desire of all of us on

this side of the House to see that eventuality occur.

[2:30]

[ Page 6210 ]

MR. HARCOURT :

The Minister of Finance makes Paul Martin sound almost mute. He is the

only man who can say maybe in a thousand words. His colleagues in

Alberta and Nova Scotia could say no to the national sales tax; I don't

understand the minister's fence-sitting.

I have a new

question for him. I asked the minister this last week, and I hope he

can answer it this week. Should the Mulroney government raise personal

taxes in its upcoming budget, would he lower provincial income tax

rates to ensure that British Columbians will not pay higher provincial

income tax?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : That's an extremely

hypothetical question. Once again it explains the difficulty that

members on this side of the House — who, by virtue of their

responsibilities of office, have some knowledge and appreciation of the

complexities of the matter we address — have with the simplistic

questions expressed by those who might not be privy to some of the more

intimate, difficult and convoluted aspects of the proposal.

The

fact of the matter is that the national sales tax proposal is very

directly linked, in the minds of the federal administrators, to the

changes in the income tax structure. Indeed, in the remarks made by the

Minister of Finance for the federal government, not only to me but

publicly, he quite clearly linked the two. So you can't separate them —

at least in his mind. If it is the intention of the federal government

to somehow continue that rather confusing connection, then obviously

there are a variety of reactions possible for all of us in the country.

can only reiterate that it is my understanding that the federal

Minister of Finance is revisiting all aspects of this question of

restructuring the taxation system of our country. Part of that will be

a federal sales tax, part of it might be a national sales tax, and part

of it will possibly be a re-examination of personal and corporate

income tax. That will take some time. Matters are unfolding, and I will

be very pleased to inform the hon. member and other members of this

House as those discussions unfold.

MR. HARCOURT : I

can understand now why the Minister of Finance placed eleventh out of

12 in the leadership race of his party. He is not capable of giving a

simple yes or no answer.

Mr. Minister, now that you have

had time to consider the matter in the fullness of time, will you

assure this House that there will be no net provincial tax increases

for British Columbians as a result of the federal budget? Yes or no.

Try it for once in your life.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I

am delighted to once again stand in this House and tell the members

opposite, the members on this side of the House and the entire world

that our personal income tax is the second-lowest in Canada, and it

will stay there.

SUCCESS PROGRAM

MR. BARNES :

I have a question for the Minister of Social Services and Housing. Mr.

Minister, we on this side of the House are very disappointed that your

ministry turned down an application for funding from the Chinese

community's SUCCESS program for youngsters. These youngsters are

vulnerable to recruitment by youth gangs. As a result of the turndown

of the application, these youngsters will of course not receive the

program and will be vulnerable. Can the minister tell the House which

ministry, if not his, is responsible for providing funding for a

program such as the one that he turned down?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

We did examine the request for funding very seriously, and determined

that under the jurisdiction of my ministry there was no program in

which it fit. Further examination determined that it fell under the

jurisdiction of the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith). I would be

happy to take your question as notice on behalf of the

Attorney-General, because it really falls under his jurisdiction.

MR. BARNES :

I thank the minister for taking the question on notice. I hope he means

that he will ensure that a solution is found to the problem.

should keep in mind that the request was made last September. He should

further keep in mind that an application was also made to the

Attorney-General prior to September last year, so it's been a long time

already. In the meantime, these youngsters are still vulnerable, they

are being recruited, and the violence that is being perpetrated upon

the community in the Chinese area is well known.

Does the

minister not feel that the $50,000 that was requested under this

application is a small price to pay to ensure that the consequences of

neglect are not a problem for this community?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Once again, the main part of the question I will take as notice for the

Attorney-General. But to elaborate for a moment, yes, I know that

$50,000 does not seem like a large amount of money, but sometimes it's

very difficult to find in one's budget — not always, but sometimes.

MR. BARNES : You just can't find the money.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I remind the member that I waited while he asked his question. Surely he can wait for a moment while he gets my answer.

get requests on a daily and weekly basis for $50,000 here, $75,000

there, $100,000 here. It doesn't sound like a lot of money, and

admittedly, taken by itself it's not a lot of money. Yes, I realize the

seriousness of the problem in this province, and particularly in

downtown Vancouver, but it is a matter that rests primarily with the

Attorney-General. I have taken the question as notice for him, and I'm

sure he will bring an answer back to this House in due course.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

MR. CLARK :

Last week the minister announced that the proposed changes to the

federal UI system "will have a significant effect on the number of

[ Page

6211 ]

people applying for provincial income assistance."

Has the minister therefore expressed concern about the changes to the

UI system to the federal government?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Yes, we have examined their changes to UI very carefully. It's

impossible for us to put a dollar amount on how it will affect the

province, but there's no question that it will affect those on income

assistance. We have held off speaking to the federal government until

after the budget comes down, which I believe is on April 27, because we

hear that there may be certain things happening in the budget, but

we're not sure. We thought that rather than reacting ahead of that, we

would wait until the other shoe drops, as it were, until the budget

comes down. At that time we will probably be entering into discussions

with the federal government to determine just how the changes in UI

will affect this government and our budget.

MR. CLARK :

Supplementary to the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations. Last

week in the House, in answer to a question on this very point from the

Leader of the Opposition, he rejected the arguments made by the

Minister of Social Services and Housing and the Leader of the

Opposition by saying, when you read through all the obfuscation: "On

the basis of the information available to us, it would appear that

British Columbia will...be a beneficiary of this program." I have a

simple question to the minister: who's right, the Minister of Social

Services and Housing or the Minister of Finance?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : It's inconceivable to me that any minister of the Crown can be incorrect. Obviously we're both right.

NATIVE EDUCATION

MR. G. HANSON :

Today is the national day of concern for native education, and I want

to direct a question to the Minister Responsible for Native Affairs.

Last week I asked him if he had registered the concern that the native

students of British Columbia and Canada have about curriculum. They are

concerned that only 20 percent of their students graduate. Has the

minister registered his concern with Hon. Mr. Cadieux, the minister?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER :

Indeed, since the member raised the question last week, I've had my

staff do some inquiries. I understand that to date there are no native

students in British Columbia who have been affected by this program. I

also am advised that, in fact, the minimum allowance for a single

student would be increased by this program from $4,400 a year to $5,400

a year. The information we have is that approximately 95 percent of the

students in this program would benefit by the changes.

It would be naive to think that there are people on a hunger strike for no

reason. Obviously there are students in Canada who are being adversely affected

by this policy. Certainly that is a concern. This ministry and this government

are anxious to see that native students have access to education. I have discussed

these concerns with the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon.

S. Hagen), and he is contacting his counterpart in Ottawa to discuss these changes.

Our

information to date is that there are no native students in British

Columbia who have been adversely affected by these changes. Indeed, I

have still to be contacted by any student from British Columbia or

anywhere in Canada who has been affected by these changes.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 16.

UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENT LAND PARK ACT

(continued)

MRS. McCARTHY : This amendment that we are addressing in the House today

pertains to

an act which allows the University Endowment Lands to be transferred

to the Greater Vancouver Regional District for the purposes of creating in perpetuity

the largest urban park in the world for the residents of and visitors to our

province. It recognizes the outstanding environmental values offered by land

within the park for both this generation and those that will follow it.

Yesterday

and today in this House we have had visitors in the gallery who have

devoted part of their lives to ensuring that this land called the

University Endowment Lands remains parkland. Iva Mann, who I am pleased

to see is in the gallery again today, and whose efforts have been

recognized on both sides of this House, has devoted a great part of her

life to the preservation of the UEL for parkland.

I did

mention former alderman and former park commissioner Helen Boyce, who

is in the gallery today. I don't think that any discussion on these

lands and the fight for these lands for parks should ever be done

without the mention of a former park commissioner, Bowie Keefer, and he

too recognized the need.

I can remember various parks

commissioners who took up the cause: my colleague the second member for

Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat), a former parks commissioner, and

the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) who is not in the

House today, but is also a former parks commissioner. Organizations

such as the Vancouver parks board and the Save Our Parkland Association

have waited 30 years for Bill 16.

Dr. Frank Turnbull, who

could be considered one of the main proponents, has waited 30 years for

the University Endowment Land Park Act. The basis for this discussion

on the amendment now before this House refers to.... Let me quote from

the

preamble to the amendment by the opposition: "Because of a total

lack of consultation, with no reference to the Musqueam people at

all...."

[2:45]

[ Page 6212 ]

Mr.

Speaker, I believe the lack of consultation is a specious argument,

firstly because there is evidence of consultation by this government

and former governments, and secondly, because the opposition's interest

in the consultative process was totally lacking when they had an

opportunity to act on these lands when they were government.

Let

me first quote from the 1977 report to the Minister of Environment, the

Hon. Jim Nielsen, by the UEL study team. The report is in two parts,

and I will quote. The first

part is a

summary of findings, evaluations,

conclusions and recommendations. The second

part in the appendices is a

compilation of seven major working papers that form the background to

the work. This report was submitted by Byron Olson, the planning team

coordinator.

The opposition, when they sent out for things

to the library.... I am so glad that the second member for

Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Perry) has found the wonderful services of

our library, which is probably the best legislative library in this

nation. I wish you had sent out for this one though, Mr. Member,

because on page 2 in recounting the history, it says: "In 1976 the

Greater Vancouver Regional District recommended a large regional park

be created in the UEL."

It goes on to say on that same

page: "An integral part of the study is the community consultation

process and the consensus approach. An intensive program of community

meetings, interviews and forums were held in attempts to have all

concerned individuals, groups, and representatives of institutions and

governments reach consensus upon the major recommendations for a

conceptual plan." Consultative process.

Again on page 17 of

that report, under the heading of "Consultative Process," they describe

in full detail the whole consultative process of this committee. They

had discussions with governments, institutions and agencies, and it

said: "All governments and agencies which had jurisdiction over present

or future interests in the Endowment Lands were contacted, interviewed

and encouraged to make their concerns known and to participate in the

study."

It goes on to talk about meetings with community

groups. From mid-August in 1976, the study says the study team was in

contact with more than "150 organizations and individuals representing

community groups, environmental interests, businesses, political

associations, housing and commercial interests, recreation groups,

religious organizations...." and many others.

The original

mailing-list numbering approximately 200 grew to over 400 by the end of

the study Then we go on to page 28 of the study, and there is specific

reference to the Musqueam land claim. There are some five paragraphs

here outlining that the Musqueam Indian band's claim to aboriginal

ownership of the UEL was presented to the team's attention.

does say on page 28: "The question of the relationship of this land

claim to the study process and any decisions on the future use of the

UEL was discussed at each of the public forums..." not only in their

presentation and representation, but made specific reference to the

band itself. That's consultation.

Later on in the study,

they filed some papers which gave correspondence between the Musqueam

band and the then Minister of Labour who was responsible for Indian

affairs at that time, the Hon. Allan Williams. There is a very

interesting quote in that letter, dated July 14, 1976, by the Musqueam

band: "We know that we cannot expect any general land freeze to be

imposed by the provincial government over our traditional lands."

The

opposition wishes to continue this charade of no consultation. A simple

request to the library would show them there was consultation. There

are members sitting in this House today who don't have to go to the

library; they know from their memories that there was plenty of

consultation in the community. The NDP criticize and talk consultation.

Where were they in 1973? Where were they when they had the opportunity

to use the consultative process? Where were they when the UEL was

discussed in public by communities? What was their answer? "Bring in

the bulldozers."

I'm going to quote a few people here. Art

Phillips, who was mayor of the city of Vancouver, on December 2, 1975,

criticized the government for putting forward a housing development

that would create a traffic hazard and impose traffic costs of

monumental proportions in Vancouver. Phillips criticized Williams, the

minister of the time and now the first member for Vancouver East, and

said he believed there should have been more consultation between the

provincial government, Endowment Lands officials, the city and Greater

Vancouver Regional District officials on the future of the land. Mayor

Art Phillips never had a consultation.

Then I recall Ald.

George McLean of Burnaby, who at the time was associated with the Lower

Mainland Parks Advisory Association. Let me read to you from the Vancouver Sun

of March 15, 1974: "Aid. George McLean of Burnaby said it would be

sheer folly to use the lands for low-cost housing, as the provincial

government apparently intends to do. To use the 1,700 acres on the

Endowment Lands for housing would not make sense, he said. They should

retain the land and not sell it down the river in the name of low-cost

housing." Alderman McLean never had a consultation.

An interesting mayor from the community of Surrey is quoted in the same article.

"Surrey Mayor Bill Vander Zalm said: "There's plenty of land for

housing yet. The statement that there's a shortage of land is a total fallacy.'"

Our Premier wanted it for park then, and he wants it for park today. When the

mayor of Surrey was quoted in this article, he was saying that because he'd

never had a consultation either.

The NDP government of the day failed to consult residents of the UBC Endowment Lands. Let me quote from the Province

of July 14, 1973: "Allan Kelly, chairman of a residents' group,

chairman of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, heads the

University Endowment Lands ratepayers' committee."

[ Page 6213 ]

Allan

Kelly is no longer with us on this earth, but he gave a tremendous

amount to the preservation of the Endowment Lands and he should be

remembered. Allan Kelly never had a consultation. He was "commenting on

an announcement Thursday" — and I'm quoting from the Province

report — "by minister without portfolio Lorne Nicolson that 25 acres of

Crown land in the Vancouver area, including the Endowment Lands, will

be used to provide up to 18,000 housing units. Resources minister Bob

Williams..."

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Who?

MRS. McCARTHY : Come on, you guys! Let me get this out.

"...had

promised in March that a design team would be appointed to study

potential uses of the 1,700-acre UBC Endowment Lands. None has been

appointed. Campus opinion is overwhelmingly in favour of leaving the

lands for park or a nature study rather than housing or commercial

development, according to a report released by UBC president Walter

Gage. The report says 72 percent of ideas submitted favour leaving the

lands in some sort of natural state. A committee struck by Dr. Gage

last year received 79 submissions from students, faculty and

environmental groups."

I'm glad the second member for

Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Perry) is so pleased about that, because he

will know that "in the opinion of the eight committee members, the

overriding desire for no development also is felt by a majority of the

university community of almost 30,000."

By the time the

report was presented to the people of British Columbia through the

press.... It was March 29, 1973, when the development of the University

of B.C. Endowment Lands was announced by government resources minister

Bob Williams.

"He told the Legislature,

during the debate on the estimates for administration of the lands,

there is no question that more of the choice lands will be put to use.

'The university has probably suffered from having too much land,' he

said. Williams told the House, which is sitting in Committee of Supply,

that the residential land is so underdeveloped that water and sewer

services installed for it are actually being wasted. 'There is no

question that the land will be put to use,' he said. He said he will

have a design team look over the development prospects this spring and

make recommendations."

That was March 29, 1973. In July 1973....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

MRS. McCARTHY : The provincial government is quoted on July 13, 1973.

Their new land lease program was announced: "'It should provide the

impetus for construction of a minimum of 18,000 new housing units in the greater

Vancouver area,' says minister without portfolio Lorne Nicolson."

Then he goes on to say: "The area in question includes 1,700 acres of

University Endowment Lands, 200 acres...on Burnaby Mountain, and part of the

650 acres on the Blair Rifle Range in North Vancouver."

[3:00]

Add to that a quote from March 1, 1974. Ald. Mike Harcourt is quoted in the Vancouver Sun of that day: "Ald. Mike Harcourt" — now the Leader of the Opposition....

MR. BRUCE : The socialist leader?

MRS. McCARTHY : We're evenhanded over here.

"'The

city has enough land to take care of housing needs for the next 20 or

30 years,' Ald. Mike Harcourt said today." Further on in the

article he

says: "'Large tracts are still available in the False

Creek-Adanac-Charles area, as well as Champlain Heights,' he noted.

'Add to this the possibility of placing some housing on the University

Endowment Lands or part of the Jericho property, still owned by the

federal government, near the recently acquired defence lands, and the

problem is not that serious,' Harcourt said."

Later that

year, it was interesting to note that on October 13, 1974, "Ald.

Michael Harcourt wants the city to ask for an immediate meeting with

the provincial government" — we know who was government at that time;

it was an NDP government — "to make publicly owned lands.... Those that

he had identified included the University Endowment Lands — available

for housing."

Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats — the member

for Vancouver East, the current member for Vancouver-Point Grey, the

members of the New Democratic Party on Vancouver council — always want

it both ways. Let's talk about the second member for Vancouver-Point

Grey's (Mr. Perry'

s) remarks to this House, and about his remarks

during the recently fought by-election. Let me tell you what that

member said during the by-election, He said he was 100 percent....

Remember, Mr. Speaker, not 99 percent, not 99.1 percent and not 98

percent; that second member for Vancouver-Point Grey said he was 100

percent in favour of park dedication for the University Endowment

Lands. But that comment "did not mean that you could overlook some

other claim" — the claim by the local Musqueams. He said: "100 percent,

but...." He wanted it both ways.

Now 100 percent means 100

percent, Mr. Speaker. It can't be watered down. It doesn't mean "100

percent but"; it means 100 percent unequivocally. I'm truly surprised

that this didn't get greater circulation during the campaign. Really,

what that "100 percent but" said....

Interjections.

MRS. McCARTHY : At least that member is true to form. It's just that

he seems to have said it rather quietly, during a campaign. I don't think

the voters of Vancouver-Point Grey or the people of Vancouver heard him say

that, and they sure didn't get a chance to read the fine print.

Mr.

"100 Percent But." I'll tell you something, Mr. Speaker: the people of

Vancouver-Point Grey will know the next time they go to the polls.

[ Page 6214 ]

The

first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) told us yesterday

in the House that she is only here because she defeated someone who

wasn't in favour of preserving the UEL for a park. She wants it both

ways too, as those on the other side of the House always do. When she

was on council in the city of Vancouver, I'm sure she supported her

teammate, the then alderman, the now Leader of the Opposition, the one

who wanted massive housing there. But she wants us to believe now that

she's sitting in this House because of her long commitment to preserve

100 percent of that land for park for all people for all time. She's

another one who wants it both ways.

By the way, the Vancouver Sun

reported in March 1974 on.... The headline is: "Warfare Goes on Over

Endowment Lands." There they were, all of the New Democrats, out in

says that a meeting sponsored by the Dunbar-West Point Grey Citizens'

Association pitted housing supporters against ecological proponents. I

wonder where the alderman, the now member for Vancouver-Point Grey, was

that night. Was she supporting her colleague on council who wanted

housing, or was she with those who wanted preservation?

MR. BLENCOE : Where were you?

MRS. McCARTHY : I'm going to tell you where I was. Where I've

always been on this subject and where, thankfully, this party has always been

on this subject: for preserving the land for park.

tells in this story who really wanted preservation, and I think that's

important to know. It says right there in the story....

Interjections.

MRS. McCARTHY :

Mr. Speaker, I think it's important to note in this debate that the MLA

for Vancouver-Point Grey, Dr. Pat McGeer, spoke in favour of

preservation at that meeting. He was challenged by members of the

audience who wanted housing, but he supported preservation. So let's be

correct about history. Let's not try to rewrite history in this House

to suit the political whim of the day of the New Democratic Party.

recall quite well Patrick McGeer's desire for something for long-term

growth. Sure, he had visions of supporting high-technology research and

making sure that at some stage in the future some land would be

available for a research park; he wanted a very few acres. I've got to

tell you in this House today that it's a darned good thing that

somebody in this province had the vision of a Dr. Pat McGeer when it

came to technology for this province.

Interjection.

MRS. McCARTHY : You can't have it both ways.

Let's look at the Vancouver council of the New Democrats. It all took place

at a meeting that the Vancouver Sun said was attended by people who supported

preservation. They were there because the subject of the controversy had come

about since the provincial government indicated it would set at least some part

aside for housing. Some people at that meeting actually identified themselves

as "members of the Vancouver area council of the NDP." Maybe they

are the real control of the NDP.

What did they say? I quote the Vancouver Sun :

"They supported the party's position on building housing to accommodate

30,000 persons on part of the lands." That's what the Vancouver area

council members of the NDP had to say. "All available lands should be

used to build housing on to alleviate the immediate situation." That's

what they said. What terrific vision, what terrific foresight, what

ecological consideration, what environmental concern, what a fight for

preserving these lands for park, what consultation, and what a concern

for aboriginal title! Where was your concern then? Where was your

acknowledgment of land claims then?

I am going to vote

against this amendment. I am going to vote for the preservation of the

University Endowment Lands for the use of people for all time — for all

of the people who will visit, for all of the people in the lower

mainland and for all of the people of British Columbia. I will be

voting against this amendment, because that is the promise that has

been given to the people of British Columbia. It is a very fair and

good promise.

MR. SPEAKER : The Minister of Municipal Affairs seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

In the gallery this afternoon are three very active people in our

province. They are very much involved with the recreation and sports

activities carried on throughout the province. For a good number of

years one of them has also been very much involved in working towards

the bill that we are dealing with today. I'm sure that she is very

interested in the debate that's taking place, I would ask the House to

please issue a very warm welcome to former alderman and park

commissioner May Brown, to Bob Vaughan and to Bill Webster.

MR. SPEAKER : The second member for Vancouver-Point Grey seeks leave to make an introduction also.

Leave granted.

MR. PERRY :

I just spied in the gallery and would like to introduce to the House

Dr. Bert Brink, retired professor of plant science at the University of

British Columbia, who is one of my mentors in the conservation

movement, someone who I think knows more about the geography and the

ecology of British Columbia than virtually any living person. He also

had the distinction of being one of the first land commissioners in

B.C. He was relieved of his responsibility by the successors to the NDP

government.

[ Page 6215 ]

MR. SPEAKER : The opposition House Leader seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. ROSE :

I would just like to add my voice to that of my colleague in welcoming

Bert Brink. He's an old professor of mine at UBC — much earlier than my

hon. colleague. If he was my professor, you can see that he has been

around a little while. He has made a great contribution to British

Columbia, and I would like to add my welcome to those already expressed.

MR. SPEAKER : The Leader of the Opposition rises on a point of order?

MR. HARCOURT :

I too would like — in terms of the introductions — to pay tribute to

councillors May Brown and Helen Boyce. I know the number of years that

they worked to expand the regional park system throughout greater

Vancouver. I think Alderman Brown was the chairperson of the GVRD parks

committee for many years; she has the honour of adding a number of

other very fine parks throughout the region to the regional park

system. Of course, Alderman Boyce was also a park commissioner and

school trustee, and the only person in Vancouver history to be all

three. Welcome to the both of you.

As we talk about this

park, Mr. Speaker, the real tribute is not to the government but to the

citizens. I have a man here who has led this for many years. We would

like you to pass on our regards of this House to your fellow citizens

who have worked with you for so many years.

[3:15]

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Getting back to the amendment.... This is the first time, save perhaps

for one other person, that I have ever heard introductions filibustered.

The

transfer of the Endowment Lands to the Greater Vancouver Regional

District will proceed on April 23 as originally scheduled. We feel

obliged in this House to give assurances, following many inquiries

provoked by the opposition's attempts in the Legislature to delay or

stop the process of transferring this park. The opposition has caused

considerable distress for the supporters of the Endowment Lands' being

turned into a park, who felt that their dreams had finally come true

and were to see it quashed by an uncaring opposition.

want to go on record as saying that the transfer ceremony is scheduled

for Sunday, April 23, at 1 p.m. All British Columbians, from all sides

of this House and all backgrounds, are invited to attend this historic

celebration on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

That

stands, Mr. Speaker, and we will not change it. We will not crush the

hopes and dreams of those who have worked so hard to get to this point.

I want to assure this House and the people of British Columbia of that.

I also want to welcome Iva Mann, Dr. Brink, Mr. Henry Hersog, and Helen

Boyce. These people, I am sure, are here today to support the transfer

of this park on the 23rd of this month at 1 p.m., and that is why they

are here lending their support to this House.

The NDP are

caving in on this, their hoist motion. I want to tell you something,

Mr. Speaker: the only thing that they are hoisted on is their own

petard at this point in time. There is no question about it. We have

been deluged with calls....

MR. PERRY : Do you know what a petard is?

HON. MR. VEITCH :

You'll find out my friend. You'll find out next time around when you go

and tell the people of Point Grey what you've said in this House.

They'll understand you. You can't fool those people even half the time,

hon. member,

We have been deluged with calls. The telephone

of my hon. colleague the Minister Responsible for Crown Lands (Hon. Mr.

Dirks) has been ringing off the hook. They are afraid that this

irresponsible opposition is going to stop them from getting this park.

We've got the courage of our convictions on this side of the House.

That is not going to happen; it's going to go ahead.

want you to join the opening celebration of the regional park in the

Endowment Lands, and to celebrate with other British Columbians, many

of whom have been waiting for 30 years to have this historic occasion

occur. It is going to happen in British Columbia on April 23.

Sometimes

we think that what we say in this House is not important. We think that

we can raise a simple hoist motion and it won't really matter all that

much as long as we are playing politics and the politics meet the order

of the day. But there are two things in here: principle and precedent.

It is important to remember the precedent underlying this hoist motion.

The

hoist motion in effect serves to throw into question all land deals

throughout the province of British Columbia. That is the precedent we

are looking at today. It goes far beyond the NDP playing politics with

an issue that, as they found out last night, they have lost on; and now

they want to back out of it again. It throws into question the right to

own property. Because with this proposed amendment, parties involved in

land deals would not know if there is a third party lurking behind the

scenes. That is the kind of amendment that this group, which does not

believe in the ownership of personal property, wants to foist upon the

people of British Columbia.

But it is not surprising, since

the opposition has been opposed to property rights all along. I

remember on the Jack Webster program when the then Minister of

Agriculture, later on the Minister of Finance, Dave Stupich, the member

for Nanaimo, said that he believed perhaps that the people might be

able to own their own home and the property under it, but beyond that,

they didn't believe in property rights. They don't believe in property

rights today. They may give lip-service to it, but by the simple expe-

[ Page 6216 ]

dience

of bringing forth this particular amendment, they would throw a

question upon each and every transfer, whether it be public or private

or governmental, in all of the province. That is a bad thing for the

opposition to do.

Interjections.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

They can't take the heat. You can always hear the member for Nanaimo

going on and on. You don't have to scratch them too hard to find that

these new entrepreneurs are really socialists. This amendment proves

that conclusively.

This is a park for all British

Columbians, regardless of their background or their racial origin. Each

and every British Columbian has the right to enjoy this park and to

enjoy it in perpetuity. That's what it's all about.

Once

again — it is so typical — the opposition, under its current leader, is

playing both sides against the middle, and he wonders why he gets

caught. He talks about sitting on the fence. I am glad that we at least

have a physician in this House in case he hurts himself.

My,

how they change their tune when they're out of office. I was looking

back at some of the statements made in the House by the then Lands

minister, who is now the first member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Williams). He said:

"There is no question but

that the land should be put to use. The land, as close as it is to the

city and the services of the city — the water utility, the sewage

utilities, and so on...in effect, is partly wasted because they're not

put to use on the Endowment Lands...look at the potential and prepare

recommendations for the government with respect to the full use of the

Endowment Lands so they don't lie there as a waste, as they've done for

so many decades.

"It is a unique potential among larger cities in Canada.

We intend to seize that potential and make the best use of the opportunity that

we have in our hands, so we are going to need outsiders to help us in determining

the future use of the park."

Interesting.

In July 1973, the minister without

portfolio, Lorne Nicolson — and the minister at that time responsible

for housing in the province — proposed developing the Endowment Lands

for cheap housing units that would be sold on leased lots that would be

rented out for 30 to 60 years. In addition to single-family dwellings,

Nicolson wanted to build row-housing, condominiums and cooperatives on

the Endowment Lands. As my colleague the first member for

Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy) pointed out, Allan Kelly,

then chairman of the GVRD, expressed his outrage at the lack of

consultation by the government of the day.

Members of the

opposition can't have it both ways. They don't seem to understand that.

They can't come out and make a statement saying they are effectively

against the transfer of property in British Columbia and then back off

because they know they have been beaten. The people of British Columbia

are going to take this to heart and they are going to understand that

what they've been saying in the last little while about markets and

about believing in the creation of wealth and all these things is

simply a pile of nonsense.

On one hand, I noted here in the

House yesterday, and even earlier on today, that they lavished praise

on those who have for so many years worked to preserve the University

Endowment Lands. They lavish praise on them. Yet in the same breath the

opposition wants to prevent those same people from realizing their

dreams. They can't have it both ways.

By seeking to delay

this legislation — and I think they found out they were wrong — the

opposition is preventing these lands from being preserved for the

enjoyment of all British Columbians in perpetuity. That's the bottom

line. That's what this government is all about, as far as this park is

concerned.

Let the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Harcourt)

tell the Iva Manns of this world that we should delay this legislation.

Let him debate with those individuals who, by the hundreds, have been

calling our offices. I'll tell you they're going to debate. They're

going to debate with those two members from Vancouver-Point Grey next

time at the ballot box, and they're going to throw them out of office.

One-term wonders.

This amendment has been nothing more than

crass politics. The opposition is taking a significant and historic

position and turning it into a political issue. They thought for their

own purposes and that's all, and that's wrong.

MR. LOVICK : But you're telling us there's no politics to be gained by it.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Oh, we have a wind from Nanaimo. The wind is permeating this place from Nanaimo.

The

NDP's amendment would open a Pandora's box in their quest to be all

things to all people, to straddle both sides of the fence, to have both

feet firmly planted in the air at all times. The opposition is once

again proposing an amendment without even considering the long-term

impact of it. It's so typical of the opposition. They are seeking, as

they always do, to divide and conquer if they possibly can. They seek

short-term political gains for long-term provincial pain. That's where

they're coming from.

The NDP is trying to compromise the

wishes of British Columbians. The parks group from the GVRD did a

survey on this particular issue, and the overwhelming response was that

the majority of British Columbians want this to be turned into a park.

They want it transferred into a park in perpetuity, and they want it

now. The NDP wishes to compromise the hopes and desires of British

Columbia. They are questioning, as they have all along — as shown back

in 1973 and 1975 during those 1,200 dark days and nights — the very

existence of these lands as a park. I suggest they may have other uses

in mind for these particular lands should, heaven forbid, they ever get

into office. That's the problem we see.

As a government we are firmly committed to having these lands dedicated as a park. It will hap-

[ Page 6217 ]

pen,

in spite of the opposition, on the 23rd of this month at one o'clock.

I'm not so sure that holds true for the opposition. We have an

opportunity for the opposition to do its mea culpa in public, right

here in front of this House, in front of all British Columbians, and to

demonstrate its commitment once and for all to the creation of this

park space in British Columbia by voting against their own amendment —

if they have the courage to do it.

I don't want to see the

opposition miss the boat again, as they have so many times. They don't

realize that one important scientific fact about a boat is that you

can't sink half of one. They'd like to sink the government somehow or

other on this issue with respect to the park, but they want to leave

some of their own desires afloat. You can't have it both ways: you all

stay up or you all go down on this issue, and the opposition does not

seem to realize this.

[3:30]

By politicizing this issue, the opposition has once again shown that

it is completely and absolutely out of touch with the people of British

Columbia. This legislation is designed solely to transfer these lands

from the Crown to the Greater Vancouver Regional District, which will

lead to the creation of a magnificent park, one of the largest urban

parks in the whole world, a park to be enjoyed in perpetuity by our

children and our children's children and all those people who will live

in British Columbia for decades to come.

There is no

hidden agenda. There are no ulterior motives on behalf of the

government. Rather, it's good government with a desire to serve the

people and that's why we're going to vote against this amendment. I

wish the opposition would as well.

MR. GUNO : It is a privilege for me to stand up and take

part in this debate. I rise in complete support of the hoist motion.

Listening

to the last few speakers, I guess it would be amusing were it not for

the fact that much of what they've said has very serious implications

for the Musqueam people. I agree with my colleagues that no one wants

the preservation of that land in the University Endowment Lands more

than does this side of the House.

I think it's very simple:

what's delaying the passage of this bill is the government's obstinacy.

It's their obstinacy in dealing with a very simple matter, which is to

recognize that the Musqueam people have a legitimate interest. In some

ways this is a historic debate. Ironically enough, we are talking about

— some of us indirectly, some of us directly — an important business

that I don't think this government or this party can ignore. I think

the Premier himself has acknowledged, in many of his public utterances,

the enormity of this challenge. We have an opportunity here today to

deal with it in a very simple but fair way by considering a provision

in this bill that would be without prejudice to the claims of the

Musqueam people.

We talk about the preservation of the area. I have a statement here

made by the Musqueam people today. I think it is appropriate that I

read it into the record, because I think it will allay the fears of

many people about the intentions of the Musqueam people with regard to

that area. The Musqueam statement regarding Bill 16:

"...that

if anybody had bothered to ask Musqueam, it would have been found that

it was in Musqueam's best interests to keep the area in its natural

preserved state, and the general public should have no fear that the

land claim would represent a threat to their desire to have the lands

preserved as they are. The extent that there is a threat comes from the

obstinate persistence of the government in its refusal to negotiate a

comprehensive settlement with the Musqueam band."

That was signed by Delbert Guerin, who is the former chief and now a member of the Musqueam band council.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Mr.

Speaker, the last speaker talked about crass politics. I think it is

crass politics for this government to try to pit the interests of

people who are trying to establish this park against the legitimate

interests of the Musqueam people. That is crass politics.

think it's sad to hear members across there yelling about this kind of

political intrigue. I think that taints the whole process of setting up

this park by refusing or ignoring the legitimate interests of the

Musqueam people.

I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker. The

solution is simple. If this government is serious and fair, then let's

contemplate an amendment that is going to recognize the legitimate

interests of the Musqueam people.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I wonder if I may have permission of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : We were visited a short while ago by some

citizens from the Saanich Peninsula extended care hospital, who were

introduced to the Legislature by Ms. J. Morton. My col league the

second member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Huberts) and I had

a chance to meet them in the rotunda. The individuals present were: Mr.

Norbert Ebert, Mrs. Florence Pretty, Mrs. Anna Sterling, Mrs. Evelyn

Sturgeon, Mr. Archie Kerr and Mrs. Rhoda McAndrew. I know that all

members like to greet constituents, and I would like the House to join

us in welcoming the senior citizens to view our proceedings.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

I take pleasure in entering this debate and opposing the hoist motion.

I have listened to debates in caucus. I have read articles over the

years. I've paid very close attention to this issue since being in

politics. Being from the interior, until I arrived at the Legislative

Assembly, I was not that familiar with the controversy surrounding the

park, but I certainly have taken a great deal of interest in the issue

since entering the political arena.

[ Page 6218 ]

find it interesting to look over the history of the development of this

great park that's going to be announced this coming weekend and made

official by all the representatives from government and people who will

be attending the gathering. I'm sure that we will see hundreds, if not

thousands, of people rejoicing at this tremendous development — the

official naming — of this park.

My understanding is that

the park will be the largest urban park anywhere in North America — if

not the world. When we look around at the tremendous developments and

the tremendous participation by the public in Stanley Park, we see the

great demand and the great need for expanding this and for having

further development in the regional park in the Endowment Lands. I'm

sure that if we defeat this delaying tactic of the members opposite....

This hoist motion which they are so good at bringing about, always

trying to obstruct.... They seem to be against everything and anything

that this government has ever proposed.

We can go back in

history and examine northeast coal. We can talk about the great Expo

86. The Leader of the Opposition stood against that as the mayor of the

city of Vancouver. We think back over the years to the opening up of

the north country, and that political party opposite was against that.

It does not surprise me to see the performance that we're witnessing

both today and yesterday in this Legislative Assembly. I'm sure that as

a result of the ads currently running inviting the province of British

Columbia and anyone within hearing distance to join the opening

celebration of the regional park in the Endowment Lands on April 22 and

23, we will see the members opposite once and for all convinced that

this government has led the way in the development and bringing about

of this great park.

I am absolutely amazed, looking at the

record and seeing some of the items read into it by members opposite on

the development of the University Endowment Lands. The quote that

certainly leads all has to do with the one attributed — in Hansard ,

on March 29, 1973 — to the current first member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Williams): "It's my intent to have a design team commence work this

spring and look at the potential and prepare recommendations for the

government with respect to the full use of the Endowment Lands so they

don't lie there and waste as they've done for so many decades."

I am amazed to listen to the arguments being put forward by the members opposite and to check back on what's in the record of Hansard

on this particular question. Indeed, reflecting on what members earlier

mentioned about the previous Minister of Housing, Mr. Nicolson, he

wanted to build low-cost housing, condominiums and cooperatives on the

Endowment Lands. That's not hearsay evidence but is in the records as

to the feelings of the opposition on this very important question.

But

I repeat: the delay tactics don't surprise me They've been against

everything. They were against the B.C. Rail expansion. They were

against the Columbia River Treaty; now they're wondering what they're

going to do with all this money when it comes to British Columbia in

another six or eight years. They were against the privatization

initiatives. They've been against all innovative, progressive policies

brought about by the Social Credit government since 1952, so it doesn't

surprise me to see the hoist motion being put forward here in the

Legislative Assembly. But I'm confident that the members on this side

of the House will stand united and vote down this hoist motion in this

Assembly later today.

[3:45]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

G. Hanson

Barnes

Marzari

Rose

Harcourt

Gabelmann

Boone

D’Arcy

Clark

Blencoe

Edwards

Cashore

Barlee

Guno

Lovick

Williams

Sihota

Pullinger

Miller

A. Hagen

Perry

G.Janssen

NAYS — 36

Brummet

Savage

Vant

Michael

Dueck

Parker

Weisgerber

L. Hanson

Huberts

Dirks

Mercier

Messmer

DeJong

Chalmers

Veitch

Reid

S. Hagen

Richmond

Vander Zalm

Couvelier

Ree

Davis

Johnston

Pelton

B.R. Smith

Loenen

Gran

McCarthy

Mowat

Peterson

Bruce

Serwa

Rabbitt

Jacobsen

Crandall

Davidson

On the main motion.

MR. HARCOURT :

The New Democrats on this side of the House and many citizens in

Vancouver, in particular the Musqueam people, are disappointed that the

government didn't take the opportunity we gave them. On the hoist

motion we gave them an opportunity to take six seconds to do the right

thing for the Musqueam people. You blew it. We gave you an opportunity

to ensure that the rights of the Musqueam people were not alienated

before you transferred the University Endowment Lands, and you blew it.

enjoyed listening to the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain

(Mrs. McCarthy) talking about the past. She did that because she

doesn't have a future. As a matter of fact, if she'd gone back into the

past she would have seen that there were hundreds of acres of UEL that

were cleared by the Socreds and are now scrub alder. Talk about a

scorched-earth policy for the UEL; the Socreds invented it.

They

talked about providing housing in the 1970s. Do you know what we were

talking about, Mr. Speaker? We were talking about the university pro-

[ Page 6219 ]

viding,

with the government's support, housing for students, for staff, for

single mothers with children and for the disabled, about housing people

on the lands of the university. They didn't do it, and they're still

not doing it.

Once again we return to the issue of the park.

MR. RABBITT : Politics, Mike.

MR. HARCOURT :

It's not even politics. It's something far more important than

politics: justice. I want to tell the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr.

Rabbitt) — who, being in this government, probably hasn't learned very

much about justice; he hasn't had much of a chance with the government

he belongs to — that I have spoken with a number of the people

who were involved over the last 20 or 30 years in making sure that this

was a park. Do you know what? They're ashamed that this Social Credit

government has cynically created this issue by turning the Musqueam

into their cannon-fodder — and it isn't going to work.

have spoken to Mr. Bowie Keefer and many others, and they are saddened

indeed that this government didn't take six seconds yesterday or today

to put in a very simple amendment to protect the legitimate concerns of

the aboriginal people. Do you know what the people who fought for this

park for 20 and 30 years told me? They said that this government has

shamed what they have tried to do, because they wanted this park to be

one that the aboriginal and the non-aboriginal people could enjoy in

harmony and justice together, not divided. You've done that, as you've

done all around this province: you've divided the aboriginal people

from the rest of the population. We are not going to be party to that

cynical division of British Columbians against each other.

But,

Mr. Speaker, we are a forgiving people, those of us who are ordained or

not, and we're going to give you another chance to do the right thing.

I am prepared to introduce an amendment at the committee stage.

AN HON. MEMBER : Another delay, eh?

MR. HARCOURT :

It could be a two-second delay if you'd do the right thing, members.

You vote for this, and we could finish the debate today and all enjoy

the opening on Sunday, including not just the Iva Manns, the Bowie

Keefers and so many others who have worked for this park but the

Musqueam too.

The amendment that I will be proposing at

that time is very straightforward. It would add the following

subsection 3(c). As the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) put

it so eloquently the other day: "Watch my lips." We urge you to adopt

this, because it will indeed make this a proud day in the Legislature.

It will read: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as to prejudice

the claim of aboriginal title of the Musqueam Indian Band to the

University Endowment Lands."

MR. BRUCE : I'm pleased

to be able to join in this debate on Bill 16; I find it interesting. I

wonder how the opposition intends to vote at this stage of the debate,

once we get to the division. We've had an amendment thrown in, they

voted for the amendment to delay the whole aspect of the park, and now

we're into the actual main motion. I really wonder how the opposition

will vote on this question.

I listen to the Leader of the

Opposition, and he talks about justice. Is he actually talking about

justice, or is he talking about political expediency? Is he building an

issue here on the backs of the Musqueam native people, or is he truly

intent on creating a park for the citizens of the province of British

Columbia? I wonder.

Actually, I get a little tired of the

political expediency that is expressed at that end of the watermelon

patch. It goes on and on, when you look at it. Who are they actually

attempting to represent? The other day in the debate we had on Bill 17,

were they trying to find some tax relief for the people in the lower

mainland and the Vancouver area? No, they were against that.

Now

we're on to another issue — the UEL. Are they attempting to assist the

development of a park for the people of British Columbia? No, they are

against that, as well. Yet at the same time, they have the audacity to

stand up and say that they are in favour of it but they are not in

favour of it. just what are they in favour of?

The Leader

of the Opposition stands up and gives us his bafflegab that it is a

question of justice. No, my friends, it's not a question of justice at

all. It's a question of political expediency. Do they want to see a

park? If we go back to just a little while ago to the South Moresby

issue, we were able to develop a park there while, in fact, the Haidas

were still concerned — and still are concerned — about the issue of

land claims. But a park was created.

This group here were

all in favour of a park being created at South Moresby. Now when the

government seizes the initiative after 30 years and many people and

much consultation, and here it is on the floor of the Legislature — an

opportunity to develop another major significant park for the people of

British Columbia.... This group — the socialists, the true opposition

of the people of the province of British Columbia — are again trying to

delay and oppose something that would be good for the people of this

province.

It's simply a question of political expediency.

They talk about consultation all the time. We hear from the socialists

about the need for consultation. We know doggone well that this

government and this party leads the way in consultation. There have

never been so many different committees out in the province, talking to

the people and finding out what they would like to see on particular

issues, and how they wish to see it developed.

[4:00]

But in 1973, did the socialists go to the people of this province

and talk about the UEL? Did they ask them what they wanted to see or

hear in this province in regard to those lands? No, my friends, they

did not. But do they constantly preach to us about the

[ Page 6220 ]

need

for consultation? Yes, they do. But who actually goes to the people and

consults with them? It's the Social Credit Party of British Columbia;

it's the government of this province that talks to the people.

There

has been tremendous consultation on this issue, and all sorts of

diverse opinions have been expressed as to what should occur. Now

finally we have in the House a bill which will create a good park for

all the people. I am sure it will rival, in years to come, what

happened with Stanley Park.

Yet we hear great comments from

the opposition as to the reasons this should be held up. If one was

cynical.... You can read some of the comments that the members of the

opposition made about this whole issue, and you can look back In the

past at what wasn't done by the opposition, and what they were

intending to do with the land when they were government.

They

were going to put a housing development on these lands. Is that

foresight? Is that the type of party that we want in government in this

province, that is so short-sighted...? They had the opportunity in 1973

— the one election in 12 that they won in this province — and what did

they want to do with this land? They wanted to make a housing

development on it.

By golly, I am sure glad that they've

only ever won one election in 12, and I am sure the people of this

province will make sure that it always is only one election. It

concerns me that they had that opportunity then and they didn't take

advantage of it. After great consultation, we have brought this bill to

the floor, had great debate and talked to the people throughout the

lower mainland about what is to be done. Now they have the audacity to

offer a hoist motion and continue to oppose this bill that's before the

House.

Why not, for once, come together and say that this

is a good thing for the people of British Columbia? They say that they

are all for a park. They're all for a park? In 1973 they were talking

about a housing development. Now they say that that doesn't matter;

it's not to be a housing development, and it should be a park. They

have the opportunity to participate with this government — not to make

it a political issue, not to use the land claims issue and not to use

the Indian people in this way.

They have that opportunity,

yet they continue to take the tack of political expediency. It bothers

me. I look at the quotes of some of the members in opposition. The

member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen) said something along this line. I

want you to listen to this to try to figure it out for me. "Is the

Premier admitting he's a socialist because he is taking land that was

originally owned by the Musqueam native band away from them?" Does that

mean that socialists take land away from people? If you take land away

from people, are you a socialist? Let me read that again, because I

want to make sure that I have the right flavour here. The quote is: "Is

the Premier admitting he's a socialist because he's taking land that

was originally owned by the Musqueam native band away from them?" I

suppose that that's what socialists would do. That's what has been

presented in times past, that they would take the land away. Oh, you

might be able to build a house on it; you might be able to own the

house, but you can't own the land. Here these fine people in opposition

are saying for all of the people of the province to hear and to

understand: "Elect a socialist government and we will take your land

away from you." That's what they are saying. Let us not forget.

Justice,

my eye! I really wonder. It is something when you continue to hear what

they have to say time after time. They're never in favour of something.

They're never in favour of those things that have some vision. They're

always concentrating on the little negative things that they can find,

any way to draw a political confrontation.

The Leader of

the Opposition stands in this House and tells us that he is going to

offer an amendment at the time of committee so that we can all share

together and show that it won't be a political process here, but that

we are all going to be together on it. I say to you, members of the

opposition: stand up now. Stand up at this second reading and vote in

favour of Bill 16. Stand up straight and tall and say, "Yes, we want to

see a park," no ands, ifs, ors or buts. "We want a park. We will stand

there. We will create this park with the people of the province of

British Columbia. We believe in the park. There are no qualifications."

Stand up and do that for all of the people of British Columbia, and be

proud when you do that, because when the time comes that the division

is called on this particular aspect of the motion, I will stand for the

people of the province and I know my colleagues will.

all urge the members of the opposition to stand as well for the people

of British Columbia and not to allow this to just simply be for them

another device to try to play a political game. The people understand

that this is not a political issue, but the opposition has tried to

make it a political issue, when in fact it is not. It is an opportunity

for us to be able to show the foresight that the people years ago had

when they created Stanley Park and that others had in years past when

they took tracts of land to make parks. Here we have, on the west coast

of the province, a huge tract of land to be set aside for a park for

the people of the province today, for the people of Canada for today,

and for the people of British Columbia and Canada for tomorrow and for

generations to come. Let us all stand together for the people of this

province when the division is called. Stand proudly and vote for a park

to be created. Vote for Bill 16 and be proud of it. Let's not make a

political issue of it. It is too important to us all. Let us stand

together. I implore the opposition to put away their small, political,

socialist games and stand with us all to create another park, a park

for the province of British Columbia and a park for Canada.

MR. GABELMANN :

In his most political voice, the member for Cowichan-Malahat appeals to

all of us to be non-political in this very political chamber. I didn't

know that what we do in this business was

[ Page 6221 ]

non-political. Not only is it very political indeed, but occasionally it is even partisan, even here in this chamber.

behalf of the opposition caucus, I want to very quickly say a couple of

things. Not only on behalf of members of this caucus, many of whom have

fought for many years to see the day when the so-called UEL would

become a park, but on behalf of many residents of greater Vancouver and

in fact this province who have fought for the establishment of a park

on the west side of Vancouver.

When politicians or

governments attempt to do things, it isn't necessarily always simple.

In trying to achieve this noble object, there are a number of

impediments. We have been saying for a day or two now in the House that

one of these impediments has not been properly dealt with. In making

that statement, we have not been saying: "Let's not have a park." Very

much on the contrary, we have been saying: "Let's ensure that the land

is left in its natural state, the way the Musqueam people want it left,

the way the people of Vancouver want it left, and the way it now seems

every member of this House would like it to be left — as a park, as

this legislation will establish." Our fighting for an important

principle, in our minds, does not mean by and of itself that we are

necessarily against the other major objective of this legislation: the

establishment of a park. We want that park, and we want it done

properly.

I want, as the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) has

done, to once again remind members of this House what the Musqueam

people have said as recently as today. If the House will bear with me,

I want to read this into the record again:

"If

anybody had bothered to ask Musqueam, it would have been found that it

was in Musqueam's best interests to keep the area in its natural,

preserved state, and the general public should have no fear that the

land claim would represent a threat to their desire to have the lands

preserved as they are. The extent that there is a threat comes from the

obstinate persistence of the government in its refusal to negotiate a

comprehensive settlement with the Musqueam band."

We have

made that point through the mechanism of a hoist motion. We will make

the point again through the mechanism of an amendment in committee

stage. The government has its opportunity to make its decision about

whether or not it wants to achieve this noble objective — the

establishment of this park — in a fair and honourable way; or it can do

it in the way that it has so far chosen. We stand for the rights of the

Musqueam people, and we stand for the establishment of this park.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I have listened in the House and to my speaker in my office to some of

the debate that has gone on here, and I'm somewhat intrigued by the

approach that's been taken by the members of the opposition. Unless I

miss my guess, a hoist motion has, despite what it says, generally been

used as a device to kill a bill. That was their approach to this bill:

to try to kill it through the means of a hoist motion, because it

generally has that effect. Yet they say they are in favour of the

establishment of the park. The other thing that I find very intriguing

is that now that the government has moved to create a park, we have had

several of their members stand up and say: "Oh, goody. That was our

idea first." It's always: "It was our idea first." Well, you were in

power for three years. Why didn't you do it, if it was your idea?

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Then

we have this statement that they're all in favour of a park, that

they're all in favour of having it preserved in its natural state. I

would like to refer directly to the bill, which may be uncommon in this

debate. I thought

section 3 said that this grant "shall be subject to

the conditions that (

a) the land and improvements transferred by the

grant shall be used only for park purposes and for other uses

necessarily incidental to their use for park purposes...."

[4:15]

Section 4 goes on to say that the park, when established as an

ecological reserve, remains subject to the Ecological Reserve Act and

the regulations under that act. That is the highest form of protection

for leaving it in its natural state. The member for Atlin said in all

sincerity that the Musqueam said as recently as today that they want it

preserved in its natural state. It would seem to me that this act

assures that.

You would think they'd support this

legislation, and so would the members opposite, so that — heaven

forbid — should the NDP, the non-democratic party in this province,

ever get to be government, they could not revert to what they wanted to

do when they were government before. And it has been clearly

established by other members in this House that they wanted to develop

housing on that land. This act, if passed today — hopefully supported

by the opposition — would ensure that if they ever did get elected,

they couldn't revert to what they do in practice as opposed to what

they say in theory.

Everybody supports the park. When I was

lands, parks and housing minister, we did a lot of work on it. We made

a fair amount of progress but didn't conclude the process. I'm

delighted that this process is now being concluded. I guess I was there

too, as well as the NDP, in saying we wanted that as a park. All I can

see is that the opposition, for political expediency, has used this act

to try to enter a precedent caveat against any land transfers in this

province. If it flies now in the face of everybody in favour of a park

but subject to the approval of the band, which says this is what they

really want, then what are we talking about? What is it they want? They

want a caveat in this

section against any land transfer in future.

it goes in in this case, where there is total agreement for the use of

the land, what would happen in any other situation? There are a lot of

land claims in this province. Much of the province is covered by land

claims. Unless my recollection is somewhat hazy, it seems to me that

Vancouver, on their 100th anniversary, was going to go ahead and

declare Stanley Park.... That had to be put on hold because of a land

claim that wasn't settled.

[ Page 6222 ]

the Musqueam people are interested in preserving this in its natural

state, are they then trying to exact a price from the taxpayers of this

province in order to do that? If they are not.... There's been a lot of

talk about compensation. Compensation at what rate? At today's rate,

the increased value of the land, the 1870 rates, or the 1900 rates? I'm

not sure.

Let's take a look at what much of the debate has

been about from the opposition to bring it to the attention of the

people of this province. They say they are here to represent all of the

people of this province; justice for all and that sort of thing.

Somehow or other they're the only ones who represent the people of this

province. When I say, "all of the people of this province," we have to

keep that in mind. A lot of progress has been made in many ways in

involving the native peoples: education, post-secondary education. We

want them to be equal citizens in this province, and every effort is

being made to do that.

Let's look at the NDP position on

behalf of all people in this province. The first member for Victoria

(Mr. G. Hanson) said that this amendment, which can occur, which will

not prejudice either side...a caveat saying that unless we get approval

from the native people, no land transfer can take place in this

province in future. If it applies to this one, where everybody is in

favour of it, then why wouldn't it where there are arguments about the

use of land?

The second member for Vancouver-Point Grey

(Mr. Perry) has had some interesting discussions in this debate and of

course is fully knowledgeable about everything that went on in the

past. Not only that, he is clairvoyant about the future. He said the

government has more on its agenda than meets the eye. The government

has said it wants to create a park, but what does that member say? In

previous debate, that member said the debate in this House has to be

highly dignified. Let's see what he practises, as compared to what he

professes, as a professional — and an only professional, I might say,

because other people don't qualify.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I don't know. His idea of a dignified debate is statements like: "in

the arrogant pursuit of an ignorant policy by the present government."

He doesn't agree; therefore it is ignorant. The arrogance of the

omnipotent professional. They think it's a disgrace to our democratic

system and warrants being labelled as such.

I know the

member made an apology and said: "I maintain my position that the group

is corrupt and dishonest, but it doesn't apply to its members," which

is a rather interesting observation. The member maintained that he is

not withdrawing that the group is corrupt and dishonest, but he doesn't

want any members of the group to think that it applies to them. But we

will leave that for another time.

The Leader of the

Opposition, the hit-and-run specialist — mostly run, mostly absent, but

he shows up periodically — says in his statement, and I quote from the

Blues: "This bill tries to inflame and divide natives from non-natives.

We don't stand for that." Yet by their very actions in this hoist

motion and this debate, they are promoting this, trying to generate it

into a fight between natives and non-natives, when they all agree that

everybody wants to have this as a park.

The member for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) makes the statement that.... First

of all he represents the ethnic community; I thought he represented all

of his constituents. Anyway, his statement — and I guess he is

reflecting NDP policy - was: "...the Musqueam band has a legitimate and

appropriate right...to the lands in question." Translate that across

this province and does that mean that because the natives were here

first, they in fact have a legitimate right and claim to all of the

province? That is what concerns this government, that in order to

accept this amendment, in order to negotiate, it's always predicated on

the notion that we first must accept aboriginal title to this land.

Yes, it is. Every time we say we'll negotiate, it starts from the

pretense that we must acknowledge aboriginal title. The minute we

acknowledge aboriginal title we are saying in effect that any part of

this province has to be compensated for because it is now used other

than by the native people.

The rights of the native people

in many places have been assured. For instance, in my own constituency,

in Fort Nelson, the rights were established and negotiated by this

government. There were the gas subsurface rights; they had a valid

claim that they had not been expunged when the land was turned over.

Those rights are now getting those people 50 percent of all the money

that comes from the gas and oil under the reserve lands — even though

they didn't initially. That was a lot of money. That has been

acknowledged in Sechelt and other areas.

But the NDP is

repeatedly making the point. The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew goes

on again reflecting "Non-Democratic" policy. The government must

"recognize that when there is a higher claim to a piece of land, that

claim ought to be respected." I guess he is referring to this

section

but does not seem to understand — and as a legal person, he should

understand. Establish that principle in this park situation — that is

exactly what some people want so that the principle will then apply to

all the other lands. Not all the other lands — yes, the people have

said on a number of occasions, informally, that they have no interest

in any private land. I don't know whether this was because it was owned

by the government, but I think there is a case in Kamloops where there

was a private land transfer attempted, and an original title claim was

maGray, Betsyde against it. Try to prevent that. I guess we have to

keep that in mind when it's happening.

What about all the

Crown land in this province which is traversed by highways and

pipelines? If it is subject to the native land claims because it is

Crown land and not titled to an individual, does that mean we are

leaving the population of this province open in the future to tolls

being exacted for all the pipelines crossing those lands, which serve

the people of

[ Page 6223 ]

this province, and for all the highways and that sort of thing? Those are some of the possibilities.

it is not just obstinacy on the part of this government to say that we

cannot recognize aboriginal title until it is defined and specified on

a particular area. It's too broad. It means that the whole province, in

effect, would be subject to having to be paid for again and again.

There is no guarantee that it doesn't apply to individually titled

lands. If that guarantee were made, I think it would help.

The

member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen) makes the statement: "We are in

favour of a park, but we are in favour of adequate compensation for the

original owners before it was made a park." He is again establishing

the NDP principle that aboriginal title exists to any part of this

province, and that compensation must be paid for everything that we've

done in the past, as well as everything that might be considered in the

future.

I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that if that caveat is

accepted, that's what we are entering into, and that is not adequately

or properly representing all of the people of this province. I think we

can be fair, but I think the fairness has to come. If there are going

to be claims, they have to be specified. I have seen maps that cover

more than this province in land claims.

MR. MILLER : How about the tree-farm licences?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : They don't cover all of the province, just the forest parts.

Let's

take a look at the statement of the member for Alberni that all we need

to do is put in this amendment. This is what he says this amendment

will mean: "...negotiate with the native community — the rightful

owners of the land." If that principle is accepted, then in effect we

have to negotiate for any land in this province. If that caveat is

placed on this transfer, would it not be applied to every land transfer

between the government and any other group, or between any two

individuals?

The second member for Vancouver-Point Grey has

made it clear — presumably, since he was applauded and supported — that

nobody in this province in future should own land, and that it should

be leased. He stated that quite clearly in the debate. It should be

leased, and Crown land should not be sold.

[4:30]

In the short time the NDP was in power, they tried to apply that principle

in Fort Nelson, and a subdivision was created there. They said: "Please

come and build your houses on this land that we will lease to you." It

was a subdivision for 50 or 70 or 100 houses with that many lots. They said:

"You may not own the land, but you're welcome to build your house on

it." I think that about three good NDP supporters took the option.

The rest of the land sat vacant until the election of a proper and responsible

government in this province, who turned around and said: "We cannot really

expect people to invest and build a house on a piece of land owned by the government."

The people have this hang-up that they would like to own the foundation which

sits on the land, as well as the house that they put on it. Once the government

changed those rules, that subdivision filled up very quickly. Guess what the

three loyal NDPers did who had leased the land. They immediately converted it

to purchase; they didn't leave the thing in the lease arrangement. So that is what the member is saying.

know there are lease arrangements for some industrial operations and

that sort of thing, but I don't think people anywhere in this province

would accept the concept of: "We'll lease the land, and we'll build our

house on it. We'll invest our money in it. Should we ever sell it, or

the government changes and the NDP says: 'We want it for a higher

purpose, therefore please move your shack off, because we want the land

back....'"

MR. MILLER : Hey, the bank owns mine.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Yes. Well, that was another little technical complication. The banks

had a little hang-up about loaning money to somebody building a house

on property that they didn't own, so that created another problem.

The

Leader of the Opposition, when he was an alderman in Vancouver, wanted

to build housing on the land; now he wants it as a park. When we wanted

to build Expo, he was against it. Then when Expo turned out to be a

success, he said: "I was always in favour of it. I thought of it

first." You know, it's the standard approach. This is a very

interesting exercise in political expediency, but it is typical of the

NDP to zero in on one issue without considering the ramifications. I

know they want the native vote, but at what price to all the other

people that they technically represent?

I think that fair

dealings can be made with the native people in this province, and that

a lot can be done. But I don't think we can serve all of the people in

this province by acknowledging aboriginal title, with all of the

implications, unless that is narrowed down to what people mean by

aboriginal title. Where that has been done it has been dealt with.

Where that claim has been narrowed down to the specific claim that

people want, the specific request the native people want, every effort

has been made by this government to deal with that. But we cannot deal

with a broad principle — whatever name the opposition gives to it —

that could mean that all of the things that exist on the surface of the

land in this province have to be, first of all, vetted through the

native people of this province.

The member for Courtenay

mentioned the South Moresby situation. That land, after quite a bit of

negotiation — and it could have been done in other ways as well. I was

involved in it and had several serious negotiations with the Haida

people. I found out afterwards that in all the press reports they said

this government had never talked to them about the Moresby situation. I

had meetings here and there, on several occasions, and a lot of things

could have been accomplished. Nevertheless, it is now history, and that

land was turned over, by arrangement, to the

[ Page 6224 ]

federal

government to create a park. What has happened now? It has been

declared a separate nation, with passports and entrance fees required.

Is that what we're facing in the Endowment Lands if we acknowledge all

the arguments the opposition are making? Is that what the people of

this province should be supporting?

I think we can be fair

and equitable to the native people in this province in many ways, but I

think some of the claims have to be far more specific before they can

be seriously considered. Otherwise we abrogate our responsibilities to

all the people in this province who have increased the value of this

province, who have created a lot of development, who have, in good

faith, established themselves in this province and invested a lot of

their time, money and life in making it a place where they want to

live. I know many pioneers in my own constituency settled there when

nobody else was there, including natives. There were natives there

before but scattered throughout the region. Some of these people came

in, got along well with the natives and established a homestead and a

farm. Are they not original owners, in some sense, as well? So do they

now have to pay for their farm again should aboriginal title be

recognized?

I know it is fashionable, as I think the one

member said.... Oh yes, the super-conductor from Point Grey made the

point.... Talk about trying to make an issue out of this that didn't

exist. A bill to make a park, and that member stands up and says we

don't want...anything to the "many other ethnic groups who did not have

the virtue of being born with a white skin." This has nothing to do

with that, despite that member's attempt to drag it to that level.

So,

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill. I think we've heard adequate

arguments that everybody supports it, but the Leader of the Opposition

says, "We're going to attach strings to it so that it cannot be created

into a park without setting a precedent for a caveat against any

possible land transfers in this province in the future."

I very much support this bill, and I would hope all members of this House will.

MR. RABBITT :

I rise and support the University Endowment Land Park Act. Many of you

may wonder why an individual from the interior would want to get up and

speak on an issue which is so important to the lower mainland. Really,

I guess, there are a few things I'd like to share.

I was

listening to the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy),

a member who has been in politics for a couple of decades and

thoroughly understood the history and the present status. I was very

taken up by those remarks because she put things in perspective. She

put the present opposition in perspective. She identified many of the

salient points and brought the arguments around so we can understand

why the opposition is taking the stand they are today.

When

the Minister Responsible for Crown Lands (Hon. Mr. Dirks) rose in the

House, he outlined very clearly why the government and his ministry

were so supportive of transferring this land to the GVRD as a park:

"This land is being transferred to enable the creation of a new greater

Vancouver regional park which will be for the use and enjoyment of all

British Columbians." He added that this "...will be the largest urban

park in Canada, and one of the largest in the world." He also pointed

out that presently there is a shortage of regional parkland on the

Burrard peninsula.

This land is being transferred to a

local government: the GVRD. I ask the members of the opposition: are

all those members of the GVRD, as well as this government, wrong? Are

you saying that the representatives of all those local governments

throughout the lower mainland are wrong in accepting this transfer of

land as park in perpetuity for all British Columbians, for all

Canadians, regardless of race, colour or creed? Tell me.

think we've lost sight of the real issue here, because it's become

politically expedient for the opposition to make this a native land

issue. When we look at native land issues — and we do have them in this

province — what does the law say? What did the treaty say? It said that

any claims of Indians to compensation for lands required for purposes

of settlement shall be disposed of by the Canadian government.

can tell you that when the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann)

said: "We fight for an important principle...." Well, damn it, we fight

for an important principle too. We do not ride on the backs of the poor

or the natives. This government brings forward legislation, regulations

and policies that help those groups. The inference is there that this

is an uncaring government; I think this government is the most caring

government we've had in decades.

Yesterday, while the hoist

motion was being discussed, I was looking at the Blues and reviewing

what some of the speakers had been saying. The member for Prince Rupert

(Mr. Miller) said: "Why aren't we getting people into this discussion

from the other side of the House?" Today I look around and wonder

what's wrong. These people put a hoist forward, and they're sitting

on.... What did the member from Burnaby, the minister, call it? I

forget the spelling, so I won't use it.

The NDP want us to

believe that they're the friends of the native community, but I

challenge that. The NDP has argued throughout this debate.... The basis

of their argument was in favour of the hoist; they are now speaking

against this motion because of land claims.

[4:45]

They were talking about "the larger issue." They were talking about

"the track record of this government." Well, I think the track record

of this government is good. Since 1986 the Premier has identified the

native issue and set a task force to address the problems of the native

issue. Yesterday the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota)

viciously attacked the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith), as well as

the Premier. I wondered at the time whether this vicious attack was

another effort by the opposi-

[ Page 6225 ]

tion

to try to gain some ink in the local media. Those weren't arguments.

Needless to say, they didn't substantiate the hoist. That's why we

could not support it.

Let's cast back for a few moments to

1972-75. We heard the member for Prince Rupert talk about casting back.

Let's talk about those dark days of '72 to '75. Let's talk about the

promises that were made and never fulfilled. Let's talk about the

promises that were made in Yale-Lillooet by the NDP of the day before

1972. Let's talk about the promises that the NDP member for

Yale-Lillooet made.

I would ask the Leader of the

Opposition, who has just joined us, to listen up. He will enjoy this. I

won't deliver your name-tag today, because you've been in twice.

Let

me share a little story that happened in Yale Lillooet. In the '70 to

'71 era, prior to that election that brought the dark days in, the

local MLA, who was a member of the NDP, promised local native bands

that when they became government they would get fair and just

compensation for the road right-of-way that the bad government of the

day was trying to establish through an Indian reserve. Let me tell you

the real story.

When the '72 election came forward and the

NDP were elected to government, they had to come clean. What did they

do? They expropriated the land, the same thing the previous government

had started. There was no pie in the sky for the native community They

rode on the backs of the native community in order to obtain votes.

From my experience, they sold the native community in my riding down

the tube.

I think it's very unfair when the opposition

creates expectations through false and hollow promises to minority

groups such as the natives. The member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) isn't the

only one in this House who has native blood in his ancestry. I'm proud

to say that it runs in my family as well. I want to see fair treatment

for those natives. I want to see fair treatment because my grandchild,

who was born yesterday, is a status native.

You see,

members of the opposition, you people don't own all the land. The

people of British Columbia own that land and they share it, whether

they are white or whether they are native.

Vancouver

deserves a park. There have been people fighting for 30 years for the

establishment of that park. I was prepared to stand and speak against

the hoist because it was just a deliberate move by the opposition to

stall. The sooner we make it a park, the sooner we can start developing

that park for all the people of greater Vancouver, of British Columbia

and of Canada, regardless of whether they're native or non-native.

Land

rights and claims are an issue which this government and this Premier

is addressing and will continue to address and will continue to work

towards finding an answer. Why do we want to see this caveat put on? We

don't. The precedent — and the Leader of the Opposition should know

this because he is a member of the legal fraternity — that would be set

would be totally unwieldy. If there is a claim here, the claim is not

against land. The claim will be for compensation. This government, I

know, will recognize any claim of compensation that is handed down by

the courts.

The NDP has been coming forward with what I

call a blank-cheque philosophy. I'd like to tell the natives of this

community that it's a rubber cheque.

I'd like to conclude

by arguing that this park is good. The establishment of this act is

good. The use of that park will be for all Canadians for many years to

come. It's there, and it will be used well, and I certainly support

this act, Bill 16. I ask that all the members of this House unanimously

support what is good Social Credit legislation.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I want to be very brief as well, but I do want

to make some comments because I've been sitting here — like many, I'm

sure — for the last several days, and I feel as though it is 1974 revisited.

I can recall March of 1974 when, as was stated by the first member for Vancouver-Little

Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy), the NDP socialist government of the day wanted to

take a large part of that land and develop it for housing. I fear that somehow

the NDP, although in opposition, are attempting to push for a like situation

today.

We've

heard it said time and time again that the Leader of the Opposition

particularly really can't make up his mind where he is on a situation

and likes to be on both sides of a particular circumstance, regardless

of what it is.

I've heard some mention in the last couple

of days about "some housing; some park." Then again, the member from

Esquimalt said only yesterday: "some title." It used to be some park

and some housing; now it's some title for the Musqueam people. If I

were the Musqueam people, I wouldn't trust the NDP on a promise which

indicates that the NDP is attempting to get them something that they

feel they're entitled to, but it's qualified as it was by the member

from Esquimalt when he said they're deserving of "some title." This is

good legislation. We are providing a park in perpetuity for all of the

people of the province, not just the people of Point Grey or Vancouver.

hear the argument from the other side that they are somehow opposed to

this. They would like to delay it, as suggested in their amendment, in

order that some other things might be done in the interim. I guess it's

much along the lines of what might have been said back in '73 and '74,

when at the end of it all they wanted "some housing" and "some park."

To hear those suggestions is rather frightening. To hear them talk as

they did yesterday about a caveat that would provide for a park, but

that might be changed if some decision were to come down later, is

frightening, not only to the people in the area of Point Grey or those

who fought hard and long for the park, but it must be frightening to

all British Columbians.

If a caveat should apply in this

particular circumstance when an agreement is being entered into between

two levels of government, then it follows, I suggest, that the NDP

would want similar caveats in

[ Page 6226 ]

all

other agreements, whether between individuals or corporations.

According to the NDP, whenever an area might be subject to land claims,

there ought to be some caveat. If the NDP were able to somehow convince

this Legislature that all agreements, whether between governments,

corporations or individuals, should have that caveat when subject to an

area of land claims, then no one could really, with some peace of mind,

enter into an agreement to sell their home, land or business, or enter

into an agreement with someone else on a piece of land covered by land

claim.

All of this would create a great deal of fear

throughout the whole of the province. It would destroy confidence and

eliminate the tremendous prosperity we are now enjoying because people

are looking to British Columbia to invest. What I'm hearing from the

NDP in opposition to this bill is that they would like to see this sort

of caveat. Given that caveat, perhaps they might consider supporting

it. I'm afraid that this caveat, whether in an agreement between the

province and the regional district or between two corporations or two

individuals, would be the most frightening thing that could happen to

the future of this province — and not just in a partisan way. I realize

that we have a free enterprise government on one side of this House and

a socialist opposition on the other, but we should all fight in a

non-partisan way this attitude and this move to see that as part of the

bill. I understand that when we come to the individual sections, the

Leader of the Opposition might again try to provide somehow for a

change that would see that come into effect. Mr. Leader of the

Opposition and members of the socialist NDP, I warn you that this type

of action, this threat, can really harm the future of our province and

really frighten people, regardless of where they live.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Justice will be done, and there is a means to get justice. It's

available to all of us, including our native people; it's available to

them. There is a system for justice, but it's not justice to try and

have these caveats as part of every agreement between levels of

government, people or corporations in this province. For people who

have long held their land or their home to see the potential for such

caveats if their area is subject to a land claim is not justice. The

whole province is covered by land claims. As a matter of fact, 125

percent of the province is covered by land claims, because some claims

overlap. Given that, I think it's very frightening for a lot of people

to see the socialists take this approach simply, I would suggest, to

make Brownie points with a particular group and to risk a lot more —

the future of this province.

[5:00]

We as a government made a commitment to have this park established

in greater Vancouver to serve the whole province, and the Greater

Vancouver Regional District will administer this large urban park for

all of the people. It will be a wonderful park. It will not only be

useful for park purposes, but I would suggest that if we leave much or

all of it in its natural state, it will be an assist to the whole

environment of greater Vancouver.

I would ask the NDP to

please change their minds and not attempt to delay the establishment of

this park; to support the establishment of the largest urban park for

all of the people; and to get onside with this side of the House and

show the people that this park will be British Columbia's pride and joy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : I advise all hon. members that, pursuant to standing order 42, the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. DIRKS :

I am very pleased that the amendment to hoist this bill for six months

was defeated earlier this afternoon. I say that because that amendment

would not only have delayed this bill for six months, but in all

reality it may have delayed this park long into the future.

This

is not a government of delay. This government was elected to take

action; we have promised action. The people of the Greater Vancouver

Regional District want action, and they want it now, on the University

Endowment Lands. They have asked for a regional park since 1966, and

all the studies since then have reinforced the need for the park. The

time to declare the UEL as a park for all British Columbians in

perpetuity is now. The time to pass second reading is now. I move

second reading.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 52

Brummet

Savage

Vant

Michael

Dueck

Parker

Weisgerber

L. Hanson

Huberts

Dirks

Mercier

Messmer

De Jong

Chalmers

Veitch

Reid

S. Hagen

Richmond

Vander Zalm

Johnston

Pelton

Loenen

Gran

McCarthy

Mowat

Marzari

Rose

Harcourt

Gabelmann

Boone

D'Arcy

Clark

Blencoe

Edwards

Cashore

Rabbitt

Serwa

Bruce

Peterson

Barlee

Smallwood

Lovick

Williams

Sihota

Pullinger

Miller

A. Hagen

Perry

G.Janssen

Davidson

Crandall

Jacobsen

NAYS — 2

G. Hanson

Guno

Bill

16, University Endowment Land Park Act, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration later in the day.

[ Page 6227 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I call Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES

On vote 31: minister's office, $259,265 (continued).

MR. LOVICK :

There has been a long absence between various segments of these debates

concerning the Government Management Services estimates.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK :

Happily, yes, I do have a good memory. I have paid close attention to

what has gone on and therefore can pick up precisely at the point we

left off.

Without further ado, I will ask the minister if

he has any more detailed information to give me in answer to my last

question: namely, what the plans are concerning the privatization of

audiological services He has promised on a number of occasions that he

would be very quick to provide us with information in response to any

questions we posed. Indeed, he takes some pride in doing that

consistently. Here is an opportunity, Mr. Minister. Do you have

anything further to tell us about this proposed privatization of

audiological services in B.C.?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : No.

MR. LOVICK : It is nice to see that the minister has learned the power of succinct expression. It's certainly not characteristic.

note that the support staff have now arrived. I had the pleasure, of

course, of working at a seminar held a few days ago with one of those

persons, Peter Clark from the privatization group. Happily he is here,

because my questions are going to be directed primarily to those areas.

start with, I simply want to ask the minister to tell us specifically

about the privatization group and the activities of that group. I asked

last time, as you'll recall, Mr. Minister, for some description of just

what the Government Management Services entity was doing. I got all

kinds of detailed answers about the activities of the various Crown

corporations and all those worthy activities that are going on. The

answers were indeed complete.

The question I am still

searching for an answer to has to do entirely with the activity of the

privatization group. What I want to ask the minister to start with is

what that group is doing right now. What are its activities? How many

people are involved? How often do they meet? What does it cost? Those

kinds of things. I'll give you an opportunity, Mr. Minister, for a nice

short, discreet answer to that question.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

The privatization group consists of some eight or nine people. They

analyze privatization initiatives. Initiatives arise in several ways.

Suggestions come in, mainly from employee groups, referred to us by

respective ministries which embrace the various employee groups. We

receive suggestions and initiatives from the private sector. We receive

suggestions from my colleagues and Crown corporations, At every me