Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1997

Afternoon

Volume 7, Number 1

Part 2

[ Page 5949 ]

The House resumed at 6:38 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: In Committee A, I call the estimates for Education, Skills and Training, and in this House, I call second reading debate of Bill 29.

PARK AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

(second reading continued)

C. Clark: I'm pleased to be able to address this bill, which will at least formalize the creation of so many new parks in British Columbia. The minister made many good comments. She described the nature of the bill in her opening remarks, and I'd like to expand on that a little bit. In my party, we are led by a man who, when he was mayor of Vancouver, created and dedicated more parks and more parkland than any mayor of the city of Vancouver since its founding -- more than any single mayor, if we include Pacific Spirit Park in our calculations. And that is certainly an achievement. Those parks that he caused to be created are a legacy for the people of Vancouver even till today.

When people go down and visit the sea wall, they must remember and they must realize that they can do that because of Gordon Campbell. Gordon Campbell created the sea wall so that people can walk from the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre through Stanley Park all the way around False Creek until they get to Spanish Banks. And that is quite an achievement. He created the urban landscape task force, which has enhanced parks all over Vancouver, and it is still working today. If people go visit the Fraser Land Park, they should remember that it is there because of Gordon Campbell.

If they go visit David Lam Park, they must remember that it is there because of Gordon Campbell, as is Andy Livingstone Park for . . . .

The Speaker: Excuse me, member. Just in case you're working on a triple, I must tell you that you're not allowed to use the proper names of members in the House. I hope I didn't destroy your speech rhythm.

C. Clark: I appreciate that, hon. Chair. The Leader of the Official Opposition, the leader of the Liberal Party, also created the Burrard Inlet waterfront park. He dedicated that land, which will be next to the Trade and Convention Centre.

His asking and demanding and working so hard for so many years to ensure that Pacific Spirit Park was dedicated is probably one of his greatest achievements as mayor. That single park dedication is bigger than Stanley Park, and that park would not be there for the use of Vancouverites and British Columbians today without the leadership of the member for Vancouver-Point Grey.

The leader of the Liberal Party, the Leader of the Official Opposition, worked for years to improve Hastings Park from what it has become, which is a parking lot, back into a park. Hastings Park is an area in East Vancouver which had been dedicated as a park since 1907 -- that's 90 years. But I don't think many people from Vancouver would recognize what it's supposed to be today. Instead of a park, it's a parking lot. I think that is an example of where, no matter what we call it, it doesn't tell us how we might be able to use it.

Hastings Park is called a park, but it's certainly not what I would think of as a nature legacy. It's certainly not what I would think of as an area that's been protected. I think it's an area that is now in quite a state after many years of intense use, to say the least. It's been paved; the waterways through it have been culverted. For many years, the province has stood in the way and fought the city of Vancouver as they've tried to turn that into a real park that will protect the natural values of that area for the people of East Vancouver.

So there's an example of where, just because we call it a park, it doesn't necessarily mean that we're protecting anything, and it doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to be put to the purposes for which people would expect a park to be put.

I wanted to touch on that, because although this bill, which my party obviously will certainly support, given the legacy of our leader in creating parks for the people of Vancouver -- an unparalleled legacy as mayor of Vancouver of creating parks . . . . Although we will certainly support it, I want to touch on the fact that just because they are called parks doesn't necessarily mean that they will even be able to be used. It doesn't even mean that certain uses will always be prohibited.

Although we can call it a park in legislation, unless there is also a concurrent commitment from the government to invest some money in that park, what's the difference? What's the difference today from tomorrow? What's the difference yesterday from tomorrow? There isn't any particular difference.

This government has dropped its parks budget by 1.8 percent, even though they've expanded the number of parks by 70 in this bill. There isn't a single new park ranger going to be dedicated in British Columbia in this year's budget, even though we have 70 new parks. Who is going to go in and enforce the regulations in those parks? I know that the government makes the point frequently: "Well, once we call it a park, there are certain things that you can't do there." But if we don't have the ability to enforce those regulations, are they meaningful?

If we say that people can't drive motorized vehicles through the park, but we have no one to go and enforce those regulations, are they meaningful? I would suggest that they're not. If there isn't money to build a single picnic table or a single water fountain in any of those parks, is that meaningful?

[6:45]

This government hasn't dedicated any more money this year than last year to the planning process for parks or for the development process of parks. We've frequently heard this government talk about how they've doubled the number of parks. Well, if there's no money to develop those parks or to make them accessible to the public in cases where we want those parks to be widely used and widely available, it doesn't matter particularly. If people can't drive their camper . . . .

I think when the government says that they are creating lots of new parks, people naturally jump to the conclusion that there will be more places for them to enjoy the natural bounty of British Columbia, where they can go and camp. But this bill will not result in a single new campground in British Columbia. There won't be a single new picnic table. There won't be a single new water fountain or boat launch or fire hole. There won't be a single one of those as a result of this bill.

We have 70 new parks, but they only exist on paper, which makes me question the government's commitment to creating those parks. When the government says that they're going to create 84 new parks but there's no money to go along with it, what are they trying to do? Are they just trying to get

[ Page 5950 ]

some publicity through a press release? Is it just that somebody wants to make an announcement and get some good press? Nothing's going to be different tomorrow from what it was yesterday.

What I suspect will happen is that the government will pass this bill. They'll get another good press release and, hopefully, somebody will believe it and they'll get some good press out of it. Then 20 years from now, when one of those parks is actually developed, the government will put out another press release saying that they've got another new park. And it goes on and on and on. If we're just talking about paper parks and announcements, then I don't know that there's a whole lot to cheer about here. It's certainly something we can support. But I don't know if it's something that the government wants to trumpet and hold out there before the public like it's some great achievement.

Frankly, unless there is money to go along with the commitment they've made, the commitment isn't very meaningful. The numbers don't lie. We've been through the Environment estimates, and we know that the numbers aren't there to support the government's claim to be committed to creating a whole bunch of new parks or even really to going ahead and being a leader in protecting the environment. We know that. We've been through the Environment estimates.

The government says that uses will be prohibited in these parks, but they're not going to add a single park ranger or conservation officer. When we have asked the minister about who's going to take care of these new parks, she says that it's going to be our park rangers and conservation officers. Well, the government has actually cut back on the number of conservation officer positions in its employment this year.

There will be fewer conservation officers in the future than there have been in the past, and there won't be any more park rangers to take care of these parks. Who is going to go in and ensure that these prohibited uses -- uses that the government trumpets and says they're why this legislation is so important -- don't go on in these parks? The fact is that there won't be anybody doing that, because conservation officers, for example, are already worked to the bone.

I want to give an example of what goes on out there in the field from the people the ministry says are going to be able to take care of these new parks and are going to ensure that the prohibited uses implied by this new legislation don't go on in the parks. In the Prince George office of the government's Environment and Lands area, where the conservation officers work, they already have a backlog of 400 field trips. They say that they've got 578 other tasks related to lands management that are sitting there on their lists of things to do, and they just can't get to them.

They already have a list that I would suggest will take them months to get through, they are so far behind. How are they going to be able to ensure that these parks are treated as parks? How are they going to be able to go out there and enforce the regulations that the government says are so important and are a part of this legislation? The fact is that they're not.

We have Ministry of Environment staff saying that in fact the lack of funding that's out there in the field is very scary. And I'm quoting: "It's so ludicrous that we're looking at options like parking everybody's trucks some time this summer, and then that's it for the year, let alone doing any other work." Well, this is the other work.

Even if they had time to do this work, according to this employee of the Ministry of Environment -- which the minister hasn't refuted -- they won't even have gas in their trucks to get to the parks. You know, there aren't necessarily any buses up there that will take you into any of these parks. If they can't even afford gas for their trucks because the ministry is underfunding them so badly, I'd suggest they're not going to be going to those parks.

Then, in the same article, the assistant deputy minister goes on to say it's okay. I'm quoting here: "To be honest, I'd have to say there will be a small reduction in field checks and that the [conservation officers] will have to be a little more strategic in terms of where they go and how they can get the best bang for their buck." So there's going to be a little less money. He goes on to say that's okay, because funding from Forest Renewal B.C. and the habitat conservation fund for specific projects should help offset reductions in the regions-based budget.

That is outrageous. The money for the Forest Renewal B.C. fund was taken in as what the government said was a sacred trust for the people of forest-dependent communities in British Columbia. That money came from the land, and it should go back to the land. It should go back to the workers the government says it cares so much about retraining. It should go back to reforesting the land so that we can have a healthy land base and so we can ensure we're able to have a sustainable economy and a sustainable forest industry in British Columbia. It should go back to restoring watersheds so we can have a sustainable long-term fishing industry.

That's where that money is supposed to go. It's not supposed to go into the base budget of the Ministry of Environment so they can just keep up with what they're doing now -- or maybe cut back on what they're doing now so they can go out and service these new parks. That's what's happening out there, and when the government says it's going to take it from the habitat conservation trust fund, that is even more shocking.

The habitat conservation trust fund is intended to ensure the conservation of wildlife and fish in British Columbia. The money for that fund comes from hunters and anglers in British Columbia. They are prepared to pay -- and they've said they are even in some cases prepared to pay more -- to ensure conservation of the wildlife and the fishery they so much enjoy in British Columbia.

But the government is going to take that money away from conservation, away from all those purposes the government promised it would put it to, and it is going to put the money in to supplement its base budget. The government has to put it in to supplement its base budget because its base budget is shrinking. I'll tell you, the farther you get away from the minister's office in Victoria, the more it shrinks. If you're in Peace-Omineca, you're looking at a 26 percent cut in your budget, and that's where they're going to need the money to service these new parks.

Of course, if you're in the minister's office in Victoria, you're looking at a zero cut to your budget. It's a zero cut if you're in Victoria. Maybe the minister did decide, though, that the support staff in the Victoria office could afford an 11 or 12 percent cut, but the farther you get away from Victoria, the farther you get away from the minister's office, the deeper the cuts are in this ministry.

That's going to make it well nigh impossible for this legislation to be meaningful. It is going to make it impossible to go out and enforce these new rules that the government has brought into place. What that says to me is that this legislation was intended just so the government could get a good hit, so it

[ Page 5951 ]

could put out another press release with the minister's name on it and hope for a good newspaper article. I noticed, though, that when this legislation was first introduced, the government didn't get much great press.

You know, I think the public has probably caught on by now. The public has probably figured out that this government is a lot more interested in press releases than it is in governing, a lot more interested in politics and in saying they'll do something than actually doing it. You can't believe a word that this government or this minister says. She says she's dedicated to creating new parks, but there's no commitment there. She introduces a bill, but there's no money to support it. There's no commitment even to plan these parks.

The planning budget for this year in the Ministry of Environment is just about the same as it was last year, and surely that's the first thing you have to do if you want to start a new park. You have to plan something. You have to figure out if you're going to put a trail or a road in or if you're going to put a bathroom or a picnic table in. You have to figure that out, but the government hasn't done any of that. There is zero commitment behind this bill, and you can't believe a word they say. You simply can't. They'll say one thing, they'll say it's important, they'll say that it's at the top of their priority list -- but they won't do it. They won't follow it up with anything.

It's like the government saying the budgets were balanced. They said that they had two balanced budgets in a row, and of course it didn't happen. The budgets were wildly out of whack. The public found out, and the government didn't even say they were sorry. Will the minister say she is sorry when these parks are created and nobody can use them? Is she going to come out and say she's sorry? I don't think so.

Nobody else in this government has had the good grace to apologize for all the other things they've said that haven't happened, and there has been a long list of them, including something I touched on earlier -- the raid on the forest renewal fund. Did anybody say they were sorry for that? When they went out and told people the forest renewal fund was sacred and that the money belonged to the people in small forest-dependent communities, and then they took it to supplement the base budget of the Ministry of Environment and to use for existing government operations, did the government say they were sorry? No.

Did they say: "We're sorry"? They didn't say: "You know that whole budget thing. Well, it wasn't really true. Now we're in a position where we have to really cover it up. So we're going to take the money out of that money we promised to forest-dependent communities, and we're going to use it to try to supplement our base budgets." Did they say they were sorry for any of that? No, they didn't.

I'll bet the Minister of Environment isn't going to say she's sorry after she's told British Columbians that there's a whole bunch of new parks and British Columbians find out that they can't use them. The minister said the other day that in some cases the development of these parks is going to take 15 to 20 years. Who knows? There might not even be a New Democratic Party by then. Who knows? By then they will have continued to sink so deep and so low in the polls that they'll cease to exist as a party.

I mean, when you look at the downward trend for the NDP in the polls, I'd be surprised if anybody shows up at the convention 15 or 20 years from now -- unless, of course, the government gets through all its labour legislation. Then they'll know that at least their big financial contributors are going to show up at the convention. But we know who's running the NDP over there. We know those are the guys who are going to show up at their convention.

So maybe they will show up at the convention, and maybe the NDP will continue to exist 15 to 20 years from now, but I'll bet British Columbians will never trust them with government again. I'll bet they won't be in government, because British Columbians will remember what this government has perpetrated over the last year -- and I presume they'll continue to do it over the next three years.

They will remember what this government said and the fact that this government didn't do it. And not only did they not do what they said, they didn't even mean what they said in the first place. They didn't even mean it. That's what British Columbians will remember. British Columbians remember it now, and 75 percent of British Columbians say they don't believe that this government got elected legitimately. Those people believe it now, and I would bet that they will continue to believe it ten or 15 years from now when the minister says those parks might finally be created.

She can put it down in legislation all she wants, and she can put out as many press releases as she wants, but British Columbians know we can't believe a word that any one of the people on that side of the House says. This legislation will be taken as seriously as just about everything else this government has done, and that will be not seriously at all, because unless there is a financial commitment to build these parks and to manage these parks and to enforce the rules on these parks, it doesn't mean very much.

So if the minister wants to create parks on paper, that's fine, I suppose; we can support that. But I'll tell you, hon. Speaker, I prefer the approach that was taken by the leader of the Liberal Party when he was mayor of Vancouver, which is to actually do what you say you're going to do. When he became mayor, he said that he was going to leave a legacy for the people of Vancouver, and he did that. He built the sea wall from one side of Vancouver all the way to the other.

He believed that it was important that Vancouverites and British Columbians could go from the Trade and Convention Centre all the way around through Stanley Park and all the way around False Creek up to Spanish Banks. He believed it was important that British Columbians would have access to their natural environment and would have access to the beautiful bounty that Vancouver has to offer.

When he fought so hard for the dedication of Pacific Spirit Park -- and he won that battle -- that was an amazing undertaking. He did a marvellous thing, and he fought for that. He fought to turn Hastings Park from a parking lot into something that was ecological, something that could be enjoyed by the people of Vancouver and the people of British Columbia -- somewhere that people could go and enjoy nature.

What did he experience? He saw the province step in every time, slow down the process and make it difficult to achieve those ends. I'll tell you, there is an example. Hastings Park is a perfect example of where the government can say it's a park, but it doesn't mean it's not a parking lot.

We are proud, on this side of the House, to be part of a party that is led by a man whose legacy for park creation as the major of Vancouver is unparalleled. And we are proud to be part of a party where we have a leader who has a proven record of saying one thing and then doing it at the end of the day -- of coming into office with a goal and a vision and actually having it come out at the end of the day the way he said it would. He is committed to public policy and is committed to governing and not just politics. That's what we are proud of on this side of the House. And that's the legacy of our leader on parks.

[ Page 5952 ]

Meanwhile, on the other side of the House, we have these individuals who say one thing and do another -- who come into office with one idea, change it afterward and forget to tell everybody that their ideas have changed in the meantime. We've got a government that says they want to create parks but won't put any money into it. We've got a government that says they want to be the leaders in environmental protection, but they slash the budget. We've got a government that even says they're going to try to clean up the air, and they're already 15 percent behind their targets.

It's pathetic. It's pathetic the way this government treats British Columbians. It's embarrassing -- the lack of respect that they show for the people that elect them; the lack of decency that they have in their approach to their election promises when they refuse to keep them. On this side of the House, we are proud to be members of a party that is led by a man who's committed to these basic fundamental principles of good governance, park creation and ensuring that British Columbians have a legacy to turn to hundreds of years from now. That legacy is there because he created it.

So while we support this bill, I would certainly urge the government to give some meaning to it if they are indeed serious. Don't sit there and tell us, "Well, the park might be created 15 or 20 years from now" -- which is on the record from the other day. Don't sit there and say that. If you're interested in park creation, actually create a park. Just go do it. If you say you're going to do it, actually make it happen. Many people in British Columbia don't find that hard to do. It may be that it is beyond the grasp of this government; I don't know.

At the very least, though, this bill will put in place a legislative framework on which the B.C. Liberal Party and the Leader of the Opposition can build three years from now when the government changes and we can look at a long legacy of Liberals on that side of the House. Thank you. [Applause.]

The Speaker: I was about to recognize Oak Bay-Gordon Head, but I understand the minister has a point of order.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I enjoyed the speech; I even enjoyed the applause. But I would make it a point of order that these priceless antique desks can't quite take some of the applause.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. I am sure the enthusiasm demonstrated by members opposite is indeed based on something absolutely as tangible and solid as the desks.

I. Chong: Firstly, I would like to say that I am pleased to rise this evening and offer some comments during second reading of Bill 29, the Park Amendment Act, 1997. Although I do represent an urban riding, that does not limit one's ability to contribute to the preservation of green space and to be able to speak on these issues of parkland.

It's becoming increasingly obvious that urban areas are in as much if not more need than rural areas for more parks and more green space. You have to ask: how is it that the government can possibly assist? Or what it is that government should be doing -- what its priorities and its strategies should be -- for those urban area ridings? There are very many of them that we represent. We need to look at new, innovative and creative ways to acquire new parks.

I want to make it very clear that I'm not asking, nor do I expect, this government to go out and spend, spend, spend, as they continually think we say we would like. We've always suggested that this government should be spending wisely with the dollars they do have and that they should be finding ways to maximize the use of their dollars, so that the taxpayers feel they're being accountable. That's what we're here for on this side of the House: to hold this government to account for the way they spend their money.

In cases where we want them to expand or enhance parkland, again, we don't say we are expecting extra spending. But, in fact, we are expecting the government to look at new ways of doing business. That was a catchphrase that was used some years ago. What came up was private-public partnerships. But in the area of parklands sometimes there are no private-public partnerships, which means this government has to look more at other ways to develop new strategy. I do believe that there are other means to create parkland and green space, and I will touch on that shortly. I will offer those comments to the minister.

But I do wish to speak on a portion of this bill. I want to refer specifically to

schedule D, and one of the parks mentioned there. I note that the description of Gowlland-Tod Park is being amended. It aims to include additional adjacent lands and expand the area. I have no problem with that. I commend the minister for recognizing that this would surely enhance the park. Also, the substitution would further enhance the park -- its usefulness and its viability. I'm sure all the people surrounding those areas are very pleased with that move.

So I do want to state for the record that I certainly appreciate that change that's been contained in this Park Amendment Act. This park is in what we call the Highlands district, which is one of the municipalities in the capital region area. I am also a member representing a number of the municipalities in the capital region. So I want to speak a little about the Highlands district.

Before the Highlands district was incorporated, it was well known for its vast and open space and its undeveloped territory. When rapid growth began to escalate in the capital region, it was clear that it would be the Highlands that would be targeted for development and that the surrounding residents would stand to lose much of what Victorians had taken for granted -- the rolling hills and a lot of just open green space.

So the residents of that area got together. They ensured that the community knew what it had to do. That was to ensure that they would have parkland that would be set aside and that it would be preserved for future generations. It would be so that the developments that were to come would not overtake them.

Again, I commend those residents. I commend the community for having the foresight to look ahead, because those efforts did pay off. That district, the Highlands district, now boasts some of the most pristine parks in this area. I'm sure that will benefit the future generations that will be locating or relocating to that area in the years to come.

That leads me to the issue that I referred to earlier, an issue which I would like the minister to think about and to discuss with her cabinet colleagues. It has to do with communities and with municipalities, especially those communities and municipalities that are in urban areas which are in need of parks and green space, as I mentioned earlier. I think it is important at the provincial level that we do consult with local governments and work with them to develop a strategy, some strategy that would enable them to develop more parkland and more green space, because we know that those urban areas have become fully developed at this point.

[ Page 5953 ]

People wonder what can be done when urban areas no longer have green space. But if we were to look around, there are pockets of small green space within neighbourhoods. I think it's important to recognize that sometimes that is enough for neighbourhoods, for communities, to start. It's a starting point for them to look at.

What we've encountered in the past is the fact that there's been no way to acquire that again. At the municipal and local government levels, money has been tight. Taxpayer dollars are better spent on other issues that are more important, which are perhaps policing and public safety issues. But in the past there have been opportunities to acquire parkland in communities in urban areas. I feel that this government has fallen behind in not promoting that to help municipalities overcome that problem.

What I'm talking about is to develop a policy or strategy that will enable residents, people or corporations -- whoever they may be -- who have excess or surplus lands to turn them over to municipalities and get a tax break or tax credit that would benefit those people who are wishing to donate them. As it presently exists, we are allowed to donate parkland to the province, but we are not allowed to directly allow those donations to go to municipalities. That's a problem, because what it does is create another level of regulation. It creates another level of bureaucracy.

I saw this happen in the Highlands area, actually. That's why I referred to it earlier. When the mayor had some green space he wanted to be preserved for all time, he suggested that he wanted his municipality to acquire it. He wanted to turn it over to the municipality. But he couldn't do so, because of the difficulty of the taxation issues he would be faced with. In fact, he would have to pay to give that piece of land to the municipalities.

[7:15]

The then minister, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, did step in and suggested that he donate that land to the province and then have the province in turn decide to donate it back to the municipalities. But that does not provide certainty about the land that is being donated. What we do need is that kind of certainty.

When I was a councillor in the municipality of Saanich, in my first year I introduced a resolution that was supported at the AVIM -- the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities -- and then went on to the UBCM table as well as to the FCM. Unfortunately, because I've left the municipal local government scene, I can't honestly say I know how it's been dealt with.

My resolution at the time was to create the incentive for persons to donate land to municipalities for park or green space. I even have the resolution here. It was to ensure that municipalities would not be spending large sums of money to purchase parkland and to ensure that owners who have excess land would be motivated to make those kinds of donations. It would be a very small cost in terms of forgone taxes to the province but a huge savings in terms of money not being expended to acquire it. So it's clear that the benefits far outweigh the small amount of cost that may be attributable.

I know that in 1995 -- in the February 1995 federal budget, in fact -- there was, I would say, a partial amendment to the budget that dealt with this. At that time, the Revenue minister, our member for Victoria, who is now our Minister of Fisheries -- he's changed his position a number of times -- was at the helm of this particular piece of legislation. I very much supported his role in this, but he didn't go far enough.

What he did was look at the donation of ecologically sensitive or historically sensitive lands for preservation, and they would get this kind of a tax credit and tax break. All it is, really, is a donation. It doesn't change the law, because you can donate lands to Crowns currently and get the donation. There's no change at all.

It's just the hurdle that we place at the local government level. It's the local governments that need the courage or need to be encouraged. They need the incentive to take that one step further and allow the provincial and federal governments to work hand in hand to help the local governments and the local communities.

It was unfortunate that the donation of parkland to municipalities was restricted somewhat to these kinds of lands -- the ecologically sensitive lands or the historic or heritage kinds of lands, for preservation. I think we have to move beyond that. I think it's important that when we see a vacant piece of land in a neighbourhood that may not have historical or heritage significance -- which may not be ecologically sensitive but in fact would do so much to enhance the neighbourhood and add a community spirit, one of livability -- we would provide an incentive for the owner of that land, who clearly sees it as surplus, to provide it to the municipality. Motivate that owner to provide it.

The only way is for this government to take a leadership role. The minister should discuss this with her colleagues. I'm sure they will find that this is not an issue that would not be supported by her colleagues. It is an issue that municipalities will always be grappling with as more and more areas become urban and there is less and less rural area.

That is sometimes where the need is greatest, as I stated earlier. The urban areas have no opportunity to acquire more parkland. The urban areas already have ecologically sensitive land. So we have to look beyond that, and we have to develop a strategy of working together with local governments. We have to develop a long-range goal to acquire and develop more parklands, not only in those outlying areas but within our cities as well.

I would just like to close with those comments and hope that the minister will work with us on this side of the House, if she would like. I certainly am prepared to provide her all my backup information that I had back in 1995 when I was developing this policy and assist her in any way possible that would make this kind of legislation become a reality.

I know it has the support of a number of environmental groups, as well. I know the North American Wetlands Conservation Council, for example, was very supportive of this. But again, at that time they were looking more at ecologically sensitive lands. As I say, we have gone beyond that step now; we need to look further. If this government is willing and able to, I think it should certainly develop a parkland strategy that includes local cities and areas, to make it more livable.

Hon. Speaker, I thank you for the time that I've been allowed to offer my comments on second reading. I hope that the minister recognizes the importance of this issue. I certainly will be supporting this bill.

J. Sawicki: I actually had no intention of speaking to this bill in this House. I think my views are all well known here. But I have to say that the comments of the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain cannot go unchallenged. I don't know where that member is coming from when she is comparing the actions of a government -- one of the few jurisdictions in the world that has adopted the United Nations

recom-

[ Page 5954 ]

mendation to double our protected land area to 12 percent -- to her leader, who has protected Hastings Park in downtown Vancouver.

I am not belittling the protection of Hastings Park in downtown Vancouver. I think that's a great accomplishment, and I give credit to her leader for doing that. But what we are talking about in this bill is another 86,000 hectares of protected areas and parkland in this province.

I come from an urban area, as well, as that member does. Sometimes there's a criticism from the rest of the House -- from rural and northern areas -- that we in the urban areas have kind of an urban bias toward parkland. But I ask that hon. member to look at the record of what this government has done in terms of protecting parklands in and around urban areas.

We have quadrupled the protected areas in greater Vancouver: Boundary Bay, Indian Arm, Pinecone-Burke -- in the member's own riding, Burnaby Mountain, for gosh sakes. And I can tell you that the three other Burnaby MLAs on this side of the House worked very, very hard to get that park protected.

Some of the areas that are protected under this bill . . . . I wonder if the hon. member understands the significance of those areas. The Mehatl, the Upper Lillooet, are really significant natural landscapes in this province. Yes, recreation is one role of the parks in this province, but there's a whole bunch of other reasons to protect parkland.

I really regret that this member, who has spoken on environmental issues many times, and whose comments I often -- in fact, perhaps mostly -- agree with . . . . When I hear her words on this bill, I just don't know where she's coming from.

One of the other points that she has made is that this government won't put any money into parks, and therefore this bill that's before us and the actions that this government has taken to protect areas are worth nothing because we don't put any money into them.

This is coming from the same side of the House that would have cut the provincial budget even further than we have had to do. Yes, there is a challenge as to how we're going to manage these protected areas. But I for one believe that we as British Columbians on both sides of the House have to recognize the significance of the challenge that we have undertaken here -- to protect 12 percent of the provincial land base.

An Hon. Member: We're voting in favour.

J. Sawicki: I hear a member over there saying that they are voting in favour, and I am appreciative of that. I think every British Columbian would support that. What I am speaking about here in this House are the specific comments of one of the members from the other side of the House, and this is a debate. When comments are made, then responses can also be made.

This legislation that is before us is a piece of legislation that we can all truly be proud of. We are halfway through to our goal of 12 percent protected areas in this province by the year 2000. I would hope that the hon. member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain had, perhaps, a rare lapse in -- I wouldn't say judgment -- the appropriateness of her comments, because I know her to be someone who appreciates and supports environmental issues.

With that, having responded to the comments of the member from the opposite side of the House, I will take my place and say again how proud I am to be a member of this government that has made protected areas and parkland a priority for this generation and future generations to come.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Chilliwack and note that I believe he spoke earlier, and by our practice would normally lose his place. However, I would simply ask that leave be granted, because there was some confusion. So I ask the members: will leave be granted so the member might speak?

Leave granted.

B. Penner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, hon. members, for giving me leave to speak on second reading of Bill 29.

For those of you who may have just entered the chamber or just turned on your television set, we're here tonight debating in second reading -- that's in principle -- Bill 29, the Park Amendment Act, 1997. There have been other amendments made to the Park Act over the years, but this is a very significant one, at least in terms of the number of pages. There are 88 pages contained in Bill 29, and a lot of detail.

I won't go through all of my thoughts and deal with all of those 88 pages, but I will share my thoughts, particularly as they relate to

section 9 of the act, which establishes something called

Schedule E.

Schedule E of Bill 29 puts forward a whole list of different areas of the province which will now be classified as class A provincial parks. Class A provincial parks are those parks in our provincial parks system that receive the highest level of protection under the Park Act and related enactments.

There are other categories of provincial parks -- for instance, class C parks, which permit various forms of industrial use, if I can use that expression. In some instances there is a certain amount of logging that's permitted, subject to regulation, as well as mining and other exploration activity. In fact, I believe there are class C parks where it's possible to obtain a park use permit to allow you to go out and hunt wildlife.

I know many people probably living in the lower mainland would be surprised to hear that in provincial parks -- at least, in some provincial parks in British Columbia -- it is lawful to go out and hunt, trap and kill wildlife. But that is the nature of the Park Act and the different classifications of parks in British Columbia.

Under

section 9 of this bill and

schedule E, which is attached, there are a number of areas listed. I'm going to refer to the sixteenth area listed in

schedule E that deals with Chilliwack Lake Park. Chilliwack Lake Park is not, strictly speaking, in my riding. I do represent the area of Chilliwack, but Chilliwack Lake Park is at the head of the Chilliwack River valley. Through some quirk of provincial electoral laws, I suppose, strictly speaking, that area is in the riding of Abbotsford. My colleague the member for Abbotsford, sitting close to me here tonight, is the member responsible for the Chilliwack Lake area, as well as the Chilliwack River area. I might say by way of an aside that I think he's done a remarkable job educating himself as to the issues in the Chilliwack River area.

[7:30]

Clearly there are a whole host of complicated and pressing issues that face the people and residents of the Chilliwack River valley. From time to time we hear about it when we turn

[ Page 5955 ]

on our evening newscast and hear about the flooding and severe damage done to individuals' households and to the highway that runs in the Chilliwack River valley, preventing people access out of that area into the community of Chilliwack proper, where they can conduct their shopping and other business affairs.

My knowledge of Chilliwack Lake goes beyond simply living in fairly close proximity to that area. In 1986 I started employment with the Ministry of Parks, as it then was, in the capacity of a park ranger. Earlier tonight we heard the B.C. Liberal Environment critic, the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain, speaking about the lack of additional park ranger staff in this year's budget.

I think the problem with that has already been adequately pointed out -- that we are giving the existing staff an increasing burden in terms of the amount of area they are responsible for patrolling and protecting, but we aren't giving them any extra resources to do it. Stated differently, the existing staff is being stretched even thinner each and every year as we keep adding to the park land base in the province.

In 1986 it was with a considerable amount of anticipation, joy and even some pride that I took on my duties as a park ranger for the first time and was assigned the responsibility of patrolling areas of the Chilliwack River valley and Chilliwack Lake Park, at the very head of the valley.

For those who may not have had the privilege and benefit of travelling to Chilliwack Lake and spending some time there, it's about 50 to 60 kilometres -- depending which part of Chilliwack you're coming from -- from downtown Chilliwack to Chilliwack Lake Park; 42 kilometres of that trip occur through the actual Chilliwack River valley. If anyone here has not had the benefit of making a trip to that area, I highly recommend it, especially during the summer months, or even in early fall as the leaves turn colour and it becomes, in my view, probably one of the most spectacular scenic drives in our province.

Chilliwack Lake Park has existed in years gone by. It's not a new creation. There has been a base to the park, as the Speaker knows, for many years. I don't know exactly when Chilliwack Lake Park was first established, but Bill 29 appears to dramatically expand the boundaries of what was the existing park. The existing park is really not much larger than a campground. Contained in the park is a campground consisting of 88 regular campsites plus 12 overflow sites.

I can tell you that during the summer months, if the weather is decent, not only are all 88 sites full, but the 12 overflow sites are typically full, as well, by as early as 5 or 6 o'clock in the evening. The problem that has existed in years gone by is that people wonder why just the campground itself is protected in the park. What about the area surrounding it, which is majestic mountains, waterfalls, roaring creeks and, in some instances, some very lush forest area?

Before I get speaking a bit more about the virtues of Chilliwack Lake Park, I wish to give some credit to an individual who I think deserves some credit for helping instigate the expansion of the previous boundaries of that park. Back in 1982 an individual who was working at that time on a seasonal basis with B.C. Parks -- who was very knowledgeable and was studying at university and I believe also at the British Columbia Institute of Technology -- wrote a report entitled "Alternatives for Recreational Development in the Post Creek Basin." That was dated December 1982.

To my knowledge, that was the first time that a formal proposal had come up through the system recommending expansion of the park boundaries in the area around Chilliwack Lake.

People might be asking: "Why do the boundaries need to be expanded there?" Outside of the small pocket area -- if I could call it that -- of the actual campground, the boat launch facility and the picnic ground that has been in the park for some time is an amazing array of landscapes.

From Macdonald Peak on the south side of the lake, rising up, I believe, in excess of 7,000 feet, to Radium Lake and the log cabin established at Radium Lake in the basin just below Macdonald Peak to Radium Creek and the provincial Forest Service campground at Post Creek, and again across to the north side of the highway up to Lindeman Lake -- a very popular day trip for hikers in the lower mainland -- all of these areas were previously outside of the provincial park boundary.

I don't want to denigrate the value that the existing park had, but I think by virtually any measure, these other areas that I've just mentioned were more spectacular in their inherent natural beauty than the existing campsite and boat launch area. I know that from time to time as I was patrolling the campground as a park ranger people would ask me: "What about these other areas? Are there any plans to extend the control or the protection of the B.C. Parks service to these other areas?

Or will they be logged in the future?" I pause here to note that, in fact, virtually the entire Chilliwack River valley, right up to Chilliwack Lake and the existing park with the campground, where people spend many pleasurable days and evenings, was logged at one time earlier this century. All of that was old-growth forest, but all of it was logged.

In fact, earlier this century, a railway line was established and went almost all of the way to Chilliwack Lake. This railway was built for no other purpose than to help extract the timber and forest products from the Chilliwack Lake area. One would think today that we wouldn't be talking about it as being a prime candidate for a provincial park and for increased recreational use, yet the reality is that the forest has grown back. Today, driving up the Chilliwack River valley and certainly in Chilliwack Lake Park, an individual would hardly know that at one time the area was logged and essentially clearcut, to use the terminology.

It's not to say that the logging practices of the past in the Chilliwack River valley are anything to be proud of, because I believe that many of the problems that are present today for the residents living lower down in the Chilliwack River valley stem from previous logging practices, particularly on the steep slopes immediately adjacent to the river valley bottom. Every fall, as everybody in British Columbia knows, we have significant rainfall, particularly in November. This leads to flooding concerns, and often flooding reality, in the Chilliwack River valley.

Be that as it may, I hope that with more attention in the future from the Minister of Environment to deal with problems in the Chilliwack River valley, the citizens living there will get some relief from this provincial government for their ongoing problems.

I mentioned briefly some of the increased area that will be included in the expanded Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park. There are many tasks to be accomplished if the boundaries, as purported in this bill, are going to be expanded. I mentioned very briefly that one of the areas now to be included in the park boundary is Lindeman Lake. Lindeman Lake is an absolute jewel. It's nestled amongst some very ragged, jagged peaks, and it absolutely shines. It's beautiful clear blue water. It's situated at an elevation of about 2,700 feet; it represents, however, only about a half-hour walk.

This makes it a very popular destination, not just for hikers but for casual walkers as well. People of all ages can be found on that trail.

Two weeks ago, when enjoying a weekend, I had an opportunity to go back and revisit Lindeman Lake. It's both beautiful and sad. It's beautiful as I just described it, because

[ Page 5956 ]

it's a natural jewel; but it's sad, because of the lack of regulation and protection in years gone by. What's happened at the main area of the lake, where the trail comes out and you reach the lake area at the lakehead, is that a succession of hikers and campers and overnighters have gradually deforested the area immediately surrounding the lake. In my own lifetime of travelling up there in the last 20 years or so, I have witnessed an incredible erosion of foliage near the lake.

Going further and further up the hillside, it has become denuded, as people, I suppose, seek out some wood to make campfires, as well as some branches, perhaps, for shelter or to use to help dry their clothes or other belongings.

This is the problem that was first identified 15 years ago in the report entitled "Alternatives for Recreational Development in the Post Creek Basin." This report, as I indicated, was first submitted recommending that the park boundaries be expanded so that the very fragile area of Lindeman Lake could enjoy some increased protection, not just for the sake of that area but for the benefit of all future visitors and hikers to Lindeman Lake.

The problem is that this bill only goes halfway. This bill does expand the boundaries and does include Lindeman Lake in a class A park, giving it full protection under the Park Act. But I think, as the B.C. Liberal Environment critic adequately pointed out earlier, that protection is on paper only. Because even if we were to pass this bill tonight, give it final reading, and it were to be proclaimed, nothing would change there tomorrow.

There would still be people going up and cutting off little sticks, cutting off branches, gradually whittling away at the forest near Lindeman Lake, because there would be no one there to stop them from doing so. And there will be nobody there to stop them from doing so, because although we have expanded the park base, we haven't expanded our ability to manage and control and protect that park base. Maybe one of the reasons is because the former park ranger is now here in the Legislature and is not busy looking after that area.

Perhaps I'll reconsider my career path and re-examine my career opportunities within the Ministry of Parks.

However, I mean to be serious about that. It is an area that is fragile. There is a tremendous amount of day use, and the erosion of the foliage in that area is clear for everyone to see. It's painful. There are no refuse bins. Supposedly, it's a back-country area, but it's a 20- to 30-minute walk, depending on your physical condition, to get there. I have seen people on that trail packing up literally a cooler -- two people at either end carrying a very large cooler filled with all sorts of food, beer cans, and plastic bags containing potato chips.

And they leave the refuse there -- not all of them, but some people, unfortunately. There is no garbage pickup; there's no garbage can. Yet now this area is supposedly under the protection of the Park Act, but to my knowledge the ministry has no plans to go up there. Because they don't have the resources to go up there and deal with that problem: the problem of refuse being left behind, the problem of people wilfully cutting down what remains of the forest in the area immediately adjacent to the lake.

[7:45]

There are other areas that are now included, by virtue of Bill 29 and

section 9 and the

schedule E attached to it, in Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park. Many people will also know that when you first reach Chilliwack Lake, the first thing that you come to is the existing provincial park where the campground is. However, a narrow gravel road continues on past the provincial park along the north shore of the lake. In years gone by, this is where the rowdiest parties took place, the rowdiest activity. In fact, some of the most dangerous parties took place on weekends, because this was outside of the protection of the provincial park. There were no park rangers going into these areas, because it wasn't in provincial park territory. They were known as Forest Service campgrounds.

One, particularly, that posed problems was Post Creek and Paleface -- well, primarily the Paleface Creek campground. On more than one evening, automatic weapons-fire could be heard as early as 10 o'clock at night. I have to tell you that that sometimes created vacancies back at the provincial park campground, as people quickly decided to head for safer ground.

The point that I'm making is that there's a vast area, and in years gone by, the province certainly hasn't done a very good job of patrolling or controlling the activity that goes on in those more remote campgrounds at the far end of Chilliwack Lake. There have been examples of such facilities provided by the Forest Service being destroyed on virtually a yearly basis around the time of the Victoria Day holiday every May, as high school students, getting anxious for their graduation parties, would get a head start.

They'd come up, get carried away and end up torching either the picnic tables or the outhouses or the garbage facilities at the Forest Service campgrounds located at the far end of Chilliwack Lake.

My concern is that without the commitment from the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks to send park ranger staff there, that activity is going to continue in the future. That is a shame, and it's also hazardous. It's dangerous, because word gets out among certain elements that you can go to those areas and do whatever you please and, frankly, nobody's going to come along to stop you. Even the RCMP in the area expressed to me quite candidly their reservation and their concern for their own safety in terms of going up there to patrol it. They would prefer to stay away.

So I call on the minister to seriously think about what her ministry's direction and policy is towards protecting these areas that we claim we're going to protect. It's one thing to pass a bill and pass a law . . . . And we could do that here tonight if we chose to, to say that we're giving them protection. But when the rubber hits the road, it takes people to protect people -- not just a piece of paper.

Earlier tonight I spoke by telephone to a manager in the provincial park system. He told me quite candidly some of the challenges that he's facing out in the field today. He knows that although there has been a 1.8 percent reduction in the Ministry of Parks budget, he says that out in his area, further away from the lower mainland and from Victoria, it's more like a 4 percent reduction. Again, earlier tonight the B.C. Liberal Environment critic pointed out that in the northeast corner of the province, that reduction is closer to, I believe, 24 or 25 percent -- a huge reduction.

This is what this individual told me tonight. This is a direct quote: "We can't manage what we've been given." Then he said: "You know, I feel good that there are increased areas being added to the existing park base. However, this cake comes with a bit of poison." Again, it's another direct quote, and I don't think I can say it any better than that. We can't manage what we've been given, and this cake comes with a bit of poison.

What does that mean? It means that the staff in B.C. Parks have been faced with a series of cutbacks, year after year. Every year they're told to do more and do better with less. Up to a point, reorganization can perhaps achieve some of those goals, and I know that there's been quite a significant amount of middle-level management and different kinds of

organiza-

[ Page 5957 ]

tional boundaries removed from the Parks structure in B.C. in an effort to direct what resources remain into front-line services.

I think they've reached the breaking point, and the continual increase in park land without a concomitant increase in resources and staff makes it very difficult to adequately protect our parkland and the people in those parklands. As an example, the current budgets apparently don't provide for any new picnic tables in these new parks. I'm going to be very curious, in a few weeks' time -- hopefully, as the Legislature rises, sometime by early November -- when I go out and revisit Chilliwack Lake, and I'll hike some of those areas to see if there's any difference.

I'll go to Lindeman Lake and see if any of the garbage has been cleaned up, if there are any facilities to hold the garbage and if there are any picnic tables so people don't feel they have to cut down branches and prop them up to have a place to sit. I'm going to look to see if there are any new fountains in Chilliwack Lake Park so people can have liquid refreshment if they need it. I'm going to look to see if there are any new barbecue pits, because I think most people associate those basic services with what a provincial park is.

I think many people will hear -- yes, this is a good thing -- that there's increased park space, and they will have a mental picture in mind of what to expect if and when they travel to those new parks. I think the vast majority of them are going to be disappointed, because the reality won't fit with their own preconceived notion of what a park should be. There will not be an increased number of campgrounds, bathroom facilities, picnic tables, barbecue pits, picnic areas or boat launches, simply because this ministry doesn't have a plan as to what they want to do with this new park space.

In the introductory remarks, I heard the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks talk about the new park they're creating at the Stawamus Chief near Squamish. That's an area I've been to, as well, on a number of occasions. I can't claim to have scaled the face of the chief, as some of my friends have who are avid rock climbers, but I have hiked around the back of that mountain, and I can tell you that it's a very beautiful mountain.

Since the statement this government made with much fanfare prior to the last election -- that they were protecting this as a park -- nothing has materially changed. I can go there today, and it's exactly the way it was two or three years ago. Nothing has changed, except on paper. Nothing has changed, except that the government has issued a press release and tried to garner some headlines.

I salute passing laws to protect our wilderness areas, but that commitment rings a little hollow if we don't follow through and actually make sure we have staff going to those areas to check on them, to protect the public, to do some law enforcement under the Park Act, the Wildlife Act, the Litter Act, the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, or the Firearm Act, and to really assert provincial sovereignty over those areas pursuant to the Park Act. That is what the public expects when they hear about these announcements -- at least, I firmly believe that -- but I don't think that as a provincial government, we're really delivering on the public's expectations.

Before I finish tonight, I need to mention one thing on a personal note, but it does have to do with Chilliwack Lake and the expansion of the park boundaries. Given that it's so beautiful, I am pleased to see an increased amount of area being included in the park boundaries around Chilliwack Lake. It's something I first dreamed of when I started working there as a park ranger in 1986 and on my very first shift saw both mountain goats and black bears, all within about half an hour.

I thought: "Why couldn't we do something to add some protection and enjoyment to this area?" Many people have shared the same dream of seeing the area given a higher status and not being threatened with additional logging, as has happened in years gone by.

In 1992, a good close personal friend of mine and also a former park ranger was paragliding from Macdonald Peak, an area that will now be included in the provincial park. Macdonald Peak is a beautiful mountain. It's covered with a glacier on the north side, and yet it's accessible on foot from the south as you rise up above Radium Lake, which is beautiful in its own right. As you get to the top of Macdonald Peak, it seems you can see forever.

Immediately to the south, almost as though you could reach out and touch them, are Mount Baker and Mount Shuksan, not more than one or two miles away from you, rising up around 10,000 feet in elevation. Looking to the north, you can see the Cascade range. You can see into Manning Park. You can look west and see down the Chilliwack River valley, almost approaching the Fraser Valley.

From that spot in March 1992, Clayton Friesen launched his paraglider for the last time. He drowned in Chilliwack Lake when he failed to reach the beach at Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park campground. That was a tragic event, obviously, for his family and for all his friends, including myself, and I think that in some ways, we will consider the expansion of the park boundaries as a way to remember Clayton and the love he had for that area.

With that, I'll give way to my colleague. I believe the member for Abbotsford would like to speak on this, the second reading of Bill 29.

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to participate in this second reading debate on Bill 29, Park Amendment Act, 1997, and I also want to thank the member for Chilliwack for that bit of history of Chilliwack Lake Park and that area. I always appreciate his assistance in representing the concerns of the people in the area. The Chilliwack River valley does have the benefits of some very beautiful scenery. It's a very narrow valley, and it's also subject to a lot of hazards in terms of the possibility of floods and slides of the steep banks of the valley. There are a lot of issues in that area.

I just want to mention briefly some concerns on behalf of the users of land that compete with parks. These will be very, very brief, and then I also want to make reference to some other concerns. I want to make a specific reference to the kinds of concerns expressed by the official opposition critic about the maintenance of parks.

I was just going to mention Slesse Park, which is another park in the Chilliwack River valley. In her opening statements, the minister talked about three parks that had been announced as a result of the lower mainland protected-areas strategy. That process, as I recall, was completed somewhere around October 1996. There was a lot of effort made late in the term of the previous government to bring that process to resolution and to finalize the recommendations of the appointed committee that had been established at the time to do the review.

On behalf of the citizens in the Fraser Valley generally . . . and particularly people in the logging industry -- the forest industry generally -- and people with an interest in

[ Page 5958 ]

parks were very disappointed that there were no public hearings held at the time in our area as part of the lower mainland protected-areas strategy. That was a great disappointment. I understand that it's the process that took place in a lot of other parts of British Columbia, but in our area that didn't happen. So if your particular interest was not represented on the appointed committee, then you had no opportunity in any public sort of way to present your concerns. I just want to register that concern on behalf of the citizens in my constituency and my area.

[8:00]

The other thing I want to mention in my role as Agriculture critic is with respect to

section 3 of this bill.

Section 3 does deal with a number of provisions setting out specifics on transition from other uses into the parks that have been established. The

section I'm particularly concerned about is

section 3,

section 30(5), where we have parks encroaching on range tenures. I understand that the ranching industry is fairly happy and has had a lot of input into this section. But I will be canvassing that issue in committee to ensure, on behalf of the ranching industry, that they feel their interests have been represented here.

It's always difficult. These land use decisions are always difficult, because of competing interests. To the degree that uses can overlap in a cooperative sort of way, I think as a province we will get better utilization out of our land base if we can establish approaches that allow multiple uses to take place in a harmonious manner. So I look forward to discussing that in committee stage.

I also want to commend the minister for the expansion of Chilliwack Lake Park, because, as I said, the whole valley is a very beautiful area. It is appropriate for a lot of that land base to be established as a park, partly because I'm convinced that a lot of that area, because of the steep slopes, shouldn't be logged. It has been logged, as the previous speaker mentioned. But I think logging that area with the steep slopes does create difficulties. It does increase the possibilities of slides on the clay banks, and I want to mention one of those.

I might just mention that the Chilliwack River valley has a population of about 1,200 people, approximately 600 homes. But there's also a number of activities in that valley that are of interest to the province. There are three provincial correctional centres. There's a federal fish hatchery, and there has been a training area for the Department of National Defence.

As I said, there is a very high probability of difficulties with nature in that valley. The Slesse Park situation is one example. I just want to mention that briefly, because I think it speaks to the need to have the resource and the ability to deal with these kinds of situations.

On January 18 of this year, I happened to be in the Slesse Park area. It was raining very heavily. There's a set of clay banks there. There has been a lot of erosion. There was a lot of runoff coming off the slope. Certainly it looked to me at the time to be a hazardous situation, to the degree that I wasn't comfortable even having my vehicle parked on the dike adjoining the river at that point. I said to the area director at the time that I didn't think we should hang around there.

A week later there was a fairly major slide on that clay bank, to the extent that for a very short period of time it actually blocked the river. The water was able to break through after rising about four feet. But it gives you some indication of the extent of the risk and the problems that we face in some of these areas.

In this case, this is a park administered by the province. I've written to the minister; we've corresponded. I just want to mention two things. One is that from the river's perspective and from the perspective of protection of the fish resource . . . . Some of the brochures and the ministry's own documents talk about the need to control the level of soil particles, silt and clay fines in streams. I refer particularly to the "Stream Enhancement Guide," which is a joint publication of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Ministry of Environment. There's a very specific

section in this guide that speaks to the need to deal with erosion situations. I'll just quote one

section here from this guide:

"The banks of some streams, particularly those with a high proportion of silt and clay fines, must be stabilized to prevent the erosion and deposition of this material on spawning beds or in pools used for rearing. In some cases, severe bank erosion has led to formation of a new stream channel, leaving once-productive channels dry and barren. As the banks erode, trees and other vegetation fall into the stream, and this in turn speeds up the erosion cycle. The resulting sedimentation and debris jams can render an entire

section of stream unsuitable for salmon production."

I just want to mention that, because the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, I understand -- in cooperation with the ministry staff of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks -- has been doing testing. I'm concerned that the commitment to testing the conditions in the river is not that strong. I certainly urge the minister to review that.

In addition to that, there's been a report commissioned by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on that slide. This is a geotechnical assessment of the Slesse Park landslide. This report was completed only very recently by Thurber Consultants Ltd. I have had discussions with people at the regional district. I've had discussions with ministry staff about it, and I know that the ministry staff are developing some recommendations for the minister.

Just to highlight quickly that report, the slide that occurred in January had a volume of 50,000 cubic metres of material that slid into the river. This geotechnical report talks about a very serious concern about the possibility of a much larger landslide. This would extend right up to the top of the bluffs and would involve what the report describes as a natural, progressive earth failure. This slide has an estimated volume of 1.84 million cubic metres and a weight of 3.5 million tonnes. It's 1.84 million cubic metres, compared to 50,000 cubic metres in January, which actually blocked off the river briefly.

The concern of a potential slide like this is that it would block the river completely and cause the water behind that blockage to rise to very high levels, to a point where it eventually breaks through and could cause a major flood downstream, affecting not only the parkland but also residences, roads and other infrastructure.

As I said, this report is being reviewed by the minister's staff. It is a responsibility of the Crown. That property is part of Slesse Park, and I would certainly urge the minister to work with us. I am certainly giving her my commitment to work with her to try and develop some economical and reasonable solutions that will remove the public risk in that area, not only for residents but also for fishermen. In that park area along the dike apparently about 100 fishermen were there shortly before that slide happened. So there's a real public safety concern.

There's a lot of people from throughout the lower mainland and even farther away that use the Chilliwack River valley for recreational purposes.

So with that, I want to wrap up my comments and thank the minister for the expansion of the Chilliwack Lake Park. I

[ Page 5959 ]

look forward to working with her on some of these other issues in our provincial parks to try and get better utilization out of those parks and deal with issues of public risk and fish habitat.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

J. Dalton: I have two issues I wish to address, one of which is not in the Park Act, although I hope one day it will be, and the other is. The first -- and the minister will know this because I made the point during her estimates the other evening -- is that the people on the North Shore and in West Vancouver in particular are certainly hoping to see an amended Park Act one day so that the boundaries of Cypress Provincial Park will be legislated and not as they are now, as an order-in-council. I think the minister is certainly well aware of that. I just want to put that on the record.

When this bill was tabled a few weeks ago, I, maybe like others, started to cruise through it in travelogue fashion to see if there were any parks in here that I might be familiar with or have had the pleasure to enjoy, or that I might visit sometime this summer if we ever get out of here. I know the member from Chilliwack will be able to go home this weekend and visit his park, but I don't necessarily have that same opportunity.

An Hon. Member: God's country.

J. Dalton: That's quite right. Yes, I guess Chilliwack is part of God's country; I will concede that.

As I went through

schedule E -- there are 84 parks described in there -- I spotted item 67, Sargeant Bay Park, because I am familiar with that park. I see that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast is here -- he's going to speak after me, I believe -- and he is equally familiar with Sargeant Bay Park. Just to briefly describe the location, Sargeant Bay Park is located just a few miles north of Sechelt, and it is on the waterfront. One of the boundaries and one of the descriptives in item 67, which is on page 68, for all of the thousands of viewers that are tuned in, is Redrooffs Road.

Well, I am very familiar with Redrooffs Road because I've owned property on it for many years, and I go there on the odd weekend when I get release from this place. And I thought: well, Redrooffs Road; that's interesting. I wonder if they spelled it correctly? Because, for the edification of all members, Redrooffs Road is spelled with two f's. That's the correct spelling. In fact, I have a document here I'll talk about in a moment that substantiates that. And I saw that they got the two f's in it, so they got that

part correct; but, unfortunately, they dropped one of the o's from Redrooffs, so they spelled "roof" with one "o."

So I immediately pencilled a note to the minister responsible and said: "Well, unfortunately, I've spotted an error in your Park Amendment Act." And one of her officials phoned and acknowledged that, yes, they will be amending the act accordingly. They haven't done that yet; it's not yet on the order paper, but it will be.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time now talking about Redrooffs. I can do that at committee stage when we deal with the amendment. But one of the documents I have on my desk is the Redrooffs Rag , volume 1, 1913. So Redrooffs correctly spelled has a long history to it which I'm very proud of, and I know the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast is certainly proud of it; and perhaps he'll have a chance to make some remarks, as well, about Redrooffs.

I'm just pointing out that, unfortunately, the government made a slight boo-boo, one that caused me some amusement, because we very frequently have the misspelling of Redrooffs whereby there is only one "f," but usually two o's. This time, this government got it reversed; they got the two f's right and dropped the "o." So we look forward in committee stage to addressing in a little more detail some of the history of Redrooffs, correctly spelled.

[8:15]

J. Wilson: It's a pleasure to stand up here and address Bill 29 and speak a little bit about parks. I spent considerable time, starting in `92 right through until `95 . . . . I was involved with land use processes and had some involvement in establishing these protected areas, as we call them, a lot of which have become parks since that time.

I was looking at some of the

definitions in the bill here, and I see that class A parks "are dedicated to the preservation of their natural environments for the inspiration, use and enjoyment of the public." Well, it sounds good, but when you create a paper park, it's pretty hard for the public to go out there and use that and enjoy it, because in a lot of cases they can't get to it. There's no access. So what did we do? Some of these areas that were set up were very unique. I mean, they were areas that deserved to be set aside for future use by the people.

One of those that I really do think was an excellent area is a park in the south part of the Chilcotin, and it is known as T\ks'il?os Park. It's taken me a long time to even learn how to pronounce it, but unfortunately, they have now changed the spelling in the name of this park. When we get to committee stage, I'm going to have to get the minister to give me the correct pronunciation on the way this is spelled today. I hope she will be willing to do that. It was a little difficult to wrap your tongue around it, the way it was; but now we have a new pronunciation, I'm sure.

In here, there's another point I would like to touch on, and it's to do with licensing in some of these parks in regards to range tenures. I hope that there's not a duplication here of permitting, because if there is, it's just another burden in the paper trail. That is something I'll have to canvass and find out when we get to committee stage.

Getting back to the creation of a lot of these, it became a bit of a battle between the environmental groups and industry. When people think of a park, they think of the definition as it is right here in the bill. But unfortunately, what happened . . . . Not all of them . . . . Some of these areas set aside were excellent areas, but on the other hand, some of them became . . . . In my mind, it was a misnomer. They shouldn't have called them parks or protected areas; they should have called them tree sanctuaries. That would have been much more appropriate.

When they were established . . . . In some cases it's many miles just to get to the boundary of this new park, and then there's no development in there. There's no place for the public to view anything or to even know when they've crossed the boundary, because there's no access. This was done intentionally, to some degree, because some of the people that were working on these were more concerned about excluding the public from these areas than they were about allowing them to enjoy them.

So as we went through the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use planning process, a lot of us realized that yes, there's going to be a problem there, because the public is not going to be able to go out and enjoy these new areas. They're just areas blocked out on a map. They're paper parks; that's what they are. So rather than put the 12 percent of our land base into paper parks, we left a quarter of a percent. That was what we called our goal 2 protected areas.

[ Page 5960 ]

The reason that was done was because we realized that there are areas with unique features that are high-use areas that are readily accessible to the public. This is what a lot of people are looking for. They are looking for areas where they can go out and they can enjoy the outdoors on a day trip or in an hour or two. They can access these things, and then they can go home. They don't have to spend a week hiking over mountains to get to a park, and then when they do get there, they're not quite sure whether they've reached it or not, because there's nothing to tell them when they did reach the boundary.

We said: "Well, we will leave a quarter of a percent and set it up, and we'll create smaller areas where the public can actually access them and enjoy them." Well, first a list was submitted. Actually, it worked the other way: a list came down from government to the people that were developing the land use plan. We looked it over and said, "Well, this is not quite acceptable," in some cases, and we sent it back. Then another one came down, and it was even worse than the first one. What happened? They put all of these smaller areas on the map -- mapped them out. But did they make them accessible?

No, they were all inaccessible again. So it seems like it doesn't matter what you do. It's very difficult, especially in the interior, to create a park that is actually defined as a park and where the public can go out and get some enjoyment out of it.

That is the long and the short of this. My own personal opinion is that it didn't work the way a lot of people had hoped it would work. Now that the minister has run out of money to look after our parks, I think it will be a long time in the future before . . . . Maybe our grandchildren will be able to go out there one day and access these parks and enjoy them. You know, I'm kind of looking forward to retirement one of these years, and I guess it's just right out of the question.

I think basically that was all I had to cover on this issue. [Applause.] Oh, I see I've got a little support over there. Well, maybe I could carry on a little longer, if you'd like. I can try.

C. Clark: Tell us about purple loosestrife.

J. Wilson: Oh, that's not one of my areas.

C. Clark: And orange hawkweed.

J. Wilson: I'd sooner talk about orange hawkweed, and I'm sure it's going to be a problem in a lot of our parks. It's just going to take over, and it will destroy all the biodiversity and everything that we got out there and all the plants. Unfortunately, the minister is not prepared to put anything in place that will attack these pests that we have growing all over the country.

Bill 29 no doubt has a lot going for it. I see in here that we've actually laid out some boundaries on 80-some parks, so people can identify them. Now they're on paper; before they weren't on paper, and that was a big stumbling block. But now they are, so we know where they are on the map. When you get there, it might be another story to actually know where you are, unless you're packing one of those little . . . . What do they call them? You know, mapping . . . .

C. Clark: Compass? GPS?

J. Wilson: GPS. Yeah, that's probably what you'll need.

J. Dalton: Or maybe you could use loran up in the Chilcotin.

J. Wilson: If you're on the water, yeah. I guess you could if you're flying. That's true; you could use that.

I don't have the figures for the central interior, but I'm sure it's going to be somewhere between the 5 and 6 percent range that we're down in the budget. One of the problems there is that we've already gone through our land use planning; we've created our 12 percent. Some areas of the province haven't reached that yet, so they may not be quite as stretched on their manpower and their budget as we are in that region. But once you create that many more protected areas or parks in a region, your budget has to increase proportionately in order to do the job that is expected.

On that note, hon. Speaker, I would turn the floor over.

K. Krueger: As I commence some brief remarks on Bill 29, the Park Amendment Act, 1997, I want to acknowledge my colleague and next-door neighbour from the Kamloops constituency, the Minister of Environment, who is sponsoring this bill. And while I like her as a person, I feel sorry for her sometimes, in that she's in harness with a government that doesn't do things in a very businesslike way.

So I worry about things like the introduction of this act, because I wonder if it's been carefully drafted; I wonder if the things it sets out to do have been well thought through and well done. When I ask myself how the NDP has done business in the past and how it has conducted itself, I have to answer truthfully: the NDP does business very, very badly, and a lot of problems flow.

So I wonder: when the ministry sets out to designate a new park and map out the boundaries and so on, how does it do its preparatory work? How does it decide what the changes are going to be? Who does it consult? Are local people advised, in ways that are clear to them, what the contemplated changes are? Are they invited to provide their input? Who did this government talk to about the new boundaries?

I know it didn't talk to me. It would have been nice. It shouldn't be any news to anyone in the Parks ministry who the MLA is for Kamloops-North Thompson. A number of these parks certainly involve my constituency -- some are entirely within my constituency -- but nobody asked me what I thought. Nobody indicated to me where the new boundaries would lie or exactly why the changes were being made that were being contemplated. So I wonder: what input did they receive, and how did they decide?

Of course, I tried to find out for myself. These things were brought on in rapid succession. You read through them, and some of the things you see surprise you. For example, you get to page 8 of this act, which is part of

schedule A, and the second-last little statement there is No. 4: "Spahats Creek Park is deleted."

Well, my goodness. On the face of it, that's an alarming statement because Spahats Creek Park is an absolute delight to everyone who's been there and everybody who knows it. I'm sure it isn't being deleted; I'm sure it will be there forever. I trust this government wouldn't interfere with its existence. It's a place where a beautiful waterfall comes down. There's a public viewing point. There's a tremendous ice cone that forms there in the winter. People travel for thousands of miles to see Spahats Creek Park, so I look at that and think: "Well, that must mean they just moved Spahats Creek Park to another schedule."

[8:30]

Of course, I pore on through the bill, which seems largely to be made up of surveyors' meticulous notes that talk about

[ Page 5961 ]

things in terms of "5.63 kilometres" and "northwesterly in a straight line" and "a bearing of 340 degrees," and so on. You'd pretty much have to be a surveyor to be really clear about what exactly the act is talking about.

I'm not a surveyor. I've been cloistered here in the Legislature for quite some time now and haven't had the privilege of walking the boundaries of these proposed parks, although I'd love to do that. Many times I think it would be a lot more productive use of my time.

Reading on through the act, I look for Spahats Creek Park. By page 20 I haven't found it, but lo and behold, there is item 16 -- and this is

schedule D, I believe, of this rather ponderous document; let me just check it . . . . Yes,

schedule D, item 16. Now, I've been thinking that I would find Spahats Creek Park drawn into the boundaries of Wells Gray Park, but there it says, No. 16: "Wells Gray Park is deleted." Oh, my goodness. There would be a revolution if that was true.

I was sure at the time that it wouldn't be true, so I searched on. Of course, now I was searching for both Spahats Creek Park and Wells Gray Park with a growing sense of consternation that perhaps this government -- which has been known to drain lakes and kill fish inadvertently and make money disappear from charities in Nanaimo and create problems of its own making every which way it turns, almost seeming to have the opposite of a Midas touch -- could indeed inadvertently eliminate Wells Gray Park and Spahats Creek Park. But surely not, I thought.

Sure enough, my faith in the new minister was not in vain, because I found that indeed Wells Gray Park was there in the new

schedule E, as newly written. The same sort of very complex . . . . I don't want to call it mumbo-jumbo, because I'm sure it's not; it's probably extremely professional and makes a lot of sense to people who can read this sort of thing. I don't imagine that there are five of my constituents who really could follow this, and I'm afraid I'm not one of them.

Sure enough, on page 82, at item 81, we find Wells Gray Park, and it's a beautiful park, a wonderful place. Fittingly so, the details go on for five pages. I'm certainly not going to read them into the record. Obviously they're already in. I see the Speaker shaking her head that that would indeed be a foolish undertaking, and I won't do it.

Just to give the people who might be following this debate a flavour of what we try to work with here, I'll read a tiny bit. It says: "Firstly: The most northerly 6.1 metres of the most easterly 359.7 metres of the North 1/2 of District Lot 2887, Kamloops Division of Yale District . . . . " So we start out talking about 6.1 metres, and at the end of the five pages, page 86, we sum up that the whole contains approximately 524,990 hectares, which is a whale of a lot of real estate.

I'm tremendously proud of Wells Gray Park. Just to give people a flavour of the minute detail that we deal with against the massive size of the real estate that we're working with, a person worries whether indeed he can find Spahats Creek Park somewhere within Wells Gray Park, where hopefully it is, because I can't find it anywhere else. I did find the name of the beloved creek here, but as I say, I haven't had the opportunity to get out and walk and actually examine this detail for myself. Nor would I be allowed to if I got there, because I've been to the creek many times.

You're prohibited from travelling where these surveyors obviously travel. I'll just have to take their word for it, because when we do get to the detail of the beloved creek, I see things like this: "2.5 kilometres due south, more or less, of the summit of . . . . "

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, second reading is about principles, not about finite details. Whatever the act may say and how it's organized, this is about the basic principles of the bill. That's what is to be dealt with at second reading. I'm sure the member would wish to confine himself to principles in second reading.

K. Krueger: I am doing that, although I've obviously failed to make it clear to you. I'm looking for a park that did exist and has been deleted according to the act, and I'm looking at the definition of a park that did exist but has apparently been changed. I'm honestly concerned that a mistake may have been made and Spahats Creek Park may have been inadvertently eliminated, because I wouldn't put that past this government.

I'm not being facetious. Stranger things have happened in British Columbia. Budget surpluses, for example, have disappeared magically within days of the legislative session starting . . . .

Deputy Speaker: On Bill 29, hon. member. The principle of Bill 29 -- that's the issue at hand.

K. Krueger: Absolutely, hon. Chair. I will canvass this in more detail with the minister as we move into committee stage, but I just think it's fair warning. She doesn't have any advisers with her tonight, and I trust she will when we're in committee stage, because I want to know if there's been any substantial change involving Spahats Creek Park other than possibly including it.

I can't tell; I literally can't tell. I challenge just about anyone in this province who isn't a surveyor or an engineer to tell from this description whether or not, when we talk about the "northwesterly prolongation of the natural boundary on the right bank thereof, of the unnamed creek which is a southeasterly flowing tributary to the main stream of the unnamed northerly fork . . . . "

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, on the principle of the bill, not the details -- that's for committee stage.

K. Krueger: Thank you, hon. Chair. I'm going to take your guidance that I appear to have mapped out my concerns sufficiently in attempting to speak in general terms to the principle of this bill. That beloved park in my constituency may have vanished inadvertently, although I trust that isn't true. The minister will be able to assure me that hasn't happened and also to tell me what the actual changes to Spahats Creek Park are, if its boundaries have been changed or whether they've merely been included in Wells Gray Park.

I won't go into more detail about that, nor the many other parks that touch on my neighbour's constituency and are included in mine, except to say that I would like some explanation in advance of legislation being tabled if possible -- or certainly during committee stage of considering this legislation -- as to what these changes are and how they came about.

I am concerned. As some of my colleagues have mentioned, these parks are established on paper. But a budget isn't provided to staff them, to take care of them, to provide access to them, to guard them, to monitor them, to make sure that people don't transgress the law in them. We hear of staff not having budget for their wages or gasoline for their vehicles -- or indeed vehicles.

You wonder: is the act a genuine act? Is the government really creating new parks, or is this just more NDP flim-flam,

[ Page 5962 ]

more pomp, more press, more ceremony with no actual results? I'm really interested to hear exactly what the government is doing, because this is tremendously fine detail. You'd almost have to have a helicopter and a plumb bob to actually define where some of these measurements lead to, and I'm looking forward to the minister's explanation.

So as not to try your patience, hon. Speaker -- which by the rise of your eyebrows I thought might be happening at this moment -- I'm just going to sit down and look forward to committee stage.

G. Wilson: I wasn't concerned about this bill until I heard my colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson. I'm going to have to look for this park because, my goodness, in principle if you can delete a park of that quality, that would be a bad principle indeed.

I want to very briefly touch on a few points. I don't intend to speak a long time, because I generally support this legislation. I think that the creation of parks is a legacy for future British Columbians, and I think all of us can be proud to leave to future generations a legacy that does protect a variety of different ecosystems.

I'm not going to restate some of the concerns that were made by other members of the opposition with respect to the difficulty of setting land aside and then not having adequate resources to make sure that those parks that are established are properly patrolled and maintained, and that services are there. I share that concern.

In principle, I suppose, when we set out to put in place a policy of land use -- and that's what we're doing here -- and we determine that there will be various classes and types of parks and that those classes and types of parks will allow us to have a variety of activities related to them, then as a matter of policy, of public land use planning, we have to consider that simply setting aside the land, designating the area on the map, going out and perhaps marking it by way of surveying the physical site -- that by itself does not protect anything. I think that point has been made a couple of times, at least, tonight. I'm not going to unnecessarily restate what is the obvious.

The other thing that needs to be said, though, which wasn't really said -- at least, I haven't heard it in the debate tonight, and I want to raise it -- is the idea, the concept with respect to land use planning. It's a controversial concept -- that somehow the only negative impact on the landscape is resource extraction, that somehow if we set land aside and say there will be no timber harvest or no mining or we're not going to allow any kind of commercial or industrial activity into that area, and we're simply going to have the area set aside for recreation, then we have done a favour to the area in which recreation can occur. Humankind can be an unkindly lot, frankly.

When you allow parks to be accessed and when you have unrestricted access in particular, where you do not have adequate resources by way of staff or patrols to go in there and make sure that those parks are properly maintained, you can, by having that access, create as great if not a greater hardship on the landscape, especially where that landscape involves designated watersheds.

So we have to recognize very carefully, when we look at the parks that are assigned tonight by way of the land use policy of this government, how many of them actually fall within or encompass within them a watershed and the extent to which that watershed now is going to be accessed by way of recreational interests and concerns. Ours is a growing population. The demand to get out into the areas where they can access the environment is going to be greater.

We have to be extremely mindful when we create these parks that we must in some way have a policy with respect to access and the degree to which those parks can be accessed by a variety of means -- whether that's accessed by foot, whether we construct some kind of a trail that would allow motorized bikes to get in there or whether we have it by way of a road that would allow vehicles to get in there, and if so, what the quality, size and standard of the road would be which would obviously eliminate, if it's a very rough road, anything other than four-wheel drive or, if in fact we put in a much more sophisticated road, would allow camperized vehicles to go in, which of course creates another whole set of problems.

We have to be mindful in creating land use policy that we have a vision of where it is we think we would like this land to fall in the larger concept of overall land use planning.

We also have to be mindful that in the establishment of class A parks as we see in the act here today, if we're then going to take the position -- and this government has taken the position -- that we are going to eliminate commercial activity or certainly resource extraction from those parks, then that puts a greater demand and greater burden upon contiguous areas, where resource extraction is going to have to be taking place in greater intensity in order to be able to maximize the volumes of materials that have to come out to support our local economies and local jobs.

So I say to the minister -- and I hope the minister takes my words in the constructive way they're offered -- that it is not enough to simply establish a land use policy that sets aside parks and protected areas, because the land use policy has to have the other side, the other balance. We have to also set aside land that will be designated and defined as working forest. We must also make sure that our land use accommodates those areas in which there are established reserves of minerals and allows us an opportunity to access those areas, to maintain the employment base that we all enjoy.

While this government has been extremely good at looking after, protecting and designating parks, this government has not been very good at setting out to designate a working forest or to protect coal and mineral reserves and to allow those people who are involved in the industry to be able to access and get out that mineral. That's a point that I think needs to be made.

By way of principle in terms of land use planning, the broader, larger vision has to encompass both sides of land use issues and must recognize that our ability to access and therefore be able to utilize the parks that are established is a critical component. That's one that is going to have two impacts on government. One is a cost impact, because you're going to have to somehow maintain access and the services that people will expect when they get in there.

Secondly, it is a liability question, because if we're allowing people into these parks, then all of us -- the province in particular and the government specifically -- become liable for actions and activities that take place in that area.

The second major

section of what I want to say tonight has to do more with the parks that are actually within my own jurisdiction, my own constituency. It has to do with the fact that most of the parks that are designated in this act within my own constituency are marine parks. The expansion, for example, of Desolation Sound Marine Park is something that all of us, I think, welcome. It is an incredibly beautiful part of

[ Page 5963 ]

coastal British Columbia -- absolutely splendid vistas and very beautiful protected anchorages, which people are able to enjoy certainly through the summer months and into the fall and, if the weather permits, sometimes throughout the winter as well.

The difficulty here when we create marine parks such as Desolation Sound, however, is that the problems that have been already well articulated by other members of the opposition tonight with respect to providing services are compounded tenfold, because you have no way of restricting access. If you have a park in a valley that's secluded and protected or on the side or top of a mountain where there's a beautiful falls, or if there's a lake that's off the main beaten track, you can protect access by essentially eliminating, as I've said, anything that would allow vehicular access into that area.

But when you have a marine park, anybody who has a boat can go -- and they do. Not only Canadians can go, but Americans can go from the south -- and they do. Where you may have a park where you can establish park boundaries and start to restrict flow on the land, that's extremely difficult if not impossible to do in marine park sites. That raises a number of issues.

Canadians don't have holding tanks on their vessels; Americans do. I'm not sure, quite frankly, which is the worse. Americans come up with holding tanks. They fill those holding tanks and have nowhere in these park areas, where they're camping for a week or two weeks, to pump them out. So what they do is release their material in volume; Canadian boats don't. Therefore I'm not sure whether we can say the volume released is an issue or whether the issue in the marine parks that we're dealing with here, if it's done each time that people use the head in a boat . . . . Which is the worse?

The point is, though, that in protected estuaries and bays where there is anchorage, there is often very limited tidal flushing. They also happen to be areas where there is a significant amount of habitat concerned -- eelgrass, for example, where herring spawn -- which are necessary in the cycle of not only the herring but also the salmon. If these become anchorages and anchorage sites, and they are contaminated as a result of the access of those marine users, that's a problem.

It's a twofold problem. Number one, there's virtually no way to regulate it, because there's no way you have anybody that can go in and enforce it. It's not like a campground, where somebody can come along with a ticket and say, "Okay, pay up for your tent or your camper for the night, and by the way, you can plug into our little saniflush here," because there's no facility there.

The second reason it's a problem is that there are jumbled jurisdictions here, confused jurisdictions, between the federal government, which has habitat jurisdiction with respect to eelgrass, as an example, and spawning and salmon; and the provincial government, which has jurisdiction over the surface of the water in some areas where the land is zoned. So this becomes a critical problem in our land use planning.

In the conceptualizing of Desolation Sound Marine Park, we have a huge problem that is linked to the volume of users and to the facilities that those users have. Somebody mentioned earlier on tonight the question of garbage. Well, if you're a boater and you pull into whatever the last port of call was and you load up your boat and off you go into Desolation Sound for a week or ten days, there is nowhere for you to be able to dispose of that within this park.

It's important that the government hear this. It's important that the minister hear this, because Desolation Sound, one of the most pristine, most beautiful areas, will be destroyed if the government doesn't decide to take some level of action with respect to the provision of pump-out stations for those people with holding tanks and put in place some level of garbage collection or some way that people can in fact have garbage picked up.

What's ironic is that an enterprising gentleman in my own riding, in Lund, approached the ministry and said: "I would like to go around with my boat. I will collect garbage from people who are in that area -- if the ministry will only allow me the opportunity to do that -- and I will dispose of it for a small fee." He wrote to the various boating agencies, and they said: "What a great idea. We'd love to have you do that." But he can't do it in Desolation Sound because of its park designation, which prohibits commercial activity, and picking up garbage for a fee is commerce.

This is the kind of thinking that has got to change. It seems to me that where we put parks in place, where we get designations with respect to these kinds of parks, we also have to be moderate in our thinking with respect to the numbers, quantities, of people who are using them and the impact that that use is going to have on the long-term ecological and environmental sustainability of the park itself.

I could go on and talk a little bit more about some of the other parks. I'm particularly pleased to see the Homathko Estuary Park established. For those people that haven't been in there by boat, it is a magnificent area. But once again, it's an area that is highly congested, often as a result of marine traffic. Many of the boats come up from California, from Oregon and from Washington, and from British Columbia as well.

I would also say that what I have said about the areas around Desolation Sound also apply to the other marine park areas. They're extremely difficult to regulate. There are virtually no services available. If we allow unrestricted marine use in there without the provision of those services and without some effort to make sure that we at least allow the local communities opportunity to regulate those areas, we're going to be in trouble.

The last point before I sit down. I would hope the Minister of Environment would take note that within the marine parks the decommissioning of both federal fisheries as well as federal dock facilities in areas that are accessible only by boat puts an enormous hardship on the commercial fleets -- the salmon fleets and the commercial users of the local communities -- because pleasure boats will come up in the summertime and literally consume all of the dock and tie-up areas in the port facilities that are around.

I would hope the Minister of Environment will take a lead role in making sure that the Coast Guard and the federal government in particular are highly cognizant of the issue of the decommissioning of these docks when we start to establish our marine parks.

With that said, let me say that I'm most supportive of what we're dealing with here, given the caveat of the issues that I've raised. I do hope that in principle the minister will recognize that land use planning is more than simply protected areas; it must also include commercial areas and a designated working forest. I hope that the minister will also recognize that land use planning also must have a vision to be able to provide the necessary services to protect the ecosystem not only from the commercial user but also from the recreational users that will take pleasure in them.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'd like to end on a positive note, I think, because some of the comments I've heard tonight have

[ Page 5964 ]

been a bit distressing. I would really like this to be an evening where we celebrate some of the achievements we've made together as British Columbians.

As a new minister, I've had a lot of responsibilities. Some of them I've enjoyed a great deal, and others I've enjoyed far less. I've had a recent experience with those. But nonetheless, one of the best things about being a minister in this government is the opportunity that I've had to visit some other parts of the province and talk with individuals who have had an opportunity to help create some of these parks around the province. I'd like to dedicate my comments to them, because I think that's a fitting way to close second reading debate.

I know one of the members opposite talked about sharing the dream. I think that that's a very fitting way to talk about the parks legacy that's been created, and not just by this government. In my opening statements I made a lot of comments about the leadership our government has shown internationally in the creation of parks. But that's not a goal that I set for this government, nor that any other member on this side of the House can take credit for. It was a goal set by ordinary British Columbians who really respect and highly value the very unique biodiversity and other values that are reflected in protected areas.

They care about, as one member opposite talked about, small urban green spaces. Those are important to our parks legacy. They talked about conservation and recreation as important values to put into our park system, and I would certainly agree.

I think it's unfortunate that the critic would characterize the work that we've done as not a great achievement, because I think that undervalues the work that many individuals and groups and local governments, as well as the provincial government, have put into this bill in order to be able to preserve for all British Columbians green space and parks for the years to come.

What brought it close to home for me was my trip to Smithers, where I sat with a group of individuals who might be characterized as traditionally having very competing interests and opposing views -- people from the mining sector, people from the forestry sector, people who were guide-outfitters and others who might be called greens or ecologists, sitting together and saying: "At this table, we found the way to make an agreement on how we should best use the land in our area." They were so passionate about the work they had done, and they cared so deeply about the compromises and the understandings they had developed together as a result of that ongoing community-based process.

That's a process that has created these parks.

I remember, at the Bulkley Valley LRMP announcement, two small children -- two boys, one seven and one ten -- and how they celebrated with their parents the importance of creating some parks in their area, parks that they had hiked. Again, it brought a reminder to me of the importance of creating parks from a legacy point of view, that this is an opportunity for us to save for future generations a very unique and diverse ecosystem that is British Columbia.

That is not to say that we don't have challenges. I certainly want to acknowledge what members have said about the need to put adequate resources into managing our parks. We have faced challenges in trying to do that, but we are looking for new ways of doing business. We are trying to find more partnerships in communities, and in the next few weeks I'll have the opportunity to make an announcement about a strategy we've developed in order to do that. I would certainly invite the members opposite to participate in that process, because it is important that we work together to continue to support the legacy that has begun in British Columbia.

I now move second reading of the bill.

[9:00]

Motion approved.

Bill 29, Park Amendment Act, 1997, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I call second reading of Bill 25.

FISH PROTECTION ACT

(second reading)

Hon. C. McGregor: It's my lucky day. Actually, it does feel like a lucky day, because not only do I get the opportunity to speak about the important legacy we've created through parks, but I get to speak about a very new and important action that our government is bringing forward called the Fish Protection Act.

The first and fundamental priority of this bill is the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat, ensuring healthy fish-bearing streams and plentiful stocks. We have committed to using every opportunity we have at our disposal to protect and preserve fish now for the benefit of all British Columbians. This act is a major step in our strategy to ensure a more confident future for coastal communities and the tens of thousands of British Columbians who depend on fish as a livelihood and as a way of life.

However, hon. Speaker, it's not just about words; it's also about actions. I think it's important that we take the opportunity to look at some of the actions our government has taken to create a made-in-B.C. fisheries strategy.

First and importantly, I believe, is the increased pressure we've placed on Ottawa and Washington to resolve the Pacific Salmon Treaty impasse. Provincial expenditures on fish habitat restoration activities have increased from $23 million to almost $103 million over the last three years. That's more than a fourfold increase. We've introduced legislation to create a new fisheries renewal agency to invest resources back into fish protection and into community involvement in projects. And we've improved our relationship with the federal government through a new Canada-B.C. agreement on the management of Pacific salmon fishery issues.

In short, hon. Speaker, through our actions outlined in the B.C. fisheries strategy, our government is providing the leadership required to develop a long-term sustainable fishery and a vision that the fishery is a sunrise, not a sunset, industry.

The Fish Protection Act opens the door for the province, local communities, first nations and a broad range of stakeholder groups to act on the first priority of the Fish Protection Act: ensuring healthy fish-bearing streams and plentiful fish stocks. The act represents an important step

[ Page 5965 ]

forward in our efforts to conserve B.C.'s precious fish stocks and ensures better stewardship activities on streams across British Columbia.

I would like to acknowledge the support of the Premier, my fellow cabinet colleagues and caucus members, and particularly the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Attorney General for tabling supporting legislation in the shape of Bill 26 and Bill 27. Clearly fisheries renewal and environmental protection activities are a priority across our government.

The Fish Protection Act addresses three broad and related goals. The first goal is to ensure sufficient water for fish. The second goal is to protect and restore fish habitat. The third is to provide a renewed focus on riparian protection and enhancement efforts. I will now address how the bill will meet these goals.

The first goal is to ensure water for fish. Without changes to the way that water licences are administered across our province, many streams are likely to become diverted to the point where there simply won't be enough water for fish. Too often we've managed water in such a way that the needs of fish have come last. It was to avert that kind of disastrous result that we cancelled the Kemano completion project and brought in the Water Protection Act to ban bulk exports and large-scale diversions. But more comprehensive measures are clearly needed.

This new legislation establishes a broad framework and provides the following new tools to protect water flows for fish in all B.C. streams. First, there is a designation of sensitive streams. Where sustainability of fish is at risk, water licence applicants will have to demonstrate that there will be sufficient water to sustain fish and that habitat will not be degraded, and where necessary, provide for appropriate mitigation or compensation measures before a water licence will be issued. This reverse onus is a significant change and moves us in a progressive direction which clearly puts fish first.

Secondly, as I have said, in parts of the province water is already in scarce supply for fish, sometimes as a result of past water allocation decisions. The new act addresses this challenge by proposing an innovative water planning process that will bring water users together to help find ways to reclaim water for fish and to manage water issues in a more cooperative way.

Thirdly, this bill encourages exciting new provisions that will encourage broader community involvement in fish protection activities. For example, water licences may be granted to local conservation groups for the specific purpose of protecting water flows for fish and to promote stream stewardship activities.

In

summary, for the first time in B.C. water managers will have the legislative authority to consider the stream flow needs of fish. This is a significant step forward. While geared primarily to address situations where fish are in obvious and real danger, this bill will clearly provide better protection for all fish in the province.

Our second goal is to protect and restore fish habitat. Many parts of the province do not have adequate habitat protection or restoration measures, particularly in urban settings. In the Georgia basin alone there are more than 140 salmon streams currently at risk. Countless others have been severely damaged or permanently lost. Concerned British Columbians don't accept this situation, and many have shown their willingness to participate in voluntary habitat and stream stewardship projects, such as those funded under the urban salmon habitat program. But again, there's a need for further leadership from government to address this problem.

The new legislation will therefore protect and restore fish habitat in the following ways. First, the bill bans the construction of new bank-to-bank dams on provincially significant rivers, including the Fraser, the Adams, the Skeena, the Stikine and the Tatshenshini. Given their unique ecological, social and heritage values, we simply cannot accept dams on these rivers, for the benefit of fish and for future generations.

Second, new provisions call for the development of recovery plans for sensitive streams to ensure the long-term sustainability of fish and fish habitat. These plans will bring people together to work out ways to improve habitat and water flows for fish that are in danger. We see the proposed fisheries renewal agency playing an important role in the development of these plans.

Third, the bill allows the province to use existing endangered species provisions to designate species of fish as endangered or threatened.

We also recognize that to be effective, habitat protection provisions require firm and appropriate enforcement. The legislation therefore authorized judges to use new and creative sentencing solutions. Rather than paying fines into the province's general revenue account, offenders can be ordered to undertake habitat remediation, mitigation and compensation activities -- actions that will benefit fish. The act also establishes higher penalties for offences related to the damage of fish and fish habitat.

Good-quality riparian protection is essential for ensuring healthy fish populations. In fact, the protection of riparian areas, the third