[ Page 3767 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On vote 155: minister's office –– 3767

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Hanson

Mr. King

Mr. Passarell

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this morning is John Noonan and his son Joe. On behalf of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), I'd like to ask the House to welcome John and Joe to the precincts this morning.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I'm informed that this morning the Crown corporations committee is desirous of sitting while the House is in session. I respectfully ask leave that the committee be entitled to so sit.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would therefore move, Mr. Speaker, that the Crown corporations committee be permitted to sit while the House is in session this morning.

Motion approved.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
LANDS, PARKS AND HOUSING
(continued)

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

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, when I moved that the committee rise last night because of the noise in the House, I didn't expect I'd have to face the same kind of disorder this morning,

However, at that point I had asked the minister some questions relative to the Rural and Remote Housing at Lake Cowichan, particularly about the drainage problems there. He has had the evening to review this with his assistants, and I'm sure he has an answer for me.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I clearly recall those questions that were put to me by the member for Cowichan-Malahat. Really, I'm rather surprised that these questions are put to me, because my jurisdiction is very limited. I have no means of assisting these people. I might sympathize; I might give them all the sympathy I possibly can muster. However, the question you pose to me about attempting to have water run uphill — I don't know. I would have to say that I'm rather surprised that you haven't taken up that question with the local building inspector.

I can't go around inspecting every home in British Columbia that has a problem, where the basement might be leaking and the eavestrough might attempt to go uphill and the water won't flow that way. I would have thought that those problems that you brought to my attention would have been resolved by the local building inspector. I guess if he approved it, he approved it. I don't know whether those people are taking up their problems with CMHC, which is heavily involved in this rural remote housing project. CMHC would have a heavy commitment and would be interested in the problem. I don't know how long ago the home was constructed. I don't know the terms and conditions under which it was acquired. You are asking me a series of technical questions about which I am not knowledgeable. I am not about to go up there and try to fulfil the role of the building inspector.

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

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

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: I don't want to say anything derogatory about the member. If she is offended — apparently the Chairman is offended on her behalf — I will withdraw. She said that I don't care. The only point I wanted to make is that, as I said at the outset of my remarks, I sympathize with their problems — with all the sympathy I can possibly muster. However, as I told you, I can't resolve every housing problem in British Columbia.

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

"You have provided me with a copy of your recent letter to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, outlining a number of problems faced by several home purchasers in Lake Cowichan in the rural and remote housing program. While the delivery of housing units under the program is the responsibility of CMHC, I have asked officials of the regional office of my ministry to investigate the situation with CMHC and to undertake to facilitate any remedies which may be required by whatever means may be appropriate and available in the circumstances."

That letter is signed by the minister. That was in October 1979. There are several other letters, because that minister, whether he likes to admit it or not, is responsible for housing in this province. When he has the CMHC operating in this province and providing houses, then he has some degree of responsibility to see that the required standards are met.

He talks about not being able to make water run uphill. Well, neither can CMHC. The object is that they shouldn't try to make it run uphill. They should drain it into the drainage ditch in front of the house instead of trying to drain it up over the bank to the back. They have more or less agreed that this has to be done, but it isn't happening. We've gone through two winters now that have been a real disaster for the people who live in those houses. We're coming along to fall again and nothing is happening. Those people are concerned, and rightly so. For that minister to get up and say, "Well, it's nothing to do with me; it's the CMHC; I can't make water run uphill," is just not good enough, Mr. Chairman. I want that minister to give this House and this committee some commitment that he will use his powers as minister to ensure that

[ Page 3768 ]

CMHC does take some action there. You know, we've got promises, promises, promises, and we've had people running around with levels and tapes, but nothing is happening. We're coming up to another winter with more flooding and more open ditches with children playing beside them, It's just not good enough.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I think the member for Cowichan-Malahat clearly saw in the letter she received from me that the problem rests on the shoulders of CMHC. It was described to her in that letter. I even offered the services of my regional officers to communicate with CMHC in an attempt to rectify these problems if they can be rectified. I want you to know that CMHC is not a provincial agency; it's a federal agency. You seem to forget that. You seem to suggest that it's a provincial agency. It's not –– I presume that my regional officers have been in touch with CMHC, but they haven't reported back to me. Needless to say, they probably conveyed the concerns that you expressed to me back to CMHC, where they rightfully belong.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, yesterday that minister stood in the House and took a great deal of credit for the senior citizens' housing programs that are being sponsored by CMHC. He's prepared to take the credit, but he's not prepared to take the blame.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I think the member needs to understand that senior citizens' housing projects are sponsored by the provincial government with some assistance from CMHC. I think that has to be clarified, because the member seems to be confused.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, yesterday the minister was indicating how terribly important and obviously successful his department was, how they were cooperating with everyone, and how there was housing being established throughout the province. Naturally we know the facts will argue with that kind of statement. But anyway, give the minister a little bit of credit; he's only been there a short time and is trying hard.

Mr. Chairman, one of the things that rather disturbed me was his total, complete and absolute lack of understanding of something that's going right by him. Yesterday the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) brought up the fact that the Vancouver housing group put their rents up a month later than normally; they waited to find out how much the senior citizens' grant would be — the $35 increase. The minister is shaking his head; it may be a dangerous practice for him. In any event, I suggest that normally the rents are reviewed and are changed in July; this year it happened on August 1. By that time it was clear that those people — the renters from that Vancouver group — were getting their $35, and therefore they raised the rents by an arbitrary $18. The minister indicated that nothing unusual occurred. The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) had promised that there would be no attack on that particular increase these people got. In any event, I thought the minister's answer was less than informative.

As to the second question, it occurs to me that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) is having some trouble in the province in terms of personal care. Now, personal-care homes are often run in tandem with senior citizens' highrises or senior citizens' housing. To give you an example, the New Vista Society in Burnaby runs both, and they have a personal-care aspect to a very large complex. They want to build more personal care, and yet they've been informed that there isn't sufficient call for them to increase the size of their personal-care unit. In inquiring around I find that there is a year-and-a-half waiting list for the personal care. Now it's part of Housing, Mr. Chairman; they get grants from the provincial government. Naturally they get some cooperation from the Ministry of Health, but I believe that mainly the Ministry of Housing is involved in providing the funding, in cooperation with the federal agency. I note that the minister talks about Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as though it was at more than at arm's length from him. One of the big problems that we've had in this province over the years is that the old Social Credit government — I'm talking about the one in 1972 — used to give the back of their hand to CMHC. That's one of the reasons that this province is so far behind. The funds were there in those days. That the former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, saw fit to ignore the utilization of those funds is one of the reasons why we are in this horrible situation with respect to housing.

I think that the Minister of Housing should be terribly concerned, particularly when a non-profit society such as New Vista is prepared to offer an urgently needed expanded service. But because some bureaucrat somewhere.... I suspect that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation had a good hand in it; there's no question about that. I suspect that the minister and his ministry could be working a lot harder to see to it that the grants are established for these kinds of very important activities that should be expanding.

We have a situation now where there are people who qualify for that level of housing but they can't get near it. There is no shortage of candidates; there is no shortage of seniors. I suggest to the minister that it is about time that he went down and saw his colleague, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), and asked him his professional opinion as to whether or not what I say is true. He'll verify it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I have a couple of brief responses to the member for New Westminster. He suggests that there's some jiggery-pokery in BCHMC with the....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, that's what you suggested. Certainly they're my words, but you suggested that there's some form of jiggery-pokery dealing with the date when rents are reviewed. It's always been July 1, and as far as I know this year hasn't deviated from previous practices.

On the question of personal care, the facilities and the responsibility for the provision of personal-care facilities has been a responsibility of the Ministry of Health, I believe, since 1976. We have on the drawing board at this time in the province about six projects — joint senior citizens, joint personal care. We look after the funding of the senior citizens' projects, and the Ministry of Health, along with the federal contribution, look after the personal-care funding. So personal care essentially comes under Health, but we do have dual facilities. There are two government ministries involved in the funding and the initiation of these projects.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, before I direct a number of questions to the minister regarding the Lands section of his portfolio, I would like to ask him a couple of specific ques-

[ Page 3769 ]

tions about the Housing Corporation of British Columbia. My understanding and the correspondence that we have had with his office and his assistant deputy minister at the time, Mr. Armitage, is that the assets of the Housing Corporation are being disposed of and the wind-up date — the target date for the disposal of all the assets of the Housing Corporation — was March 31, 1980. The last correspondence we had with the minister's office on this matter was, I believe, when the minister was in Australia. Upon his return, an audited statement was going to be drafted. I'm not sure whether that audited statement has appeared and I've missed it or whether it is still in the drafting stage, but I wonder if he would advise us if he has that information now, and would he please advise the House of what happened to the assets, who received them and the specifics about their disposition.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Member, yes, I have the latest financial statement on HCBC and the disposal of its assets. I'd be glad to make a copy available to the member. I'm not going, to enumerate for you this morning, unless you insist, all the methods we use, who acquired them, the legal description of the properties and units, and the purchase price. However, I have that information. If you want the latest statement on HCBC, I'll be glad to give it to you, my friend.

MR. HANSON: Moving to the Lands section of the minister's portfolio, as an observer I have been watching the restructuring of the bureaucracy in the ministry. A couple of observations can be made, and I would like to seek clarification from the minister on what these changes mean. Mr. Chairman, if you cast your mind back to the early days when the Social Credit government assumed power and we did have a Housing Corporation, the Housing portion in the government was relatively small, but then it was more or less disbanded with the exception of the B.C. Housing Management Commission and, at a later date, engulfed, encompassed, brought in, or incorporated into a new Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing.

The interesting observation is that that portion of the ministry in terms of the staff and the managers in that small group, relative to the Lands portion, which is a relatively large portion of the ministry.... I find it somewhat remarkable that the housing presence in the ministry is so substantial in relation to its function. Let me make that a little bit clearer for you. If you look at the key managers within the ministry, you find that in many instances they have a housing training and a housing background, a real estate orientation, perhaps. I don't mean that in any kind of a derogatory manner. I just mean that they have that kind of training and background.

What I am very interested in is that, very clearly, within the Lands portfolio there is a planning and biological function that looks at the multi-use of land — the different competing uses of land. My questions really relate to what change in orientation this means. Is it a shift in direction? Is it a shift in orientation away from what Lands was in the past, in the sense of its management of land function into more disposal of lands for residential purposes or for more of a real estate commodity orientation to land? I think it's a legitimate question to ask of the minister. What does this mean? I think that, clearly, you don't have to be too clever to look through the flow chart and see to what extent the housing influence is being felt within the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing. So I would like to ask him, first of all, what does this mean?

Mr. Chairman, I think it's a legitimate question. When a ministry restructures and appears to put a particular emphasis in its staffing, I think it's incumbent upon the minister to advise us of the direction of that ministry. I think it is a fair question. I would appreciate — and I'm sure the other members in the House would appreciate — some kind of philosophical or administrative response to what I believe to be a fair question. There are many people at the working level in the regions and at the Victoria management level that have real estate, housing orientations. I feel that an answer should be forthcoming.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, I have some trouble with that question because of staffing having some bearing upon emphasis. I don't view it in the light you do, that there's an emphasis on housing because we have more housing people, you're suggesting, as regional managers throughout the province. I don't understand that point of view. We attempt to recruit what we consider to be the best regional managers in the province, those people who will serve the people under the terms and conditions of our mandate. You suggest that our emphasis is heavy toward regional managers coming from the housing component. We have seven regional directors in British Columbia. Two come from housing, one from parks and four from lands. So if you can make something out of that, I guess you're entitled to try.

MR. HANSON: I believe the minister should be cognizant of the role of his ministry. The traditional role of Lands is that there are competing interests for our common land. To manage and dispose of out Crown land properly, then those different resource variables, resource attributes and different views must be present and not dominated by any particular specific orientation. This is what I'm addressing. I want assurance from the minister that that planning by a logical management orientation of the common lands, consistent with the multi-use of those lands, be maintained, and that we don't move into sort of a real estate orientation to our Crown land. I think that would be a very great mistake.

I would like to leave that question now and direct my attention to some of the announcements that the minster has made regarding the disposition of Crown land. I think if you were to try within a sentence or two to characterize what has been happening in this ministry in this regard, you would have to say that there has been a great deal of political puffery, press releases, and a lot of noise about relatively little. When you actually look at the Crown land that has been made available....

Let me be more specific. As recently as July 16, when the news release came out on the 15,000 hectares of Crown land to be made available for agricultural use in the Peace River area — with a couple of parcels elsewhere, three in Williams Lake, seven in Quesnel and one in Osoyoos, but the preponderance in the Peace River area — I think many people felt that that was new Crown land coming out, perhaps for the first time. But much of that land had already been out; it had been brought back in because of poor performance or because people were unable to make payments and so on.

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes.

[ Page 3770 ]

MR. HANSON: That's the Farrell Creek property, and that 31 parcels is really a re-subdividing of something that has been out for many, many years — it's been out since Bob Sommers was the minister.

The 25 parcels in the Fort St. John area, I think that was all out before; if not, a good portion of it has been out. So what the minister has been doing is issuing press releases and raising expectations in various parts of the province, leading people to the conclusion that new agricultural land is coming out that is suitable, that is perhaps in higher classifications than it is in the Canada Land Inventory, leading people to think that Crown agricultural land is going to be made available in various parts of the province.

I would like to ask him, for example, how many parcels of this Crown agricultural land are going to be made available on Vancouver Island. How many have been surveyed and made ready to go on Vancouver Island? How many are going to be made available in the Fraser Valley area? In actual fact, what we have is a situation where land on Vancouver Island, for example, is already committed. It's committed on the coast. So we have a lot of political fanfare happening in one area of the province. I think you should come clean and be specific about where these lands will be made available and what the limitations are, because if you're guilty of anything, Mr. Minister, it's raising expectations of people — particularly new young farmers, people who would like to have a piece of land to begin farming.

You know what you're doing up in the Peace River with your auction process? By putting the land out on an auction basis to the highest bidder, first-time farmers are going to find it exceedingly difficult to compete with other people on an auction basis. Now when you say auction, do you mean lot-draw? I don't think you mean lot-draw up there; you mean auction, so you're paying top dollars. Does the young family, the new young farmer have access to that land? If so — which he or she doesn't — what you've done is raise expectations that people are going to be able to get into farming for the first time, and that's not the case. So you should have a press release saying that unless people have some money and can pay top dollars for that Crown agricultural land, class 4, 5 and 6 — and I would like to know what the classes would be; I think the majority of it will be in the 4 and 5 classification....

Interjection.

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

Now the interesting thing is: we have a news release here making a big foofaraw over 15,000 hectares of Crown land — probably class 4 and 5 — to be put out on an auction basis, land which was released before in many instances. I would bet the minister a nickel that at least 65 to 70 percent of that land has already been out, it came back and is going out again.

But at the same time that we have this press release going out on the marvellous things that the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing is doing for first-time farmers in the Peace River country — which is not the case at all — they're going to be flooding 6,500 acres of excellent land in the Peace River country in the Site C pondage — good land, the best land north of the Okanagan, class 2, 3 and 4; a wide variety of crops can be grown on it; it has good potential, good capability. What is the logic in that? It doesn't make sense at, all.

So my point then, Mr. Chairman, is that as far as the Crown land for agricultural purposes is concerned, I would think that with few exceptions that land will be located in the northeast of the province. There may be the odd small parcel elsewhere, but there is not going to be any to speak of at all on Vancouver Island; there will not be any in the lower mainland; there will be very little in the Okanagan; there will be very little in the Kootenays, I would think. If it does come on, if it is let go, if it's taken out and put up on an auction basis, it will go to people who can afford to buy it at an auction. Also, I think that the kinds of performance changes that he has made make it possible even for people who have not demonstrated a farming performance to take that land. For example, my understanding of the previous arrangement is that to get a new piece of land a person would have had to bring under cultivation 80 percent of the arable acres prior to application. That has changed; that proviso is no longer in place.

My question is: what provision is there in your regulations or policy that makes it necessary to demonstrate that a person will bring it into farming and/or that they will perform on that land, that they will bring into arable, cultivated acreage a portion of that land prior to getting another piece? I would be very interested to hear the response.

I can ask some other specific questions. For example, how many applications have been processed on Vancouver Island for the agricultural land and for the non-forest use of provincial forest Crown land?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I have some difficulty with the member's aspirations to have some Crown agricultural land being made available on the corner of Douglas and Government streets in downtown Victoria. In case you don't know it, there is no longer any agricultural land in downtown Victoria. I am saying to those people who want to go farming that they're not going to be able to farm in downtown Victoria or downtown Vancouver. There is no Crown agricultural land in those two cities. We're telling those people that there is an opportunity to go farming if they are prepared to go where the farmland is available. There is no farmland in Victoria.

I don't know why you think that I can wave a wand or something and make agricultural land available in downtown Victoria. I'm not going to be able to do that, because there is none. I'm suggesting to you that we are making agricultural land available to British Columbians and Canadians who want to be farmers. It is going to be made available in areas in which there is agricultural land. Those areas are the Cariboo, Peace River, Omineca and Skeena regions.

I suggest that the approach we are taking in opening up Crown lands for people to farm is the right approach. We have an upset price and an open competition in which there is bonus bidding over and above the upset price. In most instances the upset price in the Peace River ranges between $40 and $50 an acre, which is not excessive, in my estimation.

We have a new agricultural policy which has been difficult to put together. It took six or seven months. We finally have a policy which I think will make land readily available — with a minimum of red tape — to British Columbians who want to farm. The policy is geared to performance. In other words, the rental fee in the first five years is minimal; it is I percent of the upset price of the land. However, the provincial prescribed interest rate is running at the same time. That interest is forgiven in the event that there is performance

[ Page 3771 ]

within the first five years. It is a ten-year lease. If there is no performance after five years, in the sixth year there is a tremendous escalation in the cost of the land because the interest rate is dumped on top of the predetermined price.

So there is an incentive for people to perform. One of the problems of the previous policy was that the parameters of development were so excessive — 80 percent of the arable portions to be put under cultivation — that people just couldn't meet them and the performance was minimal. Now we are giving a stipulated period of time to perform or else. I think the policy will work. It is one in which people have an opportunity to acquire up to 1,280 acres of agricultural land.

There is really no class 5 land in the Peace River. It is basically class 4, with some class 3 and 2. The policy is one in which land classification essentially has to be 1, 2, 3, 4, and some 5.

Yes, we made an announcement. I think I have a responsibility to not secretly make agricultural Crown land available in the province. I think I have a responsibility to notify all British Columbians. These auctions will be advertised in the local areas in which they will be made available by open competition, but the press release is essentially to alert other British Columbians who want to acquire agricultural land. These are the first pieces of agricultural land that we will be releasing under the new policy. Providing everything works, we anticipate opening up a lot of agricultural land — 15,000 to 20,000 acres in the Fort Nelson area. Next year we hope to bring more stability to the community and to make agricultural land available for British Columbians.

The member talked about puffery, the release of lands and so forth. If he wants to accuse me of puffery because I made $6 million worth of Crown land available to municipalities, regional districts and other community-oriented organizations, I guess he's entitled to do so. We released $6 million worth of Crown land; we gave it to communities and organizations during the first six months of this year. It's a very effective program, and it is very well received by the community and by various community-oriented organizations. If the member wants to call it puffery, I guess he's entitled to do that.

MR. HANSON: I wonder if the minister would advise the House as to how many of those parcels of Crown agricultural land in the Peace River area are coming out for the first time. How many of those parcels have come out before?

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all, Mr. Chairman, it's a nothing question. Does it really matter? Farrell Creek — I can't answer that. There are 31 or 32 parcels of arable land up there, approximately 400 acres each parcel. If there had been some land released for agricultural development in the past in that area and it failed, it was probably because of limited access to the area. I've been to Farrell Creek. We spent a lot of money on putting what I consider to be a too-high-class road into the Farrell Creek area. The Ministry of Highways seems to set pretty high standards. I told the minister that I don't think we should have a trans-Canada highway in the Farrell Creek area. Nevertheless, I think we need a good road access so that people can get into the area once the land is available — so they won't have to go in by dogsled or on horseback, but could drive into the country.

It really doesn't matter whether the land had been released before. I'm not going to research whether the land we are releasing had been released before at one time, because it really makes no difference whether it had or had not. There could be a variety of reasons why the lands reverted to the Crown. It could be marriage breakup; it could be for a great variety of reasons. The guy probably didn't have sufficient finances to clear the land, or to remove the aspen to Put it under cultivation. I don't know what the reasons are. In some instances land does revert to the Crown. In most instances it's because of non-performance.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister seems to keep missing the point. The point I'm raising is that the expectation level he raised over the amounts of land, the kinds of land and the location of land that were going to be made available in British Columbia.... It just hasn't materialized. Rather than being frank and candid in these news releases and saying that land that has previously been out but is now back in the hands of the Crown is going to go out again, he says here there's new agricultural land becoming available. He's not specific in terms of the expectations of young British Columbians elsewhere that want to get access to this land.

For the first time he stands up and says it's going to be in the Peace River area, and there may be a little in the Cariboo. When I ask him about Vancouver Island, he talks about Douglas Street. There are many people on Vancouver Island who would like to farm on Crown land. You should tell them that there's no chance whatsoever. You have consistently raised their expectations.

As far as the non-forest use of provincial forest Crown land, would the minister please advise me how many applications have been processed on Vancouver Island? It's a large island — 350 miles long.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member has to realize that there is no Crown land available in downtown Courtenay, downtown Comox, downtown Nanaimo, downtown Parksville or downtown Port Hardy. There is no agricultural land available. You seem to forget that most of the land on Vancouver Island is privately held. It's held in a variety of other timber tenures as well.

In my press release I'm identifying certain parcels of land that will be released for agricultural development. I'm not saying that they're going to be in downtown Victoria; I'm saying that they're going to be in the Cariboo area, the Peace River area, the Omineca area and the Skeena area, essentially. That's where we have agricultural land still available. If the member wants to suggest that I should be releasing some land in downtown Victoria, unfortunately we have no agricultural Crown land there.

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

I'd like to move the minister back up to the Peace River on this agricultural land. I would like him to tell the House how much money is going to be allocated for experimental work to assist the people who take over this Crown agricultural land — in other words, the experimental farm aspect and the testing to ensure that there are no failures. He talked earlier about people losing the land because of marriage breakdowns and so on. There are people who are going to acquire that land that are going to require assistance in terms of the proper crops and the proper approach. I'm not making this up; I've talked to people in the area and this is something they'd like and something that would be helpful. Is there

[ Page 3772 ]

going to be any kind of assistance in terms of the utilization of that land through testing and experiments? I understand your ministry has some test plots. Is that correct? Do you, working in conjunction with the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), have some test land for experimentation of crops and so on?

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're in the wrong ministry, talking about growing crops. Those questions about experimenting with different kinds of crops that can be grown in different regions would be better put to the Minister of Agriculture. It's his responsibility and not mine. Mine is to make arable land available to people who want to participate in agricultural development in the province. Then if they need any assistance in the type of crops that should be grown.... There are a lot of agriculturalists in the Ministry of Agriculture who would be readily willing to assist them and to advise them on the type of soils and climatic conditions. They should go to the Ministry of Agriculture.

MR. HANSON: The minister tells us that we are not going to be able to farm in Courtenay, Duncan, downtown Victoria, and so on. Let's talk about recreational lots. How many recreational lots have been processed in the northern half of Vancouver Island or, say, in all of Vancouver Island in the last year? Could you maybe count them on one hand or two fingers?

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

MR. HANSON: You see, this is the kind of baloney, puffery and expectation thing. Why don't you issue a release saying that anyone who wants any of the Crown land on Vancouver Island can forget it in terms of agriculture, recreational lots and in terms of non-forest use? It ain't there. This is including all of the coast, not just downtown Granville Street or Windermere Park but all of Vancouver and all the coast.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We're just picking up the information on recreational and rural residential on Vancouver Island. We have 20 lots of Port Hardy rural; Hyde Creek rural, 28; Port Alberni rural, 15; Nanoose Bay rural, 14.

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, they're rural residential. We are developing 17 recreational lots on Vancouver Island and on the lower mainland we are developing 89.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, not only do we not have recreational lots in most areas, but I want to talk briefly about the way that they will now be acquired. In the past it was possible for an average person on an average wage to make application and to make payments, and to get the use of the land. You know what is happening now, Mr. Chairman? You won't believe this. They're moving into a 30-year prepaid lease. The person pays 75 percent of market value for a 30-year prepaid lease. The average person and the average young family are going to have a pretty tough time coming up with 75 percent of market value within 90 days to acquire a nonexistent recreational lot.

Can the minister advise me why he has moved to this procedure? Because, do you know, Mr. Chairman, what my inkling is? They're moving into an area where they don't have to manage recreational lots any more. In other words, they don't have to keep track of them — the payments, the accounting, the bookkeeping, and do all the day-to-day kind of managing. It's just cash on the barrel — 75 percent of market value — for a 30-year prepaid lease. I think that's discriminating against the average British Columbian who cannot afford that 75 percent of market value.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I consider that a bunch of nonsense. First of all, regarding the price, we're not talking about lot values in downtown Victoria. We're talking about recreational lots adjacent to waterfront. The 30-year prepaid lease and the 75 percent of market value applies only to the waterfront lots. The lots that are behind the waterfront lots will all be sold. We encountered great difficulties under the old socialist approach of handling lots and leases, and the bureaucracy involved — appraisals every five years. And we did have many people approach us to own these recreational lots in fee simple. So we've made it possible for these people to own their own little recreational lot. What's wrong with that? We believe in the private ownership of land. That's where we differ, my friend. You believe the state should own all the land; we believe that people should own the land. That's the difference.

Mr. Chairman, I'll just give you an example of what people will have to pay for 30-year prepaid lease on a waterfront lot: here's one on Quadra Island — this is at 75 percent of market value — for $4,987. Here's another one at $2,587, another one at $4,950....

MR. LEA: Do you take Chargex?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Almost.

So they range anywhere from $7,425 all the way down to $2,587. And these are waterfront properties; they're not behind the waterfront. I don't think they're excessive. We've concluded that the average income of people who lease the recreational lots in the province is between $25,000 and $28,000. So I don't think these figures, even at the lesser income, are going to pose any serious financial problem on someone being able to own a second home or a recreational lot, which I haven't had the luxury of owning.

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

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

MR. HANSON: With the decentralization in your ministry, why do all the funding approvals have to be down in your office? Why can't you give the region a pot of money to manage and allocate as they would like? I mean, what's the point in decentralizing if all the control is still in Victoria?

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

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

[ Page 3773 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't know.

MR. KING: Can the minister tell us anything?

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

Interjection.

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

We have funds that are allocated for each region. I don't know what the member is driving at. Estimates of the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) were up; he was talking about the need for the promotion and the purchase of B.C. grown fruit and vegetables. He was really promoting it. He was told at that time that that had been long-standing policy. So I'm rather confused — and I'm sure the member is just as confused — with his question. It appears to be another question of promoting fruit and vegetables on the ferries.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, if it's not a legitimate question to ask why the minister decentralized his ministry, at the same time maintaining all of the funding approval controls within his own office.... What's the point in decentralizing in the first place? You're just wasting the taxpayer's money. I'm not going to sit around and wait for another answer, because it will probably be like the last nine.

What I am going to say, Mr. Chairman, is that if you have to characterize this ministry, it is one of puffery, it is one of news releases, it is one of recycling old Crown lots and trying to get mileage out of the Xerox machine. There are very few new recreational lots. They are only in a couple of specific locations in the province. He has raised expectation levels so high among young people, who think they are going to acquire Crown land but can't acquire Crown land for farming because they can't pay top dollar on the auction block. They cannot afford the 75 percent 30-year prepaid lease and so on. So, Mr. Chairman, the whole thing is a sham.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'Il just give a quick answer to the member for downtown Victoria. He talks about top dollar. I told him what land prices are and what prices are in the Peace River — $40 to $50 an acre. Our experience has been that the bonus bid has been very reasonable. About 18 months ago — maybe almost two years ago now — one parcel of 1,000 acres of arable land was sold for $36,000 and the bonus bid was $300. I'll tell you, if you think that that is excessive.... If people can't pay a $300 bonus bid on a large, viable parcel of land like that, well.... I don't accept your comment in that respect.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

We anticipate releasing 365 recreational lots throughout British Columbia this year. The member says we're doing nothing about making recreational lots available. I think 365 is a fair number for one fiscal year.

MRS. WALLACE: I want to talk to the minister about some Crown land that he does own. It's very much in the heart of the populated area. That land is some 4,000 acres that are owned by the Harbours Board in the area of Tsawwassen–Roberts Bank. There has been a concerted effort by the federal government and by the regional district to have that land — which is in the ALR — placed under the control of the Agricultural Land Commission. As it is now, it sits pretty well idle with very little return coming from it. If it were placed under the control of the Land Commission — and incidentally, I understand that the Land Commission, is quite agreeable and anxious to have control of this land — then they could utilize that land on the basis of leasing it out for.... The minister, I think, is indicating that it has nothing to do with him. Well, that minister is responsible for land in this province. He is responsible, as I understand it, for foreshore rights. I believe that he has some responsibility to ensure that that land in that area, which is under the control of the Harbours Board, is placed under a more viable use, which could happen if it were placed under the Agricultural Land Commission.

He has some powers in cabinet, I would suspect — or I would hope. I'm urging him as the minister responsible for land use in this province to ensure that more viable use is made of that 4,000 acres of land in the Roberts Bank area. Certainly it's not being used to any great extent at this point in time. It's lying pretty well idle. It could be used, and if he is so concerned about making Crown land available for young farmers, there is an ideal opportunity for him to use his influence to make some very viable land available for agricultural purposes. I would urge the minister to take some steps in that direction.

Another concern that I have regarding land relates to these very Crown leases that the member for Victoria has been talking about. I wonder whether the minister is looking at the size of parcels he's making available, particularly adjacent to predominantly rangeland areas, when he talks about the Cariboo, for example. A lot of concern has been expressed to me by established ranchers who are a bit concerned about what may well develop into the establishment of a sort of real estate development on the borders of their rangeland. They seem very concerned about this, and I would like some assurance from the minister that that's not going to happen and that he's going to ensure that this land being put up is in parcels of sufficient size to allow a viable operation.

I know that some of the ranchers concerned will be putting in bids to obtain extensions to their own rangelands, and I certainly hope that some of them, those who need to expand, will be able to do this. I hope too that it will be available to people who are genuinely interested in establishing themselves in the agricultural or ranching industry.

But the thing that I and those ranchers don't want to see happen is small lots being made available on the perimeters of predominantly agricultural land or rangeland. Certainly there are enough problems with that interface right now without extending it. I would like some assurance from the minister on that item.

The third item I want to raise with the minister relates to historic subdivisions. I'm sure the minister has read the most recent accounts in the press, yesterday and today, relative to Charles Moar. That's a very sad story. As your colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) and your colleague responsible for the operation of BCRIC will know, I have tried very hard to have that particular property, the Walasheen Ranch, purchased by government, because it is a historic subdivision. It's a very large parcel of very good agricultural land, particularly suited to a backgrounding operation for agriculture. That was what Mr. Moar wanted: he

[ Page 3774 ]

wanted so much to sell that piece of property as one unit so it could be used for that. But unfortunately it's made up of a great many small parcels. Now, of course, because I wasn't successful in persuading Mr. Helliwell or the Minister of Agriculture, who is responsible for the Land Commission, to put some money forward to purchase and consolidate that property, we have it in the hands of the Heller Corporation, with headquarters in Toronto, who have a client in the United States. We're going to find an American landowner coming in there and taking those several thousand acres of land, good land very much needed for a backgrounding operation. That's one thing the Minister of Agriculture and I agree on, though we don't agree that the government should move in and make it available so that that could take place.

I'm asking this minister, as the minister responsible for land in the province, what he proposes to do about historic subdivisions. This is one outstanding example where it is really working to the detriment of our province to have a piece of land, which could be so viable as a unit, fall into the hands of a finance company and eventually into the hands of an American owner who will simply sell it off in small, very unviable parcels and make a huge profit.

Mr. Moar was dedicated to maintaining that in one parcel, and I'm shocked to learn the effect that the loss of that property has had on him. It's a very unfortunate thing. It could have been prevented had the government had the foresight to move in and consolidate that property and make it available to the agricultural industry or to some concern that could have made a very viable backgrounding operation there that would have brought millions of dollars into the economy of British Columbia, rather than shipping it out to Alberta or somewhere else.

That's a responsibility this minister has to face. He says: "It's not my department; it's not my responsibility." He is the minister responsible for lands, just as he is responsible for housing. He can't slough it off and say it's not his responsibility. Maybe he can; maybe that's what he's going to do. But it isn't right, and it isn't fair to the citizens of this province.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to see that you know the appropriate riding that I represent. For the edification of the minister, who insists on referring to me as the member from Revelstoke-Slocan, I want to advise him that his government gerrymandered that riding out of existence just before the last election. So I am now the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke. Good prevailed, in any event.

Mr. Chairman, I do have a couple of questions for the minister from uptown Invermere. I want to ask a couple of favours of my friend and colleague from the interior of the province, one with respect to the new reservoir to be formed behind the Revelstoke Canyon Dam. I think the minister may have some influence on that — I'm not sure that it's precisely his narrow area of jurisdiction, but I'm sure he does have some influence — and I don't want to see that reservoir end up as another ode to some has-been Social Credit cabinet minister or something of that nature. I would much rather see the new recreational reservoir that will be developed there have some meaning in provincial terms, and therefore I would like to see it named the Revelstoke Canyon Reservoir or the Revelstoke-Columbia Reservoir or something associated with the area in which it resides and something which designates that part of the province for the benefit of tourist travel and so on.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Chabot-King.

MR. KING: Not Chabot Reservoir. Chabot is everywhere, and there is still some dampness associated perhaps in certain regions, but I don't think that Chabot Reservoir would be an appropriate name at all. The Revelstoke city council has petitioned the minister to ensure that the proper designation of that historic area of the province remains and does not become sullied with political figureheads being represented in the name. I think that's a good suggestion.

One other thing I have to mention to the minister is the Seymour Arm recreation area at the head of Shuswap Lake. The ministry has had some correspondence regarding tourists camping in that area and having no water supply.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Where is that?

MR. KING: Seymour Arm at the north end of Shuswap Lake. A rather large number of tourists that use that area are obliged to go knocking on the doors of private dwellings to obtain a water supply so they can have a cup of tea in the morning, and that type of thing, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not coffee?

MR. KING: If we really have a priority on tourism in this province, then we should not subject our visitors to having to go and beg, bucket in hand, so that they can have a cup of tea. I suggest that's a scandalous situation, and, Mr. Minister, I think that perhaps even though there is a crude instrument of restraint in place in this province, enforced by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), you just may be influential enough to jar loose a few bucks to pipe in a little bit of water, so that the tourists can stay up there without having to beg or without having to go down to the lakeshore and scoop it out first thing in the morning, and that kind of thing.

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

MR. KING: Finally, the Silver Star recreation situation, Mr. Chairman. They plan to extend their recreational boundaries into the watershed area now used by the large city of Armstrong. While the residents of Armstrong and the councils of the city and the municipality do not object to reasonable use, to the multi-use concept of recreation land, they are genuinely and properly concerned about any type of activity that might befoul their water supply, I think with great validity. There are certain activities that can properly take place so long as they are tightly regulated and so on.

The big problem, Mr. Chairman, is that the minister appoints a commission to oversee this process and the application to expand the recreational boundaries and then he denies the very people who have the most to lose any representation on that commission. That is antidemocratic. I strongly appeal to the minister to relax from the rigid posture he has taken in this respect and to allow some representation from those people who stand to have their pure supply of drinking water affected by this further alienation. It's a reasonable request and it's not too late. I strongly and sincerely recommend to the minister that he review that decision with regard to putting someone from that community on the commission — not necessarily an elected representative of the city but a local citizen — so that the area may have some assurance that the questions regarding the proper protection

[ Page 3775 ]

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'll just make a couple of quick responses, Mr. Chairman. We'll cooperate fully with the city of Revelstoke to have a park of provincial significance up on the new reservoir. The member has suggested that we not sully that body of water with the name of some has-been or some present politician. I like the purity of the suggestion on the part of the member; but I recall that when Bob Williams was the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources he sullied the name of the water behind the Mica Dam by calling it McNaughton Lake after....

MR. KING: A famous Canadian.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, he was a famous Canadian; but the significant reasons for its naming were the NDP support of the McNaughton plan to completely flood out the Columbia valley — a draw-down reservoir in the Columbia valley — and the friendship between Bob Williams and the nephew of the late General McNaughton. Thank God this government in its wisdom has seen fit to change that name back to an old, historical.... I'm not going to give you that speech again. In recognition of the contribution which the natives made in that area in helping the early explorers like David Thompson map that region, it has been renamed Kinbasket Lake after a famous old chief who still has some descendants residing in the Windermere valley. I worked very hard to have that changed and I am very proud of the name.

On the question of representation on the advisory committee — you called it a commission or something of that nature; it is the Silver Star Advisory Committee. Its role is virtually at an end. It has just one little task to conclude before it disappears. The member expressed some concern. He talked about representations from the city of Armstrong. We have invited representations from that community on the proposed development of the Silver Star area. I don't believe we received any representations. We received some concerns from the city on the question of the proposed development.

I want to assure the member that the proposed development of the on-site residential facilities on the hill is not in a water-supply drainage area that provides water to the city of Armstrong. Essentially there will be no impact on the purity of the water that is supplied to the city of Armstrong. I think I have stated that in correspondence I've had with the member and, probably, with city of Armstrong.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the ministry did indeed receive representation and a submission from the city of Armstrong, dated July 27, 1979, in addition to individual letters from the council and private citizens in the area. It's a neat dodge for the minister to say, as he sometimes does: "They can make submissions." But someone else is making the decisions. Guess who? The area which seeks to intrude into the watershed has full representation on that advisory committee. The area which stands to lose and be adversely affected has no representation whatsoever. If that doesn't appear to the minister as a denial of natural justice or at least a denial of fair representation, then I can only conclude that that's why he represents the party he does and that's why I am on the opposite side of the political equation.

I don't think that is very fair and the local community doesn't think it is very fair either. They wanted some assurance. They are not rigid about it, and are not saying: "Halt all recreation." They simply wanted to ascertain, make sure and have a voice in deciding what kind of activities might be allowed there without interfering with their water supply. I believe that is a thoroughly fair posture.

In terms of the name of the lake, what I had in mind was that I didn't want it be called the W.A.C. Bennett Dam, Williston Lake, the Leslie R. Peterson Rehabilitation Centre or any of those other parochial old Social Credit names that bestir not-so-pleasant memories out of the past at times. I didn't want that kind of narrow parochialism associated with the area.

I'm surprised that the minister takes exception to the name of Andrew McNaughton. He is a famous Canadian who distinguished himself in battle in two wars for this nation. He was an outstanding engineer with the federal government for many years and did a lot of the initial work on the Columbia River development, whether you agree or not.

Be that as it may, I didn't want it called one of those names, or Gaglardi Way. I wanted something more representative of the province, its history and its own particular terrain, which is wonderful in itself without besmirching it with partisan political considerations.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, the minister praised himself earlier for giving $6 million worth of Crown land to help communities. I'd like to talk about the minister's favourite piece of Crown land that he gave away, for the good of the community supposedly, to that holistic society. It is a Philippine-based group of the Church of Scientology, with 60 percent of its directors based in the Yukon, 38 percent located in the United States, and 2 percent located in British Columbia. I'm wondering why the minister gave such a piece of Crown land to the Church of Scientology when many residents of the area are opposed to the Church of Scientology and when residents of the community of Atlin are being denied Crown land parcels.

The Church of Scientology speaks for itself, Mr. Chairman. They have had numerous court cases in the United States for violent crimes; they have been charged with attempted murder of politicians who stood up and spoke against them. I'm just wondering if this is one of the reasons why the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing gave away Crown land to the Church of Scientology. Was he afraid of what might happen to him from the church? There is an example of three politicians in the community of Cleveland, Ohio, who stood up against the Church of Scientology and spoke about their movement in the area — getting Crown land and putting in a church.

I certainly hope the minister isn't afraid of the Church of Scientology. This is the first time they have ever received Crown land to build a church in a pyramid in the province of British Columbia. I could be mistaken. I think it's the first time the Church of Scientology has built their holistic pyramid church in Canada. I think they are only located at the present time in Mexico, the United States and Latin America.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

It was interesting to hear the minister's response when he was talking about his philosophical beliefs on who should own Crown land. I just wonder on the basis of what philosophical belief the Church of Scientology should receive

[ Page 3776 ]

Crown land in British Columbia when 98 percent of their directors aren't even residents of British Columbia, when residents of the community of Atlin who've lived there all their lives can't receive Crown land at the present time, because they're told that there's a certain plan. There was a memo sent to residents in Atlin from Lands, Parks and Housing — from the Smithers lands branch — stating that no more Crown land would be made available in the community of Atlin at the present time because of a Placer Developments' proposed settlement plan — Crown land would be held at bay. Yet the Church of Scientology — which, to say the least, is a very dangerous organization — receives Crown land to build a holistic pyramid church and supposedly some type of medical centre.

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: We're developing 33 recreational lots in the Fourth of July Bay, in Atlin. We're developing 20 residential lots in the community of Atlin. I think we've been fairly active in making land available to the residents of that community.

He brings up the holistic society. They originally applied for 160 acres — a quarter of a section of land — up there, and we thought it was beyond the needs that they'd expressed in their application. We determined that they're Canadians, and they are eligible for 10 acres of land, based on their application. They meet the criteria of availability of Crown land. We've offered them — I don't know whether they've accepted it or not — 10 acres of land. I want to assure you, Mr. Member, that in my ministry we accept applications based on certain conditions; we don't make moral decisions.

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I don't have the application in front of me but, needless to say, in order to acquire Crown land in British Columbia you have to be a Canadian. We don't make moral judgments either.

MR. PASSARELL: The figures were that 60 percent of the board of directors were located in the Yukon. I would suppose that they were Canadian citizens. If you go to the Society Act and look at who belongs to the Church of Scientology, 38 percent of the board of directors are residing in the United States, and 2 percent are British Columbia residents. How can such a large group, 98 percent of whom aren't even residing in British Columbia, pick up Crown land to build a church and a holistic pyramid?

To change the debate to the third aspect of the minister's responsibilities, we'll talk a bit about parks. During this speech there will be a number of questions raised to the minister regarding park issues that I certainly hope the minister will be able to resolve quickly, before we see a further erosion of our provincial park lands.

Erosion is seen in this year's estimates for parks and outdoor recreation, which, if the minister is aware, are down from a $23 million allocation last year to $22 million for this year.

The number of cutbacks that the minister has made in the last few months are in acquisition of lands, machinery and equipment — 30 percent in provincial parks; grants, contributions and subsidiaries are cut back by 650 percent; faculty development is cut back from last year; regional parks grants were $600,000 last year and not a penny this year; materials and supplies were cut by 12 percent and land acquisition was again cut from last year. I'd like to know how the minister, who is supposedly concerned for parks, could allow this type of drastic cutback to happen. These are such massive cuts — 650 percent in grants to 400 percent in facility development. There must be reason for the minister cutting back on parks in this province.

How can the people of British Columbia get the value of their initial investment into parks, which they paid for through their tax dollars, when parks are being cut back for the benefit, as it appears now, of private park operators?

The first issue I'd like to raise with the minister is park fees. The minister is quite aware that there has been a definite groundswell of opposition to the minister's statements that camping fees in provincial public parks will increase by 25 percent to 50 percent. Why did this happen? I suppose there are a number of reasons. The private campground cartel, which is a new cartel in the province of British Columbia, exerted enough pressure on the minister to increase campground fees in the provincial parks. They exerted their influence, Mr. Chairman, and the effect was that people going into our public parks are going to have to pay almost 50 percent more now for a camp space.

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

Interjection.

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

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

MR. PASSARELL: There are many words we can pronounce. I just hope that the member for Kamloops doesn't talk the way he's noted for.

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

MR. PASSARELL: The newsletter from the B.C. Motels, Resorts and Trailer Parks Association was taking credit for the increase in the park fees. I wonder why a private organization is taking credit for the 25 percent to 50 percent increase that the minister's office supposedly brought about. Parks are intended for people to use and enjoy as part of this province. To bring parks into the category of direct business competition is denying residents of this province a given right of enjoyment of the parks. To increase park fees 50 percent is downright shameful.

Mrs. Vida Noble of Vancouver, along with many other residents, has written to the minister stating her opposition to this increase. On March 25, 1980, included in a letter to the minister was a petition signed by many residents of her area opposing the increase. Mrs. Noble's letter came along with Mrs. Helgeron's letter from Vancouver. She also sent a petition to the minister.

[ Page 3777 ]

Another aspect concerning this was brought to my attention by Mr. Norman Lyles. He stated that when recreational vehicles go into campgrounds that are full, they are being denied space to park. I'd like the minister to explain to this House why recreational vehicles are not allowed to park in campgrounds when the campsites are full. It appears that the private park operators located right next door to provincial parks will get the business from the overflow. They charge higher fees and this allows tourists to be at the mercy of the private park operators who swarm around the area.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Sure, for provincial parks. Then they're increased 50 percent and are being denied space to bring their recreational vehicles in and they have to go to a private campground,

Also, I'd like to talk about a memo dated January 14, 1980: An implementation of three-year objectives planned for parks and outdoor recreational division. Concerning ourselves with the section-planning program, there are a number of sections. I'll just to go over them briefly and have the minister explain what these have in relation to provincial parks.

No. 6 on page 2 says: "to identify the public and private sector roles in the provision of recreational facilities adjacent to provincial parks and the provision of programs within provincial parks."

Going on on page 4, there are a number of sections in the operational aspect. The first one in the terms of reference: "to achieve a 10 percent efficiency reduction in provincial parks in the province."

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

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

No. 6: "to annually review all provincial park fee levels to avoid unfair competition and competitive pricing with the private sector."

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

No. 7: "to utilize cost efficiency contract services in provincial parks as follows: maximize use of tax and services by 1982; for all recreational program services in provincial parks without subsidies by 1982." Does that quote mean that the provincial parks are going to be without subsidy by the provincial government by 1982? It appears as another sellout to the campground cartel in this province.

There was a letter in the March 7 Province in the outdoor section by Tony Eberts in which he talks further about the B.C. Outdoors article: "It has been successful in convincing the government to raise the rates of all government campgrounds. The major breakthrough will assist all private operators in the months to come. If you have a government park nearby, be sure to let us know so we can put you on our mailing list for the April meeting."

Another question raised in this article is: what about old-age pensioners, single parents, citizens who beg or borrow equipment to take groups of underprivileged kids away for the weekend to the outdoors. What effect are these 50 percent increases going to have on the people of this province who can't always afford to buy tents and go camping? A 50 percent increase is going to have a drastic effect on some people in this province. Nor must we overlook the significant fact that our tax dollars have built the provincial sites. Why should we pay again to use them? Surely the government should be more concerned with trying to hold the line against inflation than instigating price increases as high as 50 percent.

Another topic is hunting in parks, specifically in Spatsizi Park, in the northwest section of this province. Hundreds of animals are being slaughtered in the park by head-hunters. It is interesting to note that many people are concerned about this aspect.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, could you bring the man from Kamloops back to order again? He's getting red in the face. I'm scared he might get a little violent.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, please, no personal allusions. I ask all hon. members to come to order. The member for Atlin continues on vote 155.

MR. PASSARELL: This is concerning a letter from Miss Owen Mason from Vancouver, who wrote to the minister on May 6, 1980. To paraphrase part of her letter: "It has come to my attention that the Parks Act in my province of B.C. is being violated, and I'm wondering why you, my representative, allow this. Item 6(3) states: Our provincial parks are dedicated to the preservation of their natural environment for the inspiration, use and enjoyment of the parks."

Mr. Chairman, Miss Mason was wondering:

"How can this be when both hunting and trapping are legally done in my provincial park? Is there no place for peace and solitude and freedom for the citizens of B.C. or for our wildlife animals?

"All the government is interested in is making money at the expense of the animals' death and suffering by the hunting that's going on in provincial parks."

Another aspect, Mr. Chairman, is the March 26, 1980, article in the Province, the headline of which is "Wildlife and Loggers Don't Mix." What is the minister going to do to alleviate a serious problem that's happening right now in our provincial parks — wildlife being further eroded and pushed off their natural habittat by logging firms, hunters and trappers.

The third aspect, Mr. Chairman, is development in our parks. As stated in the previous articles, wildlife is losing out to development in our provincial parks, as the minister should be aware. Mr. Bob Nixon of the Sierra Club has published numerous press releases regarding logging in our provincial parks. One of the articles is dated April 10, 1980.

"The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing has no objection to logging of lodgepole pine in class A provincial parks, according to a Sierra Club spokesman, Mr. Bob Nixon. The ministry's position became known at a recent Okanagan meeting between public interest groups and government officials concerning the future of a sub-alpine class A park proposed for Brent Mountain. The Sierra Club charges

[ Page 3778 ]

that the park logging policy is a result of pressure upon cabinet by the forest industry for more timber supply at any cost."

At this stage, Mr. Chairman, it appears the government members' stomachs are rumbling.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: Are we going to go on through lunch?

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Why not?

MR. PASSARELL: If we go on through lunch, these guys might go wild on us without food.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are on vote 155. Could the member please contain his remarks to vote 155 and avoid personal allusions?

MR. PASSARELL: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I move the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again, after the members have eaten so they can come back in a good mood.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd like to speak to the motion, if I may.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not debatable, hon. member.

HON. MR. GARDOM: If the hon. member happens to be the last speaker and he's not going to be too long, we can finish between now....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Are you holding your hand up for exercise, or what do you have in mind?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. House Leader, the motion is not debatable; it is either carried or defeated. The motion is on the floor.

Motion carried.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon., Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:05 p.m.