[ Page 3881 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 3881

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

On vote 47: minister's office –– 3881

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Rose

Mr. Passarell

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Cocke

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Blencoe

FRIDAY, MARCH 16, 1984

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today we have, from the Vancouver–Little Mountain constituency, Mr. John Upton-Newt, who is a member of Revenue Canada. As you can see, he has his eye upon us all.

Hon. Mr. Rogers tabled the annual reports of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources for the years 1980, 1981 and 1982.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to move adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the dramatic increase yesterday in the bank rate from 10.2 percent to 10.56 percent, the consequential increase in the prime rate of the private enterprise banks to 11.5 percent from 11 percent, and the injury which will accrue to individuals and businesses alike as a result. Mr. Speaker, rising interest rates hurt all of us and will add to our level of unemployment. I think this Legislative Assembly should have the opportunity to express its concern about them, and its disagreement with the policies of the Bank of Canada and the government of Canada. The government of B.C. may be immobilized and support a high interest rate policy, but I'm sure the Legislative Assembly has better sense.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair will undertake to bring a ruling back; however, the Chair must again advise that debate during a 35 is not in order.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
LANDS, PARKS AND HOUSING

(continued)

On vote 47: minister's office, $191,758.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I thank the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) for deferring to me, because I do have another engagement later this morning — very shortly, as a matter of fact. I have a couple of questions for the minister; nothing too serious. The first one deals with the ministry's purchase of a right-of-way, which was announced through press release I believe last week. I have to admit that when I read the press release announcing the ministry's purchase of this right-of-way for, I believe, in excess of a million dollars.... I'm not quite sure, and perhaps the minister could tell us how much the government paid for this property. But what I'm interested in is this: in this time of restraint, for what purpose did the government purchase this right-of-way? Perhaps that $1 million, $2 million or $3 million could have been better utilized for health care by the Minister of Human Resources, where a number of cutbacks have taken place, or in our education system — whatever. So if the minister could explain that transaction to this House, we would certainly appreciate it.

The second matter is a constituency one that deals with the application by Mr. Colin Beach, whom I have met on several occasions, for a waterfront permit to export fresh water by vessel from the province of British Columbia. I want to make it clear, Mr. Chairman, that I am not opposed to those kinds of transactions. I know there is some problem with the federal government in the shipment of fresh water from British Columbia — or from Canada for that matter — by tanker. The federal government does have a policy in this regard, but that federal policy applies to water transferred from Canada by pipeline — that kind of diversion of water by pipeline or river diversion. This is quite a different matter. There have been several other companies looking at the prospects of shipping fresh water from British Columbia by tanker. I am not necessarily opposed to that. What I am suggesting here is that from this particular locality, Freil Lake Falls located in Jervis Inlet, which isn't first of all a very scenic tourist attraction.... The area is utilized by people from the Sunshine Coast, from Gibsons, Sechelt, Pender Harbour, Egmont, Powell River to the north and people in that area — boaters. Requests have gone in from both regional districts opposing that application by Mr. Beach on that particular site. This matter came up again just very recently in the Sunshine Coast Regional District meeting; once again the board unanimously opposed the application by Mr. Beach to build wharves and things on that particular site. In fact, Mr. Chairman, some six or seven months ago I wrote to the minister requesting that that area be placed under park reserve. There would be no cost to the Crown, but the area would then be under park reserve so that it could be utilized for no other purposes than recreation.

I might add, Mr. Chairman, that when I met with Mr. Beach — whose proposal I don't necessarily oppose; it's the use of the site I oppose — I suggested to him that I could and would arrange for him to meet with Mr. Ray Williston regarding the use of the deep-sea facilities at Ocean Falls, where there is just no end of water going over the dam: good, clear glacial water. There is nothing wrong with that water; it's perfectly good water. The town has been closed down, the water is just going over the dam into the ocean, and no fish spawning is involved in that area. In fact, there could be a shorter trans-Pacific route for Mr. Beach's tankers. I wonder if the minister could take that particular matter under advisement. I know you can't give me an answer here today; I know it has to go through your ministry. You can give me an answer today? Then why am I talking so long about it?

[10:15]

One more matter while I've got the floor, Mr. Chairman, and that is the matter of the use and the availability of Crown land in this province. I know other members will probably mention it, if they haven't already. Particularly now, when we have a lot of people unemployed, young people particularly, people would like to purchase a piece of property but obviously can't afford it. We have a great deal of Crown land in this province, and I would urge that that ministry make more Crown land available at reasonable cost. If these people aren't working anyway, they could be clearing that land and doing all kinds of things, owning a piece of property, and adding to the real growth rates of the province, if you will. Under the present policy of the government Crown land is being made available, but the cost is generally out of reach of

[ Page 3882 ]

the average British Columbian and certainly out of reach over the three-year lease-to-purchase system the government has in place at the present time. I'm not opposed to this system, by the way. It's the cost to the low- or no-income person that I object to. More Crown land should be made available. I'm pretty sure, without going into a lot of detail, that the minister knows exactly what I'm talking about, so I'll sit down and wait for the minister's response.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Regarding the purchase of what we might refer to as the CNR right-of-way here on the Island, negotiations for that have been going on for many years and started at very high prices and so on. The negotiations reached a point of final decision this year, and we got it at a considerably lower price. You could also look at it as an investment; it's a fantastic saving if any corridor is needed down the Island. It's a very good buy for what we're getting, and it also means that it would save millions of dollars later if we ever need a corridor. That is going to be evaluated. I know that it has come up in this particular year, but to then say, "Forget it," and lose millions of dollars of assets because it came up in this year would be foolishness. In any event, it would be dealt with from the Crown land fund, money that would not likely be available for other activities anyway.

As for the matter of exporting water by tankers, our position is that we've had proposals and, as you say, we've had people opposed to the project. We've had a large number of letters from people favouring the project. They say: "Since it's running into the ocean anyway at that point, why not get some value out of it?" However, I know that's not your point. The problem is that until we have an application.... We have said, "Put in an application," which then can go through the referral process and involve other ministries with their input, and the regional district. We can't really say on any proposal that we don't like it or that we don't like the colour of it or something of that nature. There's not an absolute ban on exporting water, so we have to have an application to deal with. So far we have a proposal. If we didn't do it that way, we could have some wonderful discussions — unproductive — and get no place. So all the input you're talking about would be there when we get the application, when we have something formal to deal with, which we don't have at this point.

As to making Crown land available, in principle I would like to think that it would solve the problem to make Crown land available at low cost. There is lots of Crown land in this province. The only problem is that people are interested in only a very small portion of it. The rest nobody wants — I shouldn't say nobody, but basically people don't want it. It means there's a very limited amount available. If we accepted your reasoning of making that available at reasonable cost, why would anybody...? Say a piece of land is selling.... You say that people in British Columbia can't afford this land. Well, why is it selling at $20,000? In other words, people are buying this. Let's say the lot is worth $20,000. If we turned around and made it available to somebody for $5,000, why would that person bother to do anything with it? The first thing he would do is sell it somebody for $20,000, and have $15,000 applied to the next piece of Crown land. In other words, we would increase the shortage rather than help. We try to deal as close as we can with market value. As far as agricultural land is concerned, people have five years at 1 percent of the value per year to pick it up. That's a super deal, if you really look at it in comparison to anything else.

Recreational lots — the lease. It sounds like a great deal, but with a $200 to $400 minimum maximum, compare that to buying a piece of property for even $10,000. In other words, we have good deals for people to use recreational land, residential lots and agricultural land.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I didn't plan to get up again. I thank the minister for the answer, by the way, on the Freil Lake Falls non-application. I wasn't aware that Mr. Beach had not as yet made a formal application. So you answered my question.

On the matter of the availability of Crown land, I think the minister perhaps missed my point. One of the things that is happening out there.... The government after consultation with the regional districts and the usual process, is making Crown land available, but the people who are able to afford to buy those five-acre or ten-acre plots, or whatever they happen to be, in the rural areas — in many cases they're five-acre plots — already have property and can afford them. What I'm suggesting to the minister here this morning is that he make that property available to those people who can't afford the $20,000 or $30,000 or $50,000 or whatever the market value may be in that particular area. That's all I was suggesting in that particular case.

In terms of the recreational lots, I have no problem. My problem is mainly with the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), because the taxes on these recreational lease lots are growing astronomically every year. But that's another story. What I'm on about here is making this land available to the low-income or non-income people in the province. They don't have that kind of money. If they had that kind of money, they wouldn't be low-income people. That property is so often — in fact, usually — going to the people who don't really need it. Sometimes it's a second piece of property for those people, because they have the bucks or they're able to get the bank loans. Within the last week or two I've sent you two separate cases that I hope, Mr. Minister, you will deal with personally. People have purchased these lease-to-purchase properties and, because of the economic times that we're in — they've lost their jobs.... The letter I forwarded to you a day or two ago.... He purchased this property in good faith and was working at the time, but he lost his job — he was laid off; he wasn't fired or anything. He's a mature, older person, but he lost his job because of the economic times and he can't come up with the $30,000 that he now has to pay, after all the work he's done on that property over three years. All I'm asking is that the ministry consider making Crown land available to those low-income people in the province.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated yesterday evening on adjourning the debate, I have a great deal to say this morning in the area of lands. I was happy to see some of the opposition members get up this morning, because it really worried me yesterday evening that they were going to allow this minister's estimates to go through without speaking at all about land. I would have some real concerns about what we're doing in this province relating to land if the members opposite weren't saying anything about it.

Mr. Chairman, we have a great many problems in the area of lands in the constituency that I represent. This morning I'm going to talk about and ask some questions relating to the Vanderhoof Crown land plan, the Kispiox Crown land plan

[ Page 3883 ]

and the scorched-earth policy of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing when it comes to agricultural land in this province. I'm going to talk about bureaucrats making decisions as to who should or should not have Crown land for agriculture on the basis of what they believe should be the cultivation practices — the ability of a rancher to graze cattle, the arability of a particular piece of agricultural land and such related subjects.

I want to start by talking and asking questions about the Vanderhoof Crown land plan. The minister, in a letter dated January 4, 1984, said this: "The Vanderhoof Crown land plan will identify parcels of agricultural land which will be offered for public disposition in the early spring of 1984." Mr. Chairman, I have here — and I know I can't show it — a map of the Vanderhoof Crown land plan. If anyone can take that map and show me where there is any agricultural land left for disposition after this plan is brought into effect, I would ask them to take this out in the hall and do so this morning. If the Vanderhoof Crown land plan were to proceed, agriculture would stagnate in the Nechako valley. The Nechako valley and the Vanderhoof area is the second largest agricultural area in this province, second only to Peace River. In this plan absolutely no Crown land remains for disposition to agriculture — only a few miserable quarter-sections scattered all over that very large area. Mr. Chairman, I really want to find out in this discussion this morning how it is that the Ministry of Lands can stand by and allow literally thousands of hectares of prime agricultural land in this area covered by the Vanderhoof Crown land plan to be dedicated to forestry. Mr. Chairman, nobody sees the need for forestry land more than I do, as I spent over 15 years in that industry myself in this province, but I see an area which is prime agricultural land earmarked for what is called "integrated forest management," when literally thousands of hectares of land inside the provincial forests are crying out for some kind of silvicultural treatment. In fact, Mr. Chairman, in the Prince George forest district alone there are 8,235,700 hectares of land within the provincial forest, not in this area covered by the Vanderhoof Crown land plan, which is outside of the provincial forest available for silvicultural treatment. That does not include the area that has been logged and has not yet been planted. That is just an area which is considered immature stand.

Why, when there is that kind of forest land in the provincial forests in this area in need of silviculture treatment, are we taking in this Vanderhoof Crown land plan literally thousands of hectares of prime agricultural land and earmarking it for forests? I don't understand it, Mr. Chairman, and I want some answers telling me why this is being done. It was done in the Prince George area; it's not going to be done in my constituency. I am not going to see a prime agricultural area in this province stopped in its tracks, and that's exactly what will happen if this plan goes into effect. I won't stand by and see that.

[10:30]

I have another letter dated March 9 from the minister, which reads: "This land-use decision has been endorsed by the Vanderhoof Crown land planning process." I'd like to know who it is that makes those decisions in that process. It sure as hell isn't me! It sure as hell isn't the agriculturalists in my area, Mr. Minister. I know what the agriculturalists in my area think, because I speak to them on a weekly basis. In fact, I sent them the first map of the Vanderhoof Crown land plan not two weeks ago, asking them if they'd ever heard of it. So my second question is: who is in this Vanderhoof Crown land planning process? It isn't the people in agriculture. It isn't the MLA. Who is it? It's a very serious situation in an area that's primarily agricultural. It has been agricultural since the turn of the century, and still is.

For an entire year a freeze has been placed on the allocation of any Crown land for anything within the boundaries of the Vanderhoof Crown land plan. For over a year now there has been no movement of land of any sort that wasn't applied for prior to the introduction of a plan such as this. For a whole year agriculturalists in the Nechako valley have not been able to acquire land to add to their holdings. All sorts of excuses have been given — excuses like you would not believe — to my constituents as to why they couldn't acquire additional agricultural lands so that they could make their farms viable.

I suspect that the bureaucrats have had this Vanderhoof Crown land plan in mind for a long time — a long time before a year ago, as I have a letter here to prove. It's from the minister and, again, it's dated very recently: March 14, 1984. It gives the history of an application by one of my constituents for a piece of Crown land; the application dates back to 1980. In 1980 they told him that the land he was applying for was turned down because it was non-arable, and the highest and best use considered would be forestry related. This piece of land is not in the provincial foresto it's outside the boundaries of the provincial forest. Yet back in 1980 my constituent was told that the best use is forestry. Of course, they paid no attention to my constituent, who really wanted the additional land so that he could graze his cattle and carry on a tree-farm on that piece of land. It has gone down through the years to where he was finally told on January 5, 1984, that there was a planning process going on and therefore they couldn't consider another application which he made four years later. I think this proves quite conclusively that there was a movement afoot long before a year ago by the bureaucrats to place this kind of freeze on agricultural land in this area, land which isn't in the provincial forest, when thousands — millions — of hectares of land within the provincial forest goes begging for silviculture treatment.

I just can't figure it out. I want to know — and I'm not going to leave this chamber today until I find out — why it is. I want to know whether the minister agrees with it, whether the minister who has land as his responsibility in this province agrees with giving up this number of hectares, as prescribed in the Vanderhoof Crown land plan, to the Ministry of Forests, when the Ministry of Forests already has millions of hectares of land crying out for silviculture treatment in the same area.

Mr. Chairman, all kinds of excuses are given to my constituents for not allowing them further Crown land for agriculture. I have a case here where there's a controversy between the Lands department of the ministry and the fish and wildlife branch for a quarter of land in the Vanderhoof area which they say they must have for wildlife habitat. Again, the excuses just don't wash. The need for, in this case, additional wildlife habitat in an area where they already have 1,300 acres.... In fact, the 1,300 acres is adjacent. There aren't any moose anyway, and that's really what the habitat is for. This individual wants the additional land for grazing. He's not going to cut all the trees off it; far from it. If we adhered to what I thought was a policy in this province of an agriculturalist being able to carry on a tree-farm licence, this would only enhance the situation, as in the other case that I mentioned. I don't understand it. I've fought it for going on nine years now, with three different ministers, and I don't

[ Page 3884 ]

understand it, so I want some answers. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) can make fun if he likes, and I'll ask him the same questions when I come to his ministry. I want to know why the Minister of Forests wants to take over all this land also.

I'm upset about the Vanderhoof Crown land plan, and I'll probably get back to it later. I want to know where it was that the scorched-earth policy — that's what I call it, and that's all it can be described as — came into effect in the Ministry of Lands in the province of British Columbia. That's the policy where the government goes in and logs an area before it is offered for agricultural use — an absolutely preposterous situation. I know there was some advantage taken by individuals in cutting and running, and I don't agree with that either, but I do think that safeguards can be put in place to stop that. But for the government to go in to log off an area, to supposedly stump and pile it and then to offer it to the agriculturalists for agricultural purposes, is preposterous. For anyone in this chamber who doesn't know the cost to the individual of preparing a piece of Crown land in the Vanderhoof area or anywhere else in the northern half of this province, it is absolutely horrendous. From start to finish it's probably five years before that individual can take one poor crop from a piece of Crown land. Yet we take away the only possibility he has of making a few dollars that he can pour back into that land by harvesting the timber and selling it himself. I want to know why, and I want to know when we're going to change that scorched-earth policy. We certainly didn't put it in place because the agriculturalists wanted it. I'll tell you why we did, Mr. Chairman. We put it in place because the bureaucrat wanted it. I take offence at that.

Mr. Chairman, I want to talk for a moment about restraint and how it affects the people out there in this province. I say again now, as I said in the budget debate, that philosophically I believe in restraint; my constituents — almost to a man or woman — philosophically agree with restraint. But to do things in the name of restraint which don't make any economic sense at all is, in my estimation, ridiculous. I'm talking now of the closure of the land office in Vanderhoof, in an area which is the second-best agricultural area in this province. Of course, I can see that there is no more need for it if we go ahead with this plan, because there won't be any agricultural land to give out or to sell or to lease after that Crown land plan is adopted. But to close a land office where two people work, and to move those people 60 miles down the road to Prince George and have them work out of a Prince George office from which, in order to reach the western boundary of the area they have to serve, they'd have to drive in excess of 100 miles doesn't make any economic sense at all.

I can see it — and I'm going to talk about the British Columbia Buildings Corporation under the appropriate ministry.... I can see the need, when the Ministry of Lands has to pay $16.50 a square foot in a community where you can get brand-new accommodation in the private sector for $6.50 a square foot....

You've got to feed a huge bureaucracy, which I take exception to. What the hell have we got that bureaucracy in this province for? Is it simply to charge our ministries three times the price for the facility they're using out there in the province? Well, I think it's about time we took a long look at winding down that bureaucracy, if that's the case.

[10:45]

Mr. Chairman, I really want to hear the minister tell this chamber why and how it makes economic sense to close down that land office in Vanderhoof. If in fact we turn down the Vanderhoof Crown land plan, we're going to have a lot of land for agriculture in that area. It makes no economic sense whatsoever — it doesn't now; it never will — to put people on the road in a vehicle rather than have them work out of an office which could be purchased for $6.50 a square foot. In fact, I would go further than that. If you kept those individuals right in the community, you probably wouldn't need an office. They could work right out of their homes or whatever — keep them in the area, available to the people there. We have trouble enough as northerners in this province dealing with distance, trouble enough without moving those two people an additional 60 miles away from their work, and that's what's happening there.

Mr. Chairman, I want to talk for a while about lease rates. The subject was approached earlier this morning. It's a problem that I have argued about for a number of years, both in and out of this chamber, and I intend to continue until there is some change which will allow our citizens out there to obtain Crown land for recreation and commercial purposes at a reasonable price. I heard the minister say just a few moments ago that the lease rates for recreational lots compare to those which you can get title on. Well, even if they do, we're not talking of title here. I'd be only too happy if this government would come in with a policy of selling our citizens that lakeshore land. Sell it to them, Mr. Minister. They'd be happy to pay for it if they knew they're going to own it in the end. They pay now but don't own later; there is no way that they can ever own that land, and yet they pay through the nose for it.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to read into the record this letter dated March 8, 1984. And yes, Mr. Minister, I appreciate that you did draft it yourself. I much appreciate the letters I get from ministers which are drafted by ministers, and not by some bureaucrat who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. In this case I had insinuated in a letter that my constituents were having to face increases in their lease rates of 20 percent a year. I had done some research prior to making that statement but apparently not enough, because the minister suggested to me in the letter that that's high. I thought, well, okay, maybe I'm wrong. But, Mr. Minister, I'm not wrong; in fact, I was a hell of a long way out. I've got two situations here where commercial lease lots in my constituency are rising to this tune, and I'm going to read it into the record. This particular case, in Fort St. James, is a lease lot for commercial purposes. I have here a letter to my constituent dated December 23 — a great Christmas present — informing him that in the next five years his lease rate will rise 265.2 percent. This year it will rise 52.9 percent; next year 34.6 percent; the year after 25.7 percent; the year after that 20.5 percent; and the year after that 17.1 percent, for a total of 265.2 percent in five years. I guess I was a little low in saying 20 percent. I've got another example. This isn't quite as bad; it's only 72.9 percent.

You know, Mr. Chairman, those familiar with our north country know we've got literally thousands of lakes, literally tens of thousands of miles of lakeshore, and yet we put that lakeshore out of the reach of our citizens. I just don't understand it. Why don't we make this lakeshore land available to our citizens at a price they can afford? At least then....

And you know, it doesn't end with the lease rates, because

[ Page 3885 ]

they pay as well a yearly tax on that land. I'm not talking about the tax; I'm just talking about the lease rate. So isn't it better for government, and isn't it better for all of the taxpayers of British Columbia, that we have that lakeshore land in the hands of our citizens so they can pay taxes on it? Nobody's paying any taxes when it sits out there empty. There's no revenue coming to government then.

I see I'm nearing the end of my time, which is fine. I'm sure there will be some intervening business, and I have more to say.

MR. LAUK: I am more than happy to intervene for a brief moment, and to ask the hon. member for Omineca to continue a very well-researched and excellent critique of this ministry.

MR. KEMPF: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong, having it sanctioned by the opposition.

MR. LAUK: We couldn't have done better ourselves. You have our undivided attention.

MR. KEMPF: Nevertheless, I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I take seriously the fact that I also represent people who didn't vote for me in the last election. Whether they be opposition or not, I'm going to stand in this House and speak for them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Good for you!

MR. KEMPF: I just don't understand, as I was saying earlier, why we as government — and I don't think it was any different when there were other governments in the province — don't make Crown land available to our citizens. As Crown land, there is no revenue to the government; it's only when that land is in the hands of citizens that there is a revenue to this province. I can't see why we are reluctant to give up that Crown land, and when we do, we make our citizens pay through the nose. I know a lot of people who have had to drop their recreational leases because they could no longer afford them. I know we put a maximum of $400 a year, which again doesn't hold water; I've got information to that end. I've got constituents paying $500 and $600 for their yearly lease on recreational land. I'd like to know where the $400 limit is.

I guess now I have to talk about northerners. I heard the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) say he had no argument with the $400 maximum. Well, I do, as a northerner, have a great concern about it. Many constituents of the member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan) have recreational lots in my constituency. They use them maybe four or five or six times a year; for that they have to pay $400 plus tax. If you figure that out, Mr. Chairman, it isn't very cheap. The old argument that I must put forward is that we should have a different rate for recreational lots in the north, one which takes into consideration the fact that they can only be used four months of the year. We'd be happy to pay $400 a year, divided by three, which would give us a rate comparable to that paid by southerners who can use their lots year-round. We'd be happy to do that. So I have an argument with the $400 limit. Again, we in the north are taking the short end of the stick.

Mr. Chairman, I have some other things to say about those subjects which I've touched on. I wanted to talk a bit about the Kispiox Crown land plan. It's not in my constituency, but I have a great number of friends in the Kispiox Valley, where, again, the land has been put into a freeze for much longer than a year. I haven't been able to get a map showing just what the bureaucrats are intending to do in the Kispiox Valley. I have a reply from the minister, dated September 1983, saying: "I'm expecting the Kispiox plan will be submitted for approval before the end of the year." That was 1983 –– I haven't seen it yet. I suspect we should be taking a look at it before it's ever approved. If it's anything like this one, we should be looking at it very closely. I say that on behalf of the people who live in the Kispiox Valley, even though their own member doesn't stand in this House and speak for them. There's a real problem there as well. That's a pretty good agricultural area. There are some darned good ranches in the area north of Hazelton.

That's just indicative of what goes on in this chamber, Mr. Chairman. I see three members opposite.... I know the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) knows where the Kispiox is. I see three members opposite with a blank look on their face. They don't know where the Kispiox Valley is. That's indicative of what happens in this chamber. It's about time some of them travelled north to find out what exists in the northern two-thirds of this province.

MS. BROWN: Point of order. Does that member know where Burnaby is?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! That's not a point of order, hon. member. We're in committee; you'll have every opportunity to reply.

MS. BROWN: Do you know where Kingsway is?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Omineca continues.

MS. BROWN: Do you know where Edmonds is?

MR. KEMPF: Yes, I do, Madam Member.

MS. BROWN: Do you know where Canada Way is?

MR. KEMPF: You bet I do. I was born and raised in this province, and I've been in every corner of it.

Mr. Chairman, I have a lot more to say. There are a lot more particular questions which I'm sure will come out when I get some response from the minister on those items which I have raised here this morning. For now, I rest my case.

MR. ROSE: I won't enter this debate for any great length of time. The member for Omineca suggested that some of us didn't really know our way around the province. I'd like to tell him that I've been to Hazelton. I know where the Kispiox Valley is. I've even been to Kitwanga. I just feel he maligns us over on this side about our geographic knowledge of this great province. I'd like to put his mind at rest.

MR. PASSARELL: I was waiting for the minister to get up and answer the questions. We're on a similar topic; we're going to be talking about Crown land.

[ Page 3886 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess my hesitation in getting up to respond is that I didn't know what I could achieve by responding. I have diligently given that member reasons for the things we do, answers to his requests. Now I'm told they are nothing but excuses. I don't know whether there's any point in giving any more of the rationale behind it. Being noble, I guess I'll make a try at it — perhaps some background on the Vanderhoof study plan, which I thought the member was aware of. Around 1980 there was a deferred planning process put into effect in this province. There was no conflict over lands which were obviously forest lands. Where there was conflict over land in an area among different agencies, there was a deferred planning process. My ministry and other ministries, through the regional resource committees, were instructed to resolve those conflicts, to develop a plan to say what is for agriculture and what is for forestry. So they have undertaken that. These and many other areas are ones that they undertook to study to try to resolve the conflicts; in other words, people were carrying out policy and doing the job that was requested of them.

[11:00]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The member seems to feel that it's strictly a bureaucrat's attempt to do something. I think that these bureaucrats, which we prefer to refer to as staff, were trying to carry out government policies. If there's an argument about policy, then by all means attack me. But if the bureaucrats, as you call them, are carrying out government policy, why attack them for carrying out what the job is supposed to be? I'm somewhat amazed that the member wants the bureaucrats out of the situation, but he doesn't want them out of the Vanderhoof office. He wants them left there, yet these are the ones he is attacking. I don't automatically defend what any person in my ministry does; but I'm willing to deal with it, and I'm willing to be held accountable, according to policy. If they're not carrying out policy, then they're going to be held accountable. Maybe we could just sort that part out. I know it could be debated forever.

More specifically, the freeze was put on the Vanderhoof plan for a year. The member himself gave the reason for it — that some of these conflicts couldn't be resolved over two or three years because of the various inputs. So the freeze was put on for one year to try to resolve the conflicts and decide what designation should go to what land. Then the dispositions can be dealt with.

I see the member is making copious notes of my excuses. Anyway, talking about.... If people just want this for grazing, why is it in forestry? If they want it for grazing, then the cheapest and best way to get it is a grazing licence to graze their cattle — if that's the only purpose. Once title is obtained, then of course they can cultivate it and do all sorts of other things. Professional agrologists and people in the area are asked for their opinion. The Vanderhoof plan has been endorsed. This is the proposal put forward. It is going to public hearing or review. The member has been told that. The public will have its input. The public has been informed, and so have representatives from the Ministries of Agriculture, Mines, Municipal Affairs and Forests, who are in the deferred planning process. So it will be put out publicly.

As far as what the member sarcastically refers to as "the scorched-earth policy" is concerned, people want agricultural land at prices they can afford for agriculture. But they want to be able to log hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of timber off a $40,000 piece of agricultural land. Yes, we could make that land available to them for agriculture when it is so designated. But if we put in the price of the timber, they can't afford to buy it. Then the logging interests buy it, log it off, and then tell us: "Here, keep the land. We have no more use for it." So if the agricultural interests buy it, why are...? They seem to be interested in logging it off. I have no problem with people logging to help pay for the farm and so on. But I think we have to recognize that there are values attached to the timber and values attached to the land. We can't have it both ways: either you pay for the full value if you want the log value.... We're not just protecting that one taxpayer who has made that application, Mr. Member. We also have a mandate to protect all of the taxpayers of this province. I would like to be able to give land to anybody who wants land. But then they would immediately sell it and ask me to give them another piece. So I don't accomplish anything in terms of helping people to get land, because they would sell it to the people who could afford the land and apply for another free piece.

You say this isn't the case. Okay, we could probably make recreational lots available very, very cheaply in this province if everyone were willing to give up their transfer privileges, because when they have transfer privileges they can put a sale price on it and transfer it to somebody else who pays the same low lease. To implement the transfer privilege simply means that when the people put a building on it, they want us to buy it back when they transfer the land. In other words, they put a value on it; they put a building on it; they have the right to sell it — the value, the building and so on — and all we take is the lease fee per year. They can put a small building on it, an expensive building or whatever, and they can charge anybody else who'll pay the price. And others will; they do. So if they are willing to give up the transfer privilege and just rent a little piece of recreational land — whatever value they attach to it is their business and their concern — then I think we could have a new policy in this province to make it available very, very cheaply. But I doubt that you could get very many people to support that, particularly people who want recreational leases.

I don't know whether I am helping the argument or not. On some of these leases, I think the member should check when people tell him what a massive increase there was this year. Maybe the member should check on how long it was at a fixed rate; a piece of land perhaps was evaluated ten years ago when land values were low and remained fixed for those ten years regardless of what happened to land values. Now land values come up and we're attaching it under the new five-, ten- or fifteen-year term, so it's fixed. There is more than one side to each of these situations. Some of these plans, as they come forward for approval — not approved but for approval.... Yes, we have public input into them in the formation, we have public input into them in the evaluation, and we have ministerial input into them. What more can I say to help the member to attack me and my staff? I don't think you need any more ammunition, so I'll say very little more.

MR. KEMPF: I think the reason I will not accept excuses is that it isn't excuses I'm looking for. I am not looking for excuses at all. I've have excuses for going on nine years when we relate to land in my constituency, and I'm tired of excuses. If it's the policy that's wrong, then we'd better change the policy, but to say we're in favour of making Crown land available to our citizens is absolutely untrue; we are doing

[ Page 3887 ]

just the opposite. The minister just said that we base our evaluation of leased recreational lots, and the lease price on them, on the selling price of deeded land. How on earth can you relate those two? I say again, sell them that lakefront land rather than lease it to them. They'd be very happy to pay a price based on the selling price of deeded land in the same area. But to pay a lease price based on the selling price of deeded land is preposterous.

The minister says we should get value out of our timber –– I see no difference in having the agriculturalists log it, sell it and pay a stumpage on it. We just made the change to where they have to pay full stumpage, the same as anybody else. The same as the large forest company; the same as the person with a woodlot licence; the same as the person under the small enterprise program. If they have to pay the same stumpage, how can you say that we are not getting fair value if the agriculturalist logs it and sells it? That makes no sense at all. We get the same stumpage as government.

I guess I could go on all day arguing these points, as I have argued them for eight years, but at some point in time in this province we somehow have to come to grips with the philosophy that's held out there by — yes, Mr. Minister — the bureaucrats that no one should own land in this province. That's where the hangup is. Whether you believe it or not, Mr. Chairman, that's where it is. Profit is a dirty word. What's wrong with someone putting an improvement on a leased lot that they are paying on, and expecting to get paid for that improvement from somebody down the road? So they've made a profit on a piece of Crown land that they've built a cabin on, or built a dock or a road on. What the devil is wrong with that? I can't for the life of me see what — I just can't.

The minister touched on the subject of agrologists. Certainly you can go out and get a private agrologist if you don't agree with the decision that's been made by the lands inspector, and nine times out of ten it's a negative response that the applicant gets from that particular land inspector. Sure they can go out and hire an agrologist. Have you ever tried it in Vanderhoof? There isn't one there. In fact, the nearest one is in Fort St. John, in the minister's riding — over a thousand miles away. Do you know what that costs the individual — prior to having any tenure on that property at all — just to prove that it's suitable for his use? I don't think that's for government to decide. It's for the individual to decide whether it's proper and will meet his needs.

It's the same as the decision that's made in regard to cultivation. I've got a file in my office that's been going on for five years in relation to a constituent of mine who is now told that he didn't cultivate it to the degree that the bureaucrat thought he should. It doesn't matter that it's cultivated to meet his own personal needs as a rancher. That's got nothing to do with it at all. But it doesn't meet the book, if you like — and it isn't the book, because I don't think it's written in a book. It doesn't meet the requirements of a particular land manager who maybe got up on the wrong side of the bed the day he went out to inspect it. What kind of decisions are being made out there? If it's cultivated to the satisfaction of the use of the rancher or the farmer, what difference should it make to us, as government? Let it meet their needs, not our needs.

As I said before, I could go on. It's interesting to note that everyone looking to acquire a piece of Crown land is considered guilty until proven innocent. That's exactly what we're talking about here — guilty until proven innocent. It's ridiculous. We in the north, as the minister knows, have Crown land all around us — empty land that's bringing the taxpayer of the province of British Columbia nothing. The only time it's going to be of value to this province and to this government is when it's in the hands of our citizens.

Mr. Chairman, as I've said before, I could go on and on. I've argued it for eight years. The minister said: "Yes, it's policy." Well. the policy is wrong. Where, besides in this forum, can I stand as a member and say: "The policy is wrong. It's got to be changed"? I'm not saying that. I could care less. I'm not a farmer. I don't even have a recreational lease. I'm speaking on behalf of the hundreds and literally thousands of citizens out there who are saying that. All 57 of us here are here to serve those people. It's about damn time we started to listen to them.

[11:15]

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, I share the concerns and in a sense the frustration that the member for Omineca faces when we discuss this issue of Crown land and what we discuss in the north. But just before you leave....

I guess he is frustrated today. I'm not going to go on any further about it. There are times when we start talking about Crown land as northerners, and I think we are going to have three northerners speak in a row — the minister, the member for Omineca and myself. I think we have three diverse ideas, but by the same token there is cooperation; there's a feeling when it comes to speaking on issues of foreshore leases or recreational leases or agricultural land in the north and the need for all three of us who come from different backgrounds, hold different positions in this house, and still have a concern for the constituents we represent.

The minister knows, since he gained this portfolio a little over a year ago, about the concern about the need for more Crown land, particularly in the far north. One of the government's positions with which I disagree adamantly is the policy of putting Crown land in subdivisions. In Good Hope Lake, before you became minister, 18 lots just on the southern part of the road were put up, and they made a subdivision out of them. To this day, if I'm not mistaken, not one individual has bought that land. A friend down the road and I one time took out an option on these 18 lots, and I don't think that anyone bought the lots. There were a few individuals from the UNN, local 167, who.... Somehow there was an exchange on some land, and there were three lots given on that. So in the far north there is a need of not having the subdivisions. In Atlin, the community where I live, when government comes in and we start talking about Crown land for the people of this province, we see the need of putting it into a subdivision. That's not everybody's cake.

But by the same token I understand the position the government is in. If somebody wants a piece of Crown land off in the bush 15 miles away from the closest road, the government grants — speaking hypothetically — the land to the individual and two years later the individual wants a road built, the school bus to come down and the power lines brought in. That's the problem. I don't think there is a simple solution. Many of the residents I represent are opposed to the concept of subdivision, but by the same token, if we're talking logically, you go out and give land that's 15 miles off in the bush, and then the individual wants all the amenities of "society" brought into that parcel of land he or she has picked up. I think we have to look at a median on something like that, getting away from the subdivisions and, to a certain extent, allowing individuals, if they want to, to sign an option that two or five years down the road they're not going to ask

[ Page 3888 ]

the government to put in the services for them. If they want that land 15 miles off into the bush, and if they want a lifestyle of that nature, then, yes, maybe there would have to be some kind of agreement by the individuals, when they get the title to their land, that they're not going to be asking for services coming back.

Another concept I think we must look into is staking. It's very difficult in the far north just to go out and stake if there isn't a mineral claim on a piece of property or if it hasn't already been put into a forest reserve.

Foreshore leases. Well, I think the minister is moving in that direction, and I would hope that he would have some further comments in regard to the foreshore leases in the community of Stewart. The government put out a brochure about two years ago about foreshore leasing in that community. I would like the minister to bring this House up to date on where that is moving to.

Recreational leases. The government has moved in the direction of recreational leases outside the community of Cassiar, where they've allowed some of those small lakes.... At Vines Lake particularly, the minister has received numerous letters from my constituents regarding the need for recreational leases, and the government has complied with this request by the residents of Cassiar; I appreciate that.

Agricultural land. There's a definite need for more agricultural land, particularly in the Stikine area. It's an interesting area, since it has a very warm, temperate climate, although it's in the far north, because of the wind currents that come up through the Stikine from the Gulf of Alaska. There's a need for more agricultural land in that area, around Telegraph Creek.

The last issue I'd like to bring to the minister's attention, since we've covered the need for more Crown land, is in the other part of the portfolio: Housing. This is in regard to log homes — I brought this up during the budget and throne speech debates — and tax exemption on log homes. This is used effectively in the state of Vermont. At the time when I brought it to the House's attention during the budget debate, the Finance minister (Hon. Mr. Curtis) said he was intrigued with the concept. I recently received a letter from him saying that he can't move in this direction because it's going to drastically affect the wood industry in the province. That's the whole point of what I was bringing forward. If you look at the similarities between the economy of Vermont and the economy of British Columbia based on wood-based resources, it hasn't hurt the state of Vermont in revenues when it comes to building with logs. People continue to build the log homes with rocks and with frame construction. Taking a tax exemption away from individuals who build their homes out of logs.... They go in the winter and cut the trees, peel them, allow the sap to run, and have a tax exemption on log homes. Many individuals who live in the far north use logs for construction of their homes. It's difficult to buy for frame construction up there because of the milling; you'd have to bring much of the finishing lumber up. Many individuals build with logs. Having a tax exemption on the construction of log homes — no sales tax on the construction of log homes — would be of benefit to many people in this province.

One further addition was something that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) brought up, and I would like the minister's response on this because, in a sense, this is something that I've believed in for a long time. I'm talking about the centralization of governments, particularly in the north where we're finding the government moving into Smithers. We've lost some individuals in Atlin and they've been centralized into Smithers. The member for Omineca was talking about BCBC and the changing of the land office, and he stated $16 a square foot was being charged when it should have been about $6 a square foot. Is it the policy of the government to allow such high rents to be charged in this area? I think he even referred to the charging of the high rents to build B.C. Place. I would like the minister to comment on the constituency problems that I brought forward to him and his ideas on taking the sales tax exemption off of log construction homes.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to just respond briefly to some of the points that the member touched on: the business that Crown recreational lots shouldn't be worth as much in the north as in the south. Well, in the assessed value, the market value, that's already reflected. I can assure you that a recreational lot on Okanagan Lake or one in the lower mainland would have a much higher value than one would have there. That is why, in a sense, it seems that the only equitable method, other than just arbitrary assignment of values, that can be done is to use market values. The member mentioned Crown land subdivision. Yes, we've had some unfortunate experiences in that. There seemed to be a demand for lots, and every lot that people requested or every one that they wanted resulted in a conflict between Environment and all of these. So the idea of letting people live in a certain area removed the conflicts. Now people can live there, and that can be for wildlife and this can be for forestry and so on. That was an attempt, and in some places it works very well. I suppose in a few isolated cases it hasn't worked very well, and I'm somewhat familiar with the Good Hope Lake situation and a couple in my riding where they haven't worked.

The member says that maybe people could sign a covenant that they don't want roads, telephone, Hydro and so on. Well, every one of the people who bought one of those lots signed an agreement without any of these services. Then a couple of years later they put the pressure on and said: "Hey, I'm like any other British Columbian; forget about that agreement I signed. I want a road, I want power, I want this...." As the member, I think, indicated, we'll never solve that one, because it's one thing to sign an agreement.... And some of the things that have come up here about the agricultural lease, the degree of clearing and so on is really.... They ask why we impose that. That was written in the contract. If you want it in agricultural-priced values, then you must meet these conditions. The person looks at it and says: "Fine. I've agreed to meet these conditions." Four years later he says: "Why are you making me clear this land before I can buy it?" But in the initial phase, if he hadn't signed that.... We make some clean sales. Where there is a piece of land, it's put up for auction or bid and it's a clean-cut sale, and then we don't say: "You've got to clear so much." It's up to you whether you do anything with it when it's a clean sale. But when you get it at a subsidized price under the agricultural policy, then, of course, we attach the conditions, which the person signs in the first place. It's just that when the conditions are hard to meet, then they'd rather they hadn't signed the agreement. I've run into some of those myself, incidentally, which I won't expand on.

[ Page 3889 ]

At Stewart, as far as I know, a land use plan was developed. It wasn't specifically foreshore lots. Maybe the member can help in giving any more specifics on that. Regarding the tax exemption on log homes, I have some reservations about that. I haven't studied it, but just off the cuff I would have some reservations. What about tax exemptions on log homes that people sawed into lumber first? In other words, where does it end? There are tax concessions through the homeowner grant, and concessions are made. I don't know that the tax exemptions for log homes.... Since the people are going out in the bush and getting the logs, there is no sales tax on that. But there's still a sales tax for manufactured cupboards that they put in — or plumbing. So if you could convince the Minister of Finance to take one particular type of home and tax exempt it and let the others pay taxes, I think you'd have some problems. Log homes in remote areas are almost tax exempt now. If you include the homeowner's grant and the value of the property, they are just about tax-exempt.

MR. PASSARELL: I live in a log home, Tony.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Vested interest.

MR. PASSARELL: But I already built the log home, so it's not going to get the tax exemption.

Just as a suggestion to you, look at the policy from Vermont. They're in competition.... Vermont has a wood-based industry, just as we do in this province. It was a very difficult situation to get this tax exemption on log homes when the logs were manufactured by forest companies and the individual went and bought 2,000 or 3,000 square feet of logs and built the home. It was difficult because you had vested interests in the other parts of the wood-based economy who came forward and said, "What about frame construction, and what about this and that?"

[11:30]

I'm just suggesting that you look at the policy from Vermont, because they were the forerunners in taking the tax off of log homes. It has worked very effectively in the state of Vermont for a number of years now. I welcome any further statements from the minister, and I appreciate the comments that he's given to me on the issues that I've brought forward from the constituency of Atlin.

MRS. WALLACE: I just have a couple of questions about land, and then several relating to parks in my own constituency. The land questions also relate to my own constituency.

Some years ago — four years ago, I guess it was — this minister's predecessor distributed maps showing the Crown land in part of my constituency. As a result of that I noticed that in one area where there is a forest reserve — that's the Vancouver Island plantation, forest reserve and timber sale harvesting licence — there are a great many very small parcels of land, small subdivisions. I wrote to this minister's predecessor and asked about that, and he wrote back and told me that this was an ancient subdivision that had been established long before. The land had reverted to the Crown for various reasons, and then it had all been put into this forest reserve.

Ancient subdivisions have been a grave concern to people who are concerned about the agricultural land reserve. It is very often on private land, so it's difficult to do anything about it. But I'm wondering why that ancient subdivision has been left in a forest reserve, because it would certainly make a lot more sense if that forest reserve was in one title rather than having all those small parcels there. Forestry is certainly the mainstay of my constituency, and it seems to me to be much more practical for those small parcels of that ancient subdivision to be done away with. I imagine it would be a very simple matter of an order-in-council to get rid of that. If there's that one example in my constituency, I'm wondering how many other instances of that there are, and why the minister doesn't move to consolidate those small parcels that are held by the Crown. Certainly if they're in either forest reserve or in agricultural land reserve, it would make much more sense if they were consolidated under one title. So that's my first question relative to land.

My second question relative to land relates to some correspondence I've had with this minister and his ministry regarding a piece of Crown land for a noise park. We have a lot of problems in Cowichan, which is, as you know, fast becoming a pretty thickly settled piece of territory, and we have a lot of people who want to do a lot of things. They want to fly ultra-lights, they want to have car races, and they want to have motorcycle races. There are a lot of things like that that they want to get involved in. Of course, as soon as they find a place where they can do this, then the neighbours start complaining about the noise. We had this with the shooting range that the fish and wildlife people had at one time — and I don't think that ever was satisfactorily resolved. They looked for a piece of Crown land.

In my correspondence with the minister, it seems to be getting tossed back and forth between the regional district and the ministry. The minister says: "Well, if the regional district will find something, we might consider making it available." And the regional district is saying: "Look, we're so strapped for funds, time and staff that we haven't got time to go out and look." But I know that the minister does have access to some pretty extensive mapping, and surely he could make a couple of suggestions of pieces that might be satisfactory. Perhaps if he could take the initiative in doing that, the regional board would take it up, and we could get somewhere with this business of a noise park. It seems to me like a great idea. I'm sure the people involved in these various sports would be prepared to donate their time, and perhaps even raise some money toward establishing the thing. It's just a case of getting a site to do it. We could consolidate a lot of those noisy activities in a place where it wouldn't affect people who want to spend a quiet afternoon on their back porch or in the swimming pool, or whatever. Those are my two land questions.

Now parks. The Mill Bay park. I've had correspondence about this with the ministry over a number of years. This is a small piece of property which is owned by about five owners, I believe; there are several small parcels. It's adjacent to a piece of highway right-of-way where the old highway used to go, which is a little bit of a dead-end road that doesn't go anywhere. It's a great place for parking, picnic tables, whatever. The beauty of it is that the adjacent property is a stand of first-growth timber — very rare on southern Vancouver Island. Its total size amounts to probably 10 acres; I don't recall it precisely. In addition to that first-growth timber, there is beach access. What I've been asking for over the years is that the government set aside some funds to purchase that and make a roadside eating place with a walk-through — not to drive cars through; it's not that big. A beautiful path through that forest and access down to the water would be an ideal

[ Page 3890 ]

setup. When I talk to the ministry they say: "Well, it's not suitable for a provincial park." When I write back and say, "Well, why isn't it?" they tell me it would be better if it were regional. I don't know why it isn't suitable for a provincial park. Certainly it's more suitable than the little pullout at the side of the road at the Cowichan Bay cutoff, or more suitable than the thing along the railway tracks between the highway and the railway, where we have a little stop-and-rest place. It looks to be such an ideal spot for a park. I don't know what the cost would be, but I don't think it would be that great. I would really like to see the minister make some commitment. He has indicated that he would go fifty-fifty with the regional board. I'd like to see him take some action in doing something about that park, because it's a very rare site there, with that virgin timber and water access right alongside a four-lane highway. There's already a place to pull off and on, parking facilities and so on.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

A little bit south of that we have Bamberton Provincial Park. It seems to me that the load in that park is perhaps not as heavy as in other parks. Therefore I'm a little hesitant to push the minister to do anything about this. But I'm sure the load will grow. There's a small piece of property between the road that goes down to Mill Bay off the highway and the Bamberton park site, which is presently being talked about as a residential subdivision. It's not really a good idea to have residences right up against a park, because the interface causes a bit of a problem. That's the first problem. The other thing is that if that is turned into a residential subdivision, there will be no room for that park to expand in the future. Again, it's not that large an area. It doesn't have quite the priority that the Mill Bay one does, as far as I'm concerned — I'd hate to see those trees go; that beautiful stand of timber is vulnerable. But I'd like the minister to consider that problem at Bamberton.

Gordon Bay Park. For a long time we've been asking for some further expansion of that park. That's the one up by Lake Cowichan — out by Honeymoon Bay, Mesachie Lake way. The story there is that if you want to get in there over the weekend you have to be there Thursday; it's just so overloaded. With the forest industry slump and the problems that the Lake Cowichan area has experienced, tourism certainly has to be the thing that's going to help that area. I would hope the minister could see his way to doing something about increasing that park and making it more usable for the number of people, or else doing something with the property. I understand he already has a park reserve over on the other side of the lake. There is a facility there, but nothing has been done to it, as far as I know. Certainly the last time I was in there nothing had been done to it. If it's too expensive to enlarge Gordon Bay, you have the property on the other side. There is a real need in that area for extra campsites, because there just aren't enough facilities there.

One other that I've often talked about with other ministers — you keep changing, so I have to keep raising it because nothing seems to happen — is the area at Skutz Falls. That's on Cowichan River between Lake Cowichan and Duncan. I think the property belongs to MacMillan Bloedel, but I'm not sure. There are residences in the area. It's used extensively by campers. There is no supervision. There are no facilities, so you can imagine the problems that occur with garbage, waste and so on. Even worse, it's quite an open grassy area, and the grass is never cut. During the summer months it's an extreme fire hazard. It's right on the falls of the river, a beautiful place for a park. I would hope this minister, in conjunction with the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) and MacMillan Bloedel, could work out something to get it as a park so that at least the grass would be cut and there would be some toilet facilities and garbage cans. Perhaps a forestry park. Perhaps MacMillan Bloedel.... I think they are the owners, but I'm not sure. I haven't raised this for a few years in the House, and I don't have the exact file in front of me at the moment. It seems to me that some arrangement could be worked out so that it would not be such a vulnerable spot as far as safety goes. Certainly if a fire did start, the forest land around it would be very vulnerable, so it would seem that a little cooperation between the forest companies that own that forest reserve...the Ministry of Parks, Land and Housing, and the Ministry of Forests should be able to work something out to remove that hazard.

The final one that I would like to talk about is the need for a campsite on the highway in the vicinity of Duncan. It's on the highway. The ideal spot, it seems to me, would be along the Cowichan River. I know that is Indian land, but it was up for lease for some time. I don't know if it's still available. It doesn't need much in the way of facilities, but we do need a spot where people with campers, trailers and motor homes can pull in and camp. It has the advantage of being along the river. There's a beautiful grove of maples there and it's within walking distance of downtown Duncan. Just cross the street and you're into the heart of Duncan — shopping centres and so on. It's an ideal spot and would do a great deal to enhance tourism. It would not be that expensive to put in.

So there's my request for parks. It's quite a shopping list, Mr. Minister. I don't expect to get it all in one year. I've been trying to get most of it for the last ten years, and I don't really have any of it at this point. You're a new minister in this job, and I'm hoping that I will get at least one or two of them this time around.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the parks in this province are a bit of a concern to me, particularly with the government's decision to go ahead and privatize services wherever possible.

The minister might take a trip through the United States, particularly the western United States, and take a look at the state parks. The United States is just as dedicated — if not more so — to "private enterprise" as any other country, particularly Canada and B.C. Maybe the minister and his colleagues have decided that not a good enough job is being done in this province in terms of our provincial parks and the services that one could receive therefrom, but when you compare private parks with, say, state parks in the United States and our well-managed parks here, then I think they're off on a tangent that's totally wrong. Instead of unloading the "burden," what we should be doing is improving the facilities and the service, and attracting people to this beautiful province.

[11:45]

That poor Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) over there is really not producing, but one thing he could get, in terms of production, would be a hand from the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing in making our province a more attractive place for people to come to on holiday, and to enjoy the absolute splendour of this province.

[ Page 3891 ]

I have made comparison after comparison, having been a camper when I was younger and acquiring a motor home or two in the last 10 or 15 years. I have been in a lot of parks and a lot of places where people enjoy the outdoors, recognizing of course that as one gets older one likes a little bit more comfort, so tents don't any longer appeal to me. But I'll tell you, they appeal to a lot of people.

Our parks could be a real tribute, and have been, but I think we are going in exactly the wrong direction when we decide that the campsites should be put in the private domain. I've been in many private parks, and for one thing you don't have...unless it is a very elaborate thing down in some big bay in San Diego or something like that where there are tennis courts and all the kinds of recreation facilities that one could ever dream of. But as for the parks where you can enjoy the outdoors, the forests, the streams, the wildlife and all the rest of it, those parks are better attended to by staff of that ministry. Given an adequate staff, care and preparation for visitors to those parks, they could become so attractive that we could be money ahead. As for paying their way, that's been going on for some time, and I think that people are quite happy to pay their share of the costs of upkeep of the campsite itself. I think that they are very attractive and will become increasingly attractive if the government will get off this kick. I think that a lot of us in this chamber and around this province have come to a conclusion that this government are on an almost religious kick. They are all hyped up by the Fraser Institute, who tell them that government can do nothing right and that only private enterprise can do things right. Well, Lord help us if we depend on private enterprise too much longer, the way they are going with unemployment the way it is and all the rest of our problems.

But I do think that the one place we can use government employees is in this particular area. Who could better serve those peak periods than students? That's what we've been using over the years, and maybe underutilizing the resource. We've got 25 percent of our young people in this province unemployed, and we say let's turn over these concessions to private enterprise. Private enterprise will hire as few as possible and will provide as little service as possible in order to enjoy the highest profits possible. The profit from our beauty and from our natural resource is that people will come there. People will spend their money in this province and thereby enhance the economy of B.C. If at the same time we can employ young people to care for the campsites and parks, so much the better. I am sure that a lot of students would be only too happy to subsidize their own education through working in that kind of environment and climate.

I think it is very important that we get back to earth on this whole question, get to a point where we are saying: "Okay, folks we've got something to offer you." There isn't a more beautiful place in this country, and for that matter there are very few more beautiful places in the world, than British Columbia, with five distinct geographic areas, from desert to almost tundra. It's a very exciting province. I think that to be the stewards of a province like this, we don't leave it to luck. That's what I think we're doing when we talk about privatization of those facilities. The facilities are great, and can be enhanced. If we're going to really husband this resource, then my suggestion is to spend a little money — make them even more attractive. I'm not talking about a lot of money, because you can do it over a period of time. You can do it with not that high a cost in labour. As I said, you can use students. I can remember that a few years ago students were up in these campsites making those marvellous tables that you find there — those heavy fir and cedar tables — making parks a more pleasant place to go, and giving people an opportunity to really enjoy themselves.

One of the things that I've noted is that there are very few public parks that have kept up to the times. For instance, very few of them have motor-home facilities. Maybe the minister can say that that's not pristine; everybody should be there in a tent and that's about the size of it. But there are an awful lot of people in this country, and on this continent, who do have the capacity to move around in that kind of machine. I sure hope that the minister will just take a little trip through Washington and Oregon particularly — and to some extent, California — where you'll find parks that are absolutely beautifully attended, run by the state, places where you feel confident, safe and sound. That's where I think we should be heading, as opposed to reversing what was going on in this province.

One other aspect of the minister's responsibility I'll discuss with him privately some day. But I can't tell you how.... In my case it's just a bit of a burr under my saddle. Four of us own what we always had as recreational property on Skaha Lake. You've heard it described in this House many times. I've gone through the bureaucracy for four years either asking for — you have to go to Highways, your department, two or three other departments, the regional district.... The only people I've been able to deal with are in the regional district. They moved sewers into our area, so it's no longer recreational property; it's very highly taxed now. So we thought, well, 600 feet of beach — we may as well subdivide it into three lots and divide it up among the families. You can't do it. You can't deal with those....

Either you've got Highways stepping on your toes, or your department.... Your department is about 12 months in giving water access rights to the lake for drinking water. That means that Highways has probably filed it into file 13, and I'm going to have to start all over again. No wonder people become angry and dismayed dealing with a number of ministries at the same time. It's almost impossible to do. Anyway, that's just an aside, and someday we might have a chat about it. I think I'm just going to go back and say to hell with the whole thing, just leave it like it is, and that's it. But I can see why people get angry from time to time. It's so easy....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Who's developing it? It's right in a town now. That's not my choice. It's what happened to the population. I've had it since 1960. But anyway, I'm sure that that member over there would just sit back and pay the heavy taxes and sewer rates, and all the rest of it, and be only too happy to do it for nothing.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Well, that's your tough luck. It's not my problem. Listen, just because one is a social democrat, one doesn't have to be stupid.

In any event, Mr. Chairman, getting back once more to the parks, tell your colleagues.... I'm sure, with your experience in the north and your love of the wilderness and so on, that you must have some ideas that go beyond this business of trying to make little businesses here and there, with no particular direction, each going its own way, but not attracting as many people, by far, as we could, if we set things

[ Page 3892 ]

up on a basis like that in the United States — the state park system. Almost everybody who ever goes to them not only appreciates the grandeur of the particular park they're in but also appreciates the fact that they can go from park to park and know exactly what to expect and know exactly what kind of services they're going to have and feel secure. I think that's very important.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Thank you, Mr. Member, for raising some of these questions and giving me the opportunity to straighten out something that may be more implicit than intended. Let me make it plain that we are not talking about private parks. We are not privatizing the parks.

MR. COCKE: No, the facilities. The campsites.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Okay. So what we're talking about is some of the services. We are very proud of the provincial park system. We have some limits on how far we can go, and we think it's important to play our proper role of supervising it. We don't have to haul every load of gravel, we don't have to split every block of wood and bring every bucket of water in ourselves in order to make it a good park. We feel that some of that can be given to others to do, and then we can carry on and improve and expand and devote our efforts to maintaining and improving the provincial park system.

[12:00]

Certainly I've been all over this province as well, and it's a beautiful province. The opportunities are there, and we are trying to devote our efforts to capitalizing on that — not necessarily to send our people to build the road, but to design the road, decide whether it should go in, where it should go and where the campsite should go. Then we can fulfil our function better. I don't think they necessarily haul every load of gravel themselves or do that sort of thing in the state parks in Washington. That's really what we're getting into. I want to make that distinction clear. We're talking about privatizing some of the operational functions that are carried out; we are not talking about privatizing the parks. We've made a strong commitment that these are going to be provincial parks; they're not going to be private parks. For instance, with the campsite program we're looking at where.... Let me give you a classic example. If one of our parks people has to travel 100 miles once a day — travel time to service that park and then come back — and there's a little store right beside it.... Maybe that person we now have — and we're keeping those people — might be better to plan and design and help and supervise and go and check and let somebody else do the day-to-day cleaning of the washrooms and that sort of thing. We can't afford to send that man into that park — I'm using an extreme example — once every day. So we have to send him in once a week. So by letting that store operator there look after that cleaning and make sure the wood is there and making sure all of these things are in place, our person could go up once a week or once a month to supervise and see that it's properly done. I think we could have a better park and a better system. I'm abbreviating, obviously, but it is happening. It can be done, and it has happened in a few places. So we're looking at what can be done.

The member raised the matter of student employment. Yes, we've made effective use out of it through the employment development program, but we have a bit of a problem.

The students would gladly come and work in the parks and build tables and get experience and work for those lower wages, but we can't do that because of contracts and agreements. If we hire them, whether they're part-time or not, they have to be under the same conditions as others. So we're very limited. There is some argument that if we did that, then we would replace people. We think that if we keep our people there to do the supervision and then contract out some of the actual work that needs to be done, these people can hire the students. They're not committed to the same conditions as we are. Of course that argument will never end.

I appreciate the member's concern and interest in our park system and in our beautiful province. Believe me, I share that and would like to devote my efforts and our efforts towards making sure that happens and that there is no deterioration. We think we can do a lot more. Let somebody else operate the ski-tow rope, and we can concentrate our staff and our efforts on maintaining and operating the parks. So I think we're of the same vein, but we have a bit of a misunderstanding there.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm wondering if the minister is going to answer my questions.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Member, you were dealing with a great many local issues, and I suppose if everybody put their shopping list in front here and took the time to do it in the House.... The member raised some interesting points about this little piece of land, and it has beautiful foreshore and some of the nicest trees in the area. Of course it's a very precious part of the Island — foreshore and all of that — but to say that it wouldn't really cost that much.... Our experience indicates that that's pretty high-priced property that you described. There is some difficulty. The member raised the point about why it can't be a suitable provincial park. I think she was emphasizing suitability. Generally the terms of reference of our provincial parks are that they have to be of broader interest rather than just local interest. If it's basically just of local interest, then it's municipal or regional district.... So that's why we try to do that. The member indicated that there was a shopping list of several there. Certainly I can't stand up here in the House and say yes, we're going to do this one, that one and that one on individual items. That's why, I guess, I was not responding. We are doing what we can. We have increased the number of these parks. We've increased campsites. Let's keep the distinction clear between provincial parks and campsites, even though we have provincial campsites. They are quite different; they are day-use facilities.

The other point that the member raised was that there was an area there that was being used by the public. It's owned by somebody and nobody was doing anything about it; the grass wasn't being cut. I think the member realizes the ramifications of.... If we develop a park every place that some people use, and because they're using it we cut the grass, mow the lawn, put in tables and so on, the costs become horrendous. We look at them. We try to see where the greatest needs are. We try to put our limited resources and funds into the areas. I'm not turning it down, but I can't say yes or no on individual items. You can rest assured that we have made notes and will consider them.

MS. SANFORD: It's very difficult for me to know where to raise the issue that relates to the oyster growers in my

[ Page 3893 ]

particular constituency. In part they are covered by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, in part they are covered under marine resources in the Ministry of Environment, and in part they're covered under Lands because it is Lands that issues the leases and so on. It's very confused, but I shall raise it because it relates to land. Right, Mr. Chairman?

I want to express my concern to the minister about the huge increase in the lease fees that took place for the oyster growers. I think the oyster industry is one which we should be encouraging as one that has great potential on our coast, particularly in the Baynes Sound area, which is one of the best areas in the world for oyster culture. I think that if the government is interested in an industry which not only provides excellent nutrition for people but is also labour-intensive, then I don't think they should be discouraging the oyster growers by doubling and, in some cases, I think, tripling the lease fees. That was done fairly recently.

The other thing I would like to raise with the minister is the fact that I think the government should be involved in assisting the oyster growers who are just getting started. Rather than putting on increases in lease fees, they should in fact be making some assistance, some money available, for those who wish to get involved in the industry. It's fairly capital-intensive.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: I can't hear the minister, but I will listen when he gets up to respond to the issue I'm raising.

Mr. Chairman, under the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development we have assistance for some of the people who are getting involved in areas like manufacturing. Part of the reason is that often someone who wants to get started in the business and manufacturing finds that it's very difficult to come up with the kind of capital necessary in order to get the business started. The same thing applies to the oyster industry. If you are, for instance, looking at an off-bottom culture in the oyster industry, then you're looking at a $200,000 to $300,000 investment in lines, rafts and whatever else is required for the off-bottom culture for oyster development. You're also looking at a period of time before you can get any return on that kind of investment. It seems to me that the minister, probably in conjunction with the Minister of Agriculture, or maybe even with the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, should be looking at the possibility of assisting people to get started in this particular industry. It's an important one. It's a valuable one. It's one that provides much-needed nutrition to the people of British Columbia. Of course, it's also important in terms of sales offshore.

If, for instance, you are getting started with the regular lease on a beach, then you're looking at an investment of $70,000 to $80,000. Of course, you have to wait at least three years before you get any return on that investment at all. It seems to me that it's only those people who have a fair amount of cash, a fair amount of capital, who are able to get started as oyster growers in British Columbia, unless the government takes another look at this and comes up with some way, either low-interest loans, deferred payments, or whatever they could come up with that would help people get started in this industry. As it is now, the oyster growers do qualify under the Agricultural Credit Act, which reduces the interest by about 1 percent under prime, as a general rule. But that still means very few people are going to get started in this particular industry unless some additional assistance is forthcoming from government.

In a way I feel that I'm beating my head against the wall this morning, because a request for any additional funds for anything, no matter how valuable, urgent or desirable, is not likely to be met at this time by this government. It doesn't matter whether it makes economic sense in terms of developing a valuable industry; the government is not interested, at this time, in giving any additional assistance. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I'm most alarmed that within the marine resources branch we've seen a 60 percent cut in the personnel, which means that the oyster industry is going to be far worse off than it is now. They're not going to have the staff to look at the problems related to pollution, they're not going to be able to give the kind of advice they have in the past to those people involved in the industry, and they're not going to be able to keep their eye on the kind of utilization these oyster growers are making of the leases they now hold. But I am still going to plead that the government look at the possibility of giving financial assistance to the development of this particular industry. It's a valuable one, one that does not create any environmental damage, and one that will provide us with the basic nutrition many people in our province today are not getting.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The argument the member is making for the oyster growers, I suppose, could be made for any industry: the government should provide the funding so that any new industry can start up. I suppose we've gotten into that in a lot of areas, and — I don't know — we've also gotten badly burned in a lot of areas. The member says that it makes good economic sense. In my experience, things that make good economic sense in themselves often don't need government grants, because the economics will look after it. So what you're saying in effect is that we're not too sure about it. I know there are startup costs, and so on, but there are in any other industry. Good investments are funded by people.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Regarding the lease fees, I know the member talks about doubling, and things like that. We're talking about, say, $50 to $100 per year out of a total operation. The percentage of the total operation of the lease fee is so insignificant, really, that the only reason it comes up is that it's the part that is dealt with by government. All the other costs are dealt with by.... You've got to buy your equipment and supplies and so on somewhere else. So the only part attached to government, in effect, is the lease fee, and it might be a fraction of a percent of the total operation, but if we double it from $25 to $50 that's a 100 percent increase and great things are happening. But I might point out that for the $50 we charge for that fee, it might cost us $300 or $400 to have a person process the application and the lease. Yes, I don't like increased leases, but at least let's put them in perspective.

MR. MITCHELL: There are a couple of issues I would like to close out with. I'm not sure under which vote this would come, so I'm going to do it under the minister's vote. One is the CNR land acquisition — I'm not sure if that should come under the vote for Lands and Housing or the one for parks and outdoor recreation assets acquisition.

[ Page 3894 ]

I have to say that I'm glad the minister did purchase the CNR railway track, but I would like to see him come up with some policies about what this particular piece of property is going to be utilized for. I have no objection to the press release that came out saying that it's a future corridor for transmission or gas lines or for rapid transit. I think I have talked about this nearly every session that I've been back here. It is a unique piece of real estate. It follows very even grade, and it opens a lot of undeveloped land throughout the Western Communities right through to Sooke and up into Deerholme. Since they have removed all the track and ties from the property — it's been cleared out — I really think we have a very good piece of property that can be developed right now not only for hiking trails; I would like to see the minister give some serious consideration to developing it as a bridle path for the horse community. In my area, the Western Communities, in Saanich, the Cowichan Valley and this part of the Island, there is a large investment in horses, both recreational and as a business or professional investment.

[12:15]

At the present time so many of the younger kids are out on the roads with horses. I have one very serious case of a constituent; because of being on the road with the horse she will be in bed for the rest of her life, as she's paralyzed from the neck down. Some places could be made available for access to this site where people could take their horse vans and they could be encouraged to take the horses, get them off the road, get them onto some area where they can travel a fairly long distance. Not only is it going to give a recreational value to that group, but it is going to save money from health expenses; it's going to save a lot of problems from the traffic and ICBC costs. I ask the minister to give it some serious consideration. It's not a frill; I think it's a long-term investment, and it's going to serve a group of people who are spending a lot of money in our community. The funny part about it — the more I dig into it — I was quite surprised to find that horses are not classed in the agricultural community; they are classed somewhere in the recreation lifestyle. You can't enter them into an agricultural fair; horses are not part of it, which I found quite surprising.

The second issue I would like to bring to the minister's attention.... I brought it up yesterday, and somewhere in the crossfire debate among certain members of the House the minister failed to answer the question I brought up on what the minister is going to do about the access to Crown lease land and the amendments that were brought into the Trespass Act. Now I know we can go into all the debates that have taken place outside this House between the Cattlemen's Association and the outdoors recreation groups. We can go into the legal interpretations of what a lease is and what a Crown grazing lease is. There has to be some answer; we can't keep hiding behind this no action. The minister, under a certain amount of political pressure, did bring in the amendments to the Trespass Act. The thing that bothered me most was that it was limited to those with a hunting or fishing licence, and I still say that is wrong. But we get into the other legal arguments: what is a lease? I know the legal fraternity will go on and on, and decisions have to be made.

There is a feeling out in the community that there is a stronger lobby group within the Cattlemen's Association who don't want any access to their leases. I don't think we can afford this so-called range-war attitude. If there are leases that are needed for grazing, then let's protect them, but if there are unused, Crown-granted grazing leases that are not being used, then access to those or across those to other Crown land must be preserved. I say that the minister has had numerous meetings with numerous groups. There seems to be out in the community the belief that there may be a stronger lobby group.... I guess the cattle-ranching community feel that all the recreationists, hunters and fishermen are another strong lobby group. But I think the minister has to make some statement on it. I'll ask him again not to hide this time and miss it, not answer it. Give some statement on what he is going to do with the amendments to the Trespass Act and to the development or future use of the CNR land.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'll answer briefly on the corridor, which we recognize as a valuable corridor. We have said that rather than designate the use now, we're going to study it and analyze it, and we welcome any suggestions. So certainly I'll seriously consider your suggestion. If you say, "Horse trails only and forget everything else," that puts me in a difficult position. But I'll consider your suggestion, by all means. Put it in writing and send it in. I can read it faster than I can hear it on many occasions, and perhaps deal with it.

As for the grazing leases, honestly, the more I've gotten into this, the more I feel that.... It reminds me of the story of: "We think we have found the answer. Does anybody remember the question?" There was no problem. People were getting along until we got into it in this House and in various other ways, and started throwing flack at one another. There was the odd issue where two people had a disagreement, and it was resolved at that level. I've checked with the Lands and Parks ministry, the Environment ministry, and how many problems have been reported in the two ministries in two years? Thirty incidents, and all of them have been resolved. However, somebody wants it to be solved in principle. I met with the various parties last December in Penticton and found that the disagreements at the principle level are the same. I asked, where does it happen, where is it a problem, and I couldn't get too much on that. I put together a consensus of what I saw had come out of the meeting, sent it out to them and said, please respond. I got the last response just recently, so I'm looking at it to see if out of that there is some answer. If we go in the usual way perhaps we will create another piece of legislation — maybe an 86-page bill — to resolve a problem that doesn't exist unless we make it into one.

So I am working on it. I hope we can resolve it by negotiation, rather than by an 86-page bill.

MR. MITCHELL: No, I don't want another 86-page bill at all. I believe the public's impression is that these 21-year leases are new and give certain people additional rights that weren't in previous leases. They designated that the only access was through trails that were in existence, and roads.... It specified a lot more detail than what took place under previous leases.

On the CNR right-of-way, I am not interested in it solely for parks, horse trails or anything else. But I think that could be one of its uses at the present time.

One thing that I missed, just going over my notes on the CNR right-of-way, is that I know there is going to be a lot of pressure to buy sections of the right-of-way to give access to some of the unserviced areas. I would like it on the record that I'm opposed to any sale of any part of that right-of-way. It's not that wide. If you ever start selling a piece here and a piece

[ Page 3895 ]

there, when we do come into looking at rapid transit....

It's within the next 20 to 30 years that there will be a great need for that, especially out to the Sooke area. I'm continually getting requests from various people who want to buy 100 feet of it so they can get into the back area of their yard. I don't think any of that corridor should be released. It should be considered as one complete corridor.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We agree.

MR. MITCHELL: Okay. You're going to get a lot of pressure. I'm always getting the pressure about buying bits and pieces of it, which is wrong.

Those are my main questions. We're not trying to create a problem. But you know, you've created the problem with the new leases. It wasn't the public. That idea got out and that's what generated it. Let's get it straightened out so there won't be problems, and so people like myself can go across a piece of property and not have to have a hunting licence. Sometimes I like to go backpacking.

MR. BLENCOE: I want to change topics and talk a little bit about housing and the minister's responsibility in that area. Today I will deal with policy and conceptual considerations around housing. I will wait till vote 48 comes up for specific details — probably at the beginning of next week. There are some areas of concern that should be attended to in that particular area.

I want to very briefly talk about some policy ideas about housing, and the minister may or may not wish to respond. It is quite clear that the government's direction in many areas is one of removing itself from public involvement in a number of categories that government has been involved in, and one appears to be more and more removal from the housing component.

Our policy in the housing area is very clear. It is based on a belief that governments do need to be involved in assisting to make sure that affordable housing is available to those people in our society who would not otherwise be able to enjoy that basic right. We have over time — in this House and outside this House — put forward some basic policy ideas. I would like to very briefly go over them this morning and talk a little bit about future policy. I am not necessarily going to get much agreement from the government, but I think it is useful to talk about ideas for the future.

We have been waiting for some time now — eight years, I believe — to see something that the Legislature in 1975 unanimously endorsed. The Savings and Trust Corporation of B.C. Act was passed unanimously in this House, and we would like to see it proclaimed. It would enable government to expand what is a very minimal mortgage assistance plan which is now in existence — or I believe is in existence — with particular emphasis on assisting people to get into their first homes. In today's climate, it would also enable people to maintain homes that they are now faced with losing because of still reasonably high interest rates. Of course, we read in the newspaper this morning that those rates are once again starting to climb. This morning the House Leader introduced a section 35 on that particular topic.

[12:30]

We believe that there should be serious consideration given the B.C. government to assisting mortgage payments through the Savings and Trust Corporation of B.C. This corporation can borrow funds on the international money market at rates far below those available to private citizens, and the savings then could be passed on to individual home buyers. For instance, let's just take a.... I'm not saying that we necessarily do it. Obviously the figures have to be discussed. But let's say there was $100 million available through the B.C. savings and trust act and ancillary services behind that for low-interest mortgages. It could provide for the construction of about 1,500 additional housing units and would probably create around 1,200 or 1,300 jobs. In addition, if appropriate safeguards were developed at the start of such a program, it would stimulate our depressed forest industry. We all know there are indeed some problems there. There would be some stimulation through the purchase of B.C. building materials. I know this government and this minister will probably come up and say no, they're not going to do it. But I think there is a role.... This House did unanimously support that concept of a B.C. savings and trust act. Hopefully, the government will consider looking at that seriously in the future.

Another area of policy we would like the government to take a look at is establishing, in full consultation with local governments, a very comprehensive land-banking policy designed to make sure that serviced land comes onto the market in a regular and orderly fashion, avoiding the kind of boom-and-bust patterns that we have experienced over the years. I'm sure the minister is quite well aware of that kind of boom-and-bust cycle in housing — we go through crises, it drops off and then it goes up again. I think there has to be a far more comprehensive land-banking policy that can control that kind of boom-and-bust mentality that we tend to get into every two or three years. Such a land-assembly and land-banking proposal is not particularly unique and not particularly revolutionary, and it is done in many jurisdictions by all governments of all political persuasions. It's sensible, it's long-range planning, it's commonsense. I think a far more extended, comprehensive kind of land-banking policy should be looked at in the province of British Columbia. I believe that kind of policy still exists in Prince George, which has become quite well known for that kind of policy. It is also an ongoing kind of program in cities in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Another area which I know the minister won't agree on, because they sold it off.... Again, it's part of that boom-and-bust cycle that we do get into housing crises, and the experts say that in about six months to a year from now we are going to be in another housing crisis. We believe that it really does require that government — along with the private sector, working in a linked kind of fashion — plan long-range strategies to avoid that kind of cycle. It's part of that kind of boom-and-bust syndrome that we always.... When we have a crisis, we firefight and introduce emergency programs, and then we let them drop when that cycle drops. Another area would be the re-establishment of a British Columbia housing corporation so we would no longer be the only province in Canada without such a vehicle to coordinate housing policies. The primary objective of that housing corporation would be to ensure that sufficient social housing existed to meet the needs of that significant group in our society which is unable to afford market housing without some form of assistance. We believe that some kind of public support is obviously essential and should, in some cases, be given directly to the individuals requiring special affordable housing. For others it could be direct support in the actual

[ Page 3896 ]

construction, the actual building. But often a combination of the two may be the best way to go.

MR. BARNES: Right on!

MR. BLENCOE: Good to see you.

MR. BARNES: Good to see you.

MR. BLENCOE: Good to see you. It's Friday.

What I'm trying to say, Mr. Minister — and I've said it in other speeches about other issues — is that it's not necessarily one or the other. I think it's a combination of looking at the individual to see if they need support and looking at a particular kind of project that could be helped in direct assistance. Also, I think, a good example of a local housing corporation that is working, but cannot always do as much as a provincial one could do, is the one operating here in the Capital Regional District, working directly with the private sector. The federal funds are coming in. Unfortunately, provincial support has been minimal, but I have to add that the provincial government was supportive of establishing that corporation, and I congratulate them. You weren't minister at the time, I don't believe, but there was support in principle. Unfortunately, in terms of financial support, I don't believe there was any. But that corporation here — somewhat limited because it doesn't have a provincial, global kind of resource behind it — can do some things on a local level, and it's working with the private sector. It's a linkage kind of package.

What I'm saying, again, is that in the housing area government can facilitate work with the private sector. I think the housing corporation could work closely with the private sector. The one here in Victoria.... The funds come in, but the private sector is the one which actually does the construction of that housing. So what you have is affordable housing for those who require it, you have construction for the private sector, and you have jobs being created locally. It's a unique way of bringing together those too often diverse groups, it would seem, the public and the private sectors. I think that's a direction in which we have to go. I guess it's a moderation in philosophy, but one that I think takes into consideration the times we're living in. The private sector is in some trouble, but that doesn't mean to say the public sector should remove itself totally from a social responsibility and, I think, a responsibility in terms of being involved in the housing sector.

I also would say that we would definitely consider a full-time Ministry of Housing. I don't think it's necessarily.... I know the minister has a tremendous job to do to take care of all the various portfolios he has, and I'm not saying you necessarily do a bad job, Mr. Minister. But I happen to feel that there are certain essential ingredients in a progressive and civilized society — food, clothing and shelter — and I happen to feel, and I think our party feels....

AN HON. MEMBER: Parks.

MR. BLENCOE: We're on housing now. I've moved on to housing; I've left the parks. We're into greener pastures, if you will.

Housing is an essential component of society, and I think it is worth having a ministry around that particular department. I think perhaps it would lessen some of the load on that minister, who is trying to look after four portfolios. It would be something for the future — perhaps when things improve slightly in the province of British Columbia.

Also a controversial area, but I think one we should be discussing in this Legislature, is the whole question of non-Canadian resident speculation in B.C. land and housing. Again I say it is controversial, but as a party we happen to believe that if you don't control your own destiny in terms of who owns your land and who owns your buildings and, if you permit mass speculation by offshore interests, it does create some instability. I know there are now a number of major real estate firms in British Columbia that are making trips to Hong Kong, for instance, looking for those millions and millions of spare dollars to buy up masses of huge parts of British Columbia lands — and of course, they now want to go into the residential area.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: They haven't made a boat big enough to take it away.

MR. BLENCOE: I think it's a discussion topic, Mr. Minister. It's something we should take a look at. I'm not quite so sure — because we have some problems in this province — that we should be saying that we want to sell everything off or ask offshore interests to come here and speculate in the real estate market. Our own British Columbian families see the speculation prices force their homes up when there are thousands of British Columbians who can't afford to buy their first home. I don't think we should be subjected to that Hong Kong or offshore kind of speculation that will detract from our own people being able to purchase their own homes. Offshore interests jack the prices of houses up. It's an issue. We should discuss it. We don't have enough time to do it today, but I think it's something we may want to get into a little later.

These are just a brief outline of some policy ideas and general concepts that I think perhaps in the year ahead we can have a little discussion about — healthy debate — and maybe we might find some middle ground on these issues. I think that's what people want in this province of British Columbia. They want some middle ground achieved, and they want some resolution to some of these important problems that we face. It's not who is right, Mr. Minister; it's what is right. I think what is right in terms of housing is the fact that housing is a basic component of a progressive and civilized society. There are thousands of British Columbians who can't afford to rent at high market prices, and because of that offshore thing that's happening, the speculation is going to have a major impact on the cost of housing.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I believe a little more work needs to be done in the area of senior citizen housing. I think there should be further infusion of money into capital grants which would facilitate further construction and accommodate British Columbia pioneers. There are huge waiting lists in that particular area. I think it's something that should be addressed.

I want to touch very quickly on an area that may not necessarily be the direct responsibility of the minister. Perhaps he should be talking to the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Rogers) about this: the whole question of retrofitting and trying to save money, particularly for those who are on lower income. Unfortunately the Minister of Energy has removed

[ Page 3897 ]

himself from the program — from energy conservation, basically. I think it's something that the minister should take up with his colleague.

I'll just give you some quick statistics. The latest statistics indicate that home remodelling expenditure amounted to $6 billion, or 41 percent of the total housing expenditure. If we applied a measure of a housing start as equivalent to $50,000 of labour and materials, we could say that remodelling was equivalent to approximately 120,000 housing starts in the province of British Columbia. That's an area that we should be taking a look at. There are great savings in those areas. If we transferred those savings, we could be seeing some further housing starts — the ripple effect. This area is of particular concern, of course, to poor people in British Columbia, who pay more to heat their homes than do the more affluent. As the minister responsible for housing, it's something he may want to consider: that maybe we can reactivate that particular thing. It's short-sighted to remove ourselves from the energy conservation area, especially in the retrofitting area. Maybe the minister could do a quick response to some of those thoughts.

[12:45]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think I can do a very quick response. Our policy is to get the best and the most accommodation for the most people at the best value. In that sense we may or may not agree. We'll certainly consider all of the suggestions the member has made, as wrong as many of them are, and as expensive as they are. But we'll certainly consider them seriously.

MR. BLENCOE: Given that the minister is not going to be here next week, I believe, I would like to quickly try to cover some other issues to accommodate him. It's unfortunate that we're a little bit rushed on it, because I think this is an area that does deserve a little more attention. I will then go into some specifics — time permitting — in your particular ministry operations, Mr. Minister, and perhaps you could answer very quickly.

In your Lands and Housing section, B.C. housing grants have been dramatically reduced. In 1982-83 there was $12 million in B.C. housing grants. I believe they went to seniors' housing, non-profit corporations and assisted rental programs. In 1983-84 it dropped to $7 million. In 1984-85 you're reducing that to $2,892,000. That is a 63 percent reduction since fiscal year 1982-83. My question is: where are those cuts going to impact? Is it going to be the seniors, the non-profit, or the assisted rental program? A quick question.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Most of that comes from stopping the first buyer's grant program — that $1,000 or $2,500. That was an expensive program. Second mortgages are now available up to the $85,000 limit, so affordable housing is still available. The removal of that buyer's grant did not seem to stop the purchase of homes. As a matter of fact, the purchase of homes went up.

MR. BLENCOE: There are a number of questions relating to that which I could expand upon, and perhaps I will get an opportunity at another time.

There is a section about the B.C. Housing Management Commission. I'd like to know the minister's rationale leading to the total elimination of the community services branch of the BCHMC. This division of the housing corporation previously employed four persons in Vancouver, one in Victoria, one in northern B.C. My understanding is that basically the branch was responsible for relations between the commission, residents and the community. It was particularly active in minimizing the number of evictions related to rent problems, which, as you know, there often are in this particular area. Now that has been removed, and that kind of problem is increased. In addition, it assisted tenants in accessing other social programs, and organized funding, of tenant community activities. The result of the elimination of the community services branch has been a greater reliance on the public housing tenants' association. They're going to have to do a lot more of this work themselves, when they do not have much support to do that. Can you give me the rationale for eliminating the community services program?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I can. Basically, equivalent services were being provided elsewhere. There was a lot of duplication. We do feel that the public relations and management is a function of the managers who run the programs. It's a true management function.

MR. BLENCOE: A direct question, Mr. Chairman, to the minister: how many housing managers and live-in caretakers have been laid off? For example, Sunset Towers, a seniors' complex with 503 units, previously had a full-time live-in caretaker. In the past few months this position was cut back to 1.5 days per week, and finally eliminated altogether. The only caretaking facility available is a phone number on a notice board that tenants can call if necessary. Cutbacks of resident staff is particularly critical in seniors' complexes. If there is an area that perhaps we can agree on in terms of trying to improve, it's this particular caretaking and senior citizens' complex, and I just gave you one, Perhaps you could comment on that, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We have laid off none. By attrition we have achieved about a 25-percent reduction in that total staff area.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I've got one future consideration for the minister. It's something that concerns the Vancouver city council. As you may be aware, the Vancouver city council has voted to ask the provincial and federal governments to assist them in the provision of approximately 4,000 units of low-cost housing in the vicinity of Expo 86 — B.C. Place. A very direct question: what consideration is the minister giving to this request?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Very little, because we're not involved in the Expo site. That's a separate section out of my ministry. I'm certainly willing to answer any other questions on specifics in question period at any time.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, you are the Housing minister — I assume, Mr. Minister, that will you have some role as the minister responsible for, housing. That was a somewhat obscure kind of answer.

Maybe the minister can answer this question: what happened to the often promised B.C. Place housing scheme, which I'm sure you know about? This was supposed to provide a reduction of mortgage payments of 35 percent of

[ Page 3898 ]

income and make living at B.C. Place possible for the average middle-income family. It has been promised repeatedly by this government. Does the minister have any insight into that particular promise, which has yet to be met?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I believe that was proposed. It was not promised by the government. It was a proposal for another way to go which hasn't been accepted.

Vote 47 approved.

Vote 48: ministry operations, $59,589,082 — approved.

Vote 49: ministry enterprises, $10 — approved.

Vote 50: British Columbia home program, $10 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, earlier today the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) sought, pursuant to standing order 35, to move adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of urgent public importance — namely, an increase yesterday in the bank rate. The matter of a sudden and dramatic increase in the bank rate might well qualify under standing order 35 but for the fact that administrative responsibility of the provincial government is not involved. Another authority, namely the federal government, has responsibility for the Canadian banking system. Reference would be May, sixteenth edition page 373.

The Chair further observes that had the matter of increased bank rates otherwise qualified, the hon. member's application would have failed in any event, as argument was improperly injected in the statement made by him. May, sixteenth edition, page 370.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:55 p.m.