[ Page 6335 ]

CONTENTS

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 45). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 6335

Oral Questions

Japanese drift-net salmon fishery. Mr. Hanson 6335

Respect for the law. Mr. Reynolds –– 6335

Fair wages legislation. Mr. Reynolds –– 6336

Mr. Skelly

Export of fresh water. Mr. Lockstead –– 6336

Timber appraisal. Mr. Williams. –– 6336

Social assistance rates. Mr. Barnes –– 6337

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985 (Bill 42). Hon. Mr. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 6337

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

Brummet)

On vote 53: minister's office –– 6337

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. MacWilliam

Mr. Williams

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Passarell

Mrs. Dailly

THURSDAY, MAY 30, 1985

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Among the visitors in the gallery today is a gentleman who has been in meetings with representatives of the Ministry of Finance through the day. I wonder if the House would welcome Mr. Mitsuaki Yahagi, associate director of Japan Centre for International Finance in Tokyo.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to introduce my second cousins from Scarborough, Ontario: Ben and Marie Bower. They are in your gallery this afternoon, and I wish the House would make them welcome.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I would like the assembly today to welcome the mayor of Prince George, Elmer Mercier, who's sitting in the members' gallery.

MR. MICHAEL: I'd like the House to make welcome another guest in the House today: the mayor of the city of Vernon, Lyall Hanson.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the assembly to welcome 35 students from the Zion Lutheran elementary school in sunny Cloverdale, home of the world famous Cloverdale Rodeo. Would the assembly make them welcome, please.

Introduction of Bills

FINANCE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1985.

Bill 45 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

JAPANESE DRIFT-NET SALMON FISHERY

MR. HANSON: In the absence of the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton) with his responsibility for fisheries, I wish to direct a question to the Premier. The United States government is holding bilateral talks with Japan this week and again next Tuesday in Seattle to reduce the high volume of Alaska salmon, approximately 12 million pounds, intercepted by the Japanese high-seas drift-net fishery.

Despite being a signatory to the international North Pacific Fisheries Convention with Japan and the U.S., our government has declined an opportunity to pursue a similar reduction in the interception of B.C. salmon by the Japanese drift-net fleet. My question is: what steps has the provincial government taken to pressure their federal counterpart to amend the 1952 treaty with Japan and the United States to protect millions of pounds of B.C. chum, chinook and steelhead salmon now taken by the Japanese? Will the Premier demand that Canada participate in next Tuesday's meeting?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Inasmuch as any discussions would take place with our Ministry of Environment, I'll take the question on notice for the minister.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, a new question. As the Premier is aware, surely, the technology of high-seas drift-net fishing as practised by Japan, Korea and Taiwan is extremely destructive, killing many species of fish, porpoises, whales, seals and seabirds. It is closer to deep-sea strip mining than fishing. Every night these nations set more than 3,000 miles of drift-net in the North Pacific....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. HANSON: My question, Mr. Speaker: what steps has the B.C. government taken to pressure the federal government to include other Asian nations in the North Pacific treaty and to regulate the drift fishing more carefully?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Again, Mr. Speaker, any discussions that took place between the federal and provincial governments would be through the Ministry of Environment. The minister is not here, and I will take this question and any other questions that follow the same line as notice.

MR. HANSON: A new question, Mr. Speaker. I am assuming that the Premier is the leader of the government and is aware of the general policy directions of this government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, this is question period, and the member must state a question at some point.

MR. HANSON: My new question, Mr. Speaker, is: the Premier will visit Japan and Korea next month. Has the Premier decided to include on his agenda talks with these governments on including them in the treaty in protecting B.C. salmon?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, my trip is trade-related, to do with specific industries, and no meetings such as this have been scheduled. However, ministers from the government in conjunction with their federal counterparts make trips of this nature from time to time, and I'm sure the Minister of the Environment would respond as to whether he has prepared with the federal government to hold any such discussions.

RESPECT FOR THE LAW

MR. REYNOLDS: I have a question for the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith). I asked him a question yesterday with regard to statements made by the Leader of the Opposition. I would like to quote that statement again. He is quoted as saying: "Because the principle of democracy is not simply respect for the law. It is based on respect for the law but not blind obedience to bad laws." Can the Attorney-General advise this House if it is an offence under the Criminal Code to advocate disobedience to bad laws in this province?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, having received this question, I tried to trace the source of the quotation, and I looked to see whether in fact it was a speech made in Nicaragua or whether it was made in Vancouver. But I guess I

[ Page 6336 ]

would first of all say that it probably was a remark reported out of context, because he is quoted to have said in the Times-Colonist: "Because the principle of democracy is not simply respect for the law. It's based on respect for the law but not blind obedience to bad laws."

The answer to the member's question would be no, it's not a criminal offence, however reprehensible it might be to advocate the disobedience of laws. It is not a criminal offence. If it was a counsel to advocate the change of government by force, it would be seditious; if it was to counsel the disobedience of an order of the court, it would be contrary to the Criminal Code. But even if correctly quoted, the statement does not offend the criminal law.

FAIR WAGES LEGISLATION

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, another question for the Attorney-General with regard to the NDP farm team on the city council in Vancouver: can the minister advise, in view of the action taken by that council on the fair wage on contractors bidding for contracts...? To protect the taxpayers of Vancouver, has the Attorney-General looked into this action taken by this council in view of the Charter of Rights of Canada?

[2:15]

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I have not, Mr. Speaker, but I will look at that from the standpoint of the equality section of the Charter of Rights to see whether or not in fact it would amount to a discrimination against a class or group of persons by reason of their not being members or being members of that class. I would certainly look at that. But I would think that my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) might be interested in the policy from a different standpoint.

MR. SKELLY: Supplementary. Has the Attorney-General considered repealing the B.C. fair wages legislation, which is very similar to that passed in Vancouver?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I haven't given that consideration, but most certainly that would be another representation that the member could make to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty).

EXPORT OF FRESH WATER

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. On May 15, 1985, the minister issued licence of occupation No. 232354 to Coast Mountain Aquasources. Will the minister confirm that the purpose and effect of this lease is to export fresh water from British Columbia by tanker from the Freil Lake Falls near Jervis Inlet?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Not having an infallible memory or remembering all of these leases by number, I would like to take the question as notice. I can bring back the correct information.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: To the same minister, a new question. In view of the strong position of the local citizens, the Sunshine Coast Regional District, several local organizations, myself and many other people living in the area who opposed the issuance of this lease, why did the minister issue this licence in secret, without the benefit of public hearings?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Again, when I bring back the other information I will be able to answer the rest of the member's question.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, a new question to the same minister. In view of the local tourism industry and the rapidly growing mariculture and aquaculture industry in the area, has the minister decided to table the environmental studies he has conducted into the possible effects of this operation? Have there been any studies, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Again, I will try to bring back to the member a complete answer on the whole issue when I respond to the first part.

TIMBER APPRAISAL

MR. WILLIAMS: A question to the Minister of International Trade and Investment. With respect to the group of congressmen who were in Vancouver earlier this week meeting with the Council of Forest Industries and others on the question of more protection in preventing our lumber from crossing the border, and their concern about empirical evidence that suggests we underprice our timber by our stumpage methods, and in view of the fact that the Ministry of Forests is considering even more beneficial systems for the companies, has the minister asked the other minister to forgo the decision with respect to changing our valuation system as the companies have requested in view of these problems that are on the horizon?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, I'd have to advise him that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) and I have consultations almost daily on a number of issues. I thank the member for being so concerned.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's my understanding that the new system, which will be more beneficial for the companies and more threatening for British Columbia as exporters, in fact is in the works and is scheduled for October of this year, despite the minister's earlier statements. In view of your many consultations, have you convinced the minister to change his mind with respect to that?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Again, I appreciate the member's question and your concern and state that the Minister of Forests and I have many consultations over a wide variety of subjects relating to the forest industry, international trade and a number of other issues. I would hope that we will continue to have that cooperation that has existed among all cabinet ministers on this side. I appreciate your question.

MR. WILLIAMS: And I appreciate the answer. But the crux of the matter is: our low-price stumpage system, a new one designed by industry, threatens us in terms of the American border more than ever. Does the minister take that seriously? Has he urged the minister to stop forthwith the decision with respect to a new system more beneficial to industry which is to be in place in October of this year?

[ Page 6337 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, I would like to say that both the Minister of Forests and I, and all our cabinet colleagues, are concerned about international trade, and we're concerned about investment. That is why we were so happy when the federal government turned FIRA, an agency against investment in Canada — which was supported by the NDP caucus in Ottawa and the NDP opposite in this House.... We were chastised for bringing in foreign investment. That's why we were so pleased when the new federal government changed the Foreign Investment Review Act and turned FIRA into Investment Canada. My colleague the Minister of Forests and I have had many consultations on that very subject.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE RATES

MR. BARNES: A question to the Minister of Human Resources. During this month of May more than 14,000 bags of groceries have been given to needy people in the lower mainland; 85 percent are registered with your ministry on social assistance. Hundreds more were turned away, after hours of waiting in line, when the food ran out. Donor generosity and the help of volunteers has been outstanding. But does the minister realize that social assistance rates are deplorably inadequate for even the barest of accommodation and diet?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the member has said in the preamble to his question, I understand that figures are not kept as to whether or not the recipients are income assistance recipients or not. The efforts of the food bank organizations, which are voluntary efforts.... Those records are kept by them. We have no knowledge of them. However, I am told by others that no record is kept. But it is totally a voluntary organization and one I cannot respond to, because it does not come under the aegis of the provincial government or my ministry.

MR. BARNES: I would suggest to the minister that whether it's 85 percent, 50 percent or even 10 percent, those rates are nonetheless inadequate. I wonder if the minister has considered reassessing the effectiveness of the rates in light of the fact they have been frozen for the past three years.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, in order to assist those people who have come to us in need during a very difficult recession, we are spending more today on income assistance than we have ever spent on income assistance. I might say that people who come to us in need are given the assistance consistently.

Introduction of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1985

Hon. Mr. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985.

Bill 42 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
LANDS, PARKS AND HOUSING

On vote 53: minister's office, $195,365.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like to make a few remarks before we get into the detailed analysis of the estimates. I'm certainly pleased to present these estimates to the House for the 1985-86 fiscal year.

I would like to indicate that the focus of our budget for this coming year is on increasing, wherever we can, the business opportunities which will enable the private sector to produce more jobs in the province in support of the government's economic renewal drive. In our parks we are expanding private sector opportunities to provide visitor services; we are, of course, retaining ownership and control of the parks. We are inviting the business community to come forward with proposals for the productive use of Crown land, and in the housing areas we intend to increase private sector competitiveness to provide both regular and subsidized housing. Last year the ministry successfully privatized three ski hills, released the UEL golf course, and contracted with the private sector to provide all the services in 60 parks, in addition to awarding 75 contracts for the private sector to provide a variety of specific services in other parks. The level of services provided was consistently high, with a cost saving of about 30 percent achieved through these measures.

During the coming year we intend to increase the number of parks that will be totally serviced by the private sector. This will result in new jobs being created, especially in the smaller communities located near the more remote provincial parks. With that type of service we can get better service and maintenance in those smaller parks. We are retaining the operations in the larger parks ourselves.

To ensure our parks are well equipped to handle the anticipated inflow of visitors during 1986, we're proposing to double the amount of money spent on park maintenance as compared with 1984. These funds will be spent on renovating buildings, upgrading water systems, repairing trails and bridges, grading and resurfacing roads and improving existing facilities for boaters and canoeists to meet the increasing popularity of water-oriented recreation in our parks. To fund this increased capital maintenance program, $3.8 million has been allocated in our vote, and Treasury Board has approved an extra $3 million from the Crown land account.

I'm also pleased to advise the House that for the first time in many years $3 million has been allocated to develop new facilities. These funds will come from the Crown land account and will be used in those parks where visitor demand is heaviest. It will also help to keep more British Columbians vacationing in the province, as well as attracting visitors coming to British Columbia.

All of these plans reflect the government's commitment to our provincial parks not only to meet the recreational needs of our own growing population but as a magnet to attract visitors to our province. We expect these expanded facilities will play a significant role in the economic growth of the province's tourist industry. I believe the time has now come to progressively promote our parks — their incredible scenic

[ Page 6338 ]

and recreational opportunities, which I think are unsurpassed anywhere in the world.

With the international focus in 1986 on Expo, there's no better time for us to promote our parks as part of our contribution to the economic goals of this government. My staff are working closely with the Ministry of Tourism to develop a promotional program for our parks which will be integrated with Tourism's overall marketing strategy for the province as a whole. The promotion will be aimed at increasing the level of awareness among British Columbians about the diversity of things to do and see in our parks. In this way we are hoping to convert all British Columbians into potential salesmen for their province and their parks.

I know there may be some criticisms about an imperfect system, but I would hope that all British Columbians, including the members of the opposition, would help us to promote our parks for the wonderful recreational values that they present. Recent studies have indicated that about 40 percent of the visitors to the province are coming to stay with friends and families residing here, so by turning our British Columbians into salesmen for our parks we expect them to encourage their visitors to stay a little longer and to enjoy these amenities.

Turning to the Housing area, the home ownership market appears to have stabilized over the past year. Prices are down and interest rates have moderated, as everyone is aware. This is particularly gratifying to me. When we introduced the B.C. home program three years ago, interest rates were high and the program was introduced to help people with their mortgage payments over those difficult times. This program has paid out over $95 million to some 52,000 home buyers so that they could afford to keep their homes. Obviously that was a lifeline to those people.

We are also currently processing about 500 applications a month for the B.C. second mortgage program — up to $10,000 on moderately priced homes. This program will continue. I'm sure the House will be pleased to know that it is now completely self-funded through repayments of earlier mortgages. This program is particularly useful in smaller communities where adequate financing may not always be available. We are proposing to fund 200 housing units for senior citizens, to be constructed primarily in smaller communities over the next year or two. This construction activity is expected to result in about 210 man-years of private sector employment and, of course, will provide good facilities for the seniors where the need is the greatest.

[2:30]

Housing for seniors will also be encouraged during the year by the private sector, where there are opportunities to make land available for construction of seniors projects. My ministry will be providing society with examples of how this can be achieved without the need of government intervention or subsidies.

In addition to the seniors program, we intend to fund about 150 units of housing for the disabled this year to continue our efforts towards independent living in their own communities for this needy group of people.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I want to take the opportunity to give public recognition to those members of my ministry who worked so diligently and creatively last year to ensure that people being relocated from the Tranquille institution had homes to go to in their own communities, and that this was achieved with a minimum of disruption to those being relocated.

My ministry is continuing its efforts to ensure that social housing is well targeted and cost-effective. Federal-provincial negotiations are continuing, to ensure that housing affordability problems are addressed through income support, reserving a supply of subsidized housing for those with the combined problems of affordability and housing adequacy, such as seniors and the disabled. Our concern to ensure a supply of serviced residential land remains, but we have found that this goal can be achieved by the private sector with less government intervention.

The ministry is now engaged in a review of its pricing policies for Crown land and the methods used for determining land values in order to establish appropriate rents. New rental rates and purchasing prices have recently been announced to help agricultural leaseholders complete the development and purchase of farmland. We have announced a new policy which is a more rational basis for assessing lease and rental fees to marinas and fishing and tourist resorts. We have managed to simplify dramatically the trapline licence and trapline cabins, and we have rationalized and put out new policy for the oil and gas lease fees which has been well accepted by the industry. The intent of the reviews is to ensure that a fair return to the Crown for the use of public land complements the development and the expansion of business opportunities for Crown land.

I'm sure that there will be some questions, and I'd be very pleased to provide that information as the estimate debate continues here, Mr. Chairman. I'd just like to say that in our Crown land disposition program we anticipate disposition of about 2,500 parcels of land to individuals and corporations in British Columbia for industrial, commercial, agricultural and recreational uses. One of our emphases these last couple of years has been to simplify and expedite land dispositions in the province, and I think we are achieving some results.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the members of my ministry for the excellent support that they are providing to make new policies work and to assist us in expediting land or dealing with problems and in providing new land dispositions. My assistant deputy minister, Mr. Andrew Armitage, will be here to assist me, and hopefully we can answer any of the questions that members may have.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I think what I would like to put on the record to begin with.... I think it's not your fault and it's not the minister's fault; I think somewhere along the line it is the House Leaders' fault that they consider the debate in this Legislature in such an offhanded manner that this morning we had three ministries that our caucus was informed were going to be coming up for debate, and at 11 o'clock I was told that Lands, Parks and Housing was coming up in 15 minutes. I think we should put it on record, because if we're going to have an intelligent debate on the resources of this province, there should be some orderly planning, in advance, of what debates shall come up, and it shouldn't be thrown in at the last minute.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, to the estimates, please.

MR. MITCHELL: I know the minister is under attack on this.

So to get on to the most important part of this debate right now. This is, I believe, the lack of policy on long-range programs in the park branch that has taken place under the

[ Page 6339 ]

present minister and during the last two or three years. I am convinced, Mr. Chairman, that the park branch of this province can be the foundation for a new industry that will provide jobs in every community. But without some longrange programming, some long-range planning and some proper promotion with a policy that is going to lay guidelines down that will be maintained.... And I think, if we go back, three years ago was the beginning of the erosion of the services in the parks and the beginning of the cutbacks that took place within the Parks ministry that started a deterioration of the services and a deterioration of the industry as a whole. I know the minister and all his deputies will agree that there is a real drop in the morale of those people, those very competent planners, foresters and staff people, who for 30 years have laid down some programs to develop parks in British Columbia — the different types of parks, the wilderness parks, the parks closer to the cities, and some of the sophisticated, high-investment ski-lifts. Maybe the minister and I share the belief that a lot of money was put in the wrong places by past Social Credit governments; and maybe that drained a lot of money out of the Parks estimates for services that should not have taken place. But I won't get into that particular part of it at this point.

I believe that if we are going to develop a parks system that we can sell to the tourist industry, we must provide a number of services. I believe that the minister shares this with me. If he reads the documents and the studies done by a lot of competent people in his own ministry.... They did surveys of a cross-section of the 15 million people who use our parks throughout a year, and one of the most important requests, demands or suggestions was proper security in the parks system. We do not have a security system that can only be given by a properly developed park ranger program. It's easy to say that we're going to spend $1 million to develop a wilderness park and encourage people to come into that area. Individuals and families are coming into rural areas, the local citizens come down, there are parties, there are drunken brawls, and there is no sense of security. No one coordinates things in the park, to either bring in the police or to give protection.

Parks are being allowed to deteriorate. The minister and his staff realize that. They're cutting back on the number of people available to service parks. The staff have been cut back. The auxiliaries have been cut back to the point that park personnel are travelling from one park to another, and consequently the resident park security people needed to give that sense of security that a park ranger program would ensure — and I think that has to be a part of what you are promoting.... We are in hard economic times right now. All of us who have anything to do with rural camping, with park camping, know about the high number of thefts and the huge amount of vandalism that have taken place in every area where you keep cutting back the park staff and the park support groups needed there.

Instead of cutting back, instead of decentralizing all the services, it is important that we not only supply the basic parks but also provide — and expand — some sort of park ranger program, which has never been put into operation in British Columbia. In the past there were more people working in the parks branch; there were more people staying in parks on a regular basis. But today.... I believe it started three years ago with the collection of fees. They come in in the morning, run around and collect them, and then move on after they've emptied a few garbage cans to go to another park. That's taking place all across British Columbia, and if you manage to get in early and keep moving, you don't pay your fees.

I'm not saying that it should be done solely to collect the money. But I think that if you're going to promote throughout North America and even throughout British Columbia.... I say a tourist is anyone who is 50 miles away from home. If he's living in a tent or a trailer, and he's involved in camping with his family, he is a tourist, and he should be given that security.

Another program that I think the minister was aware of when they cut it out is the youth employment program, which was very effective in British Columbia. It was effective for a number of reasons. It created jobs for 15-to- I 8-year-old students between July and August. They had an opportunity to go out and work under the direction of the parks branch people. They were given an opportunity to understand the need of the park, the need of the services in the park, the development of the trails, the identification of the various trees, and also the identification of the natural resources in that part of British Columbia where the park was developed.

[2:45]

I think that if we're going to look at our park system, if we're going to look at our tourist system, if we're going to look at all the major development of British Columbia, we must look at it not only from the jobs position; but we are developing an industry. The minister says that the industry of tourism is going to be one of the major economic needs to be developed in B.C. to create employment. I believe that with a proper parks policy we can create something that is going to be long-lasting; and it's going to give B.C. the shot in the arm. But there have to be some policy guidelines. So many times the policy guidelines seem to change; the goalposts seem to change. I think the minister will agree with me that they change from month to month, year to year. They'll spend a million dollars one month, and the next month they will change their whole direction and do something completely opposite.

I think the biggest example of that blunder, of lack of policy, was Manning Park. The minister in question period earlier this week stated that they spent $350,000 to install a new generator in Manning Park. They spent another large sum in upgrading the ski lifts and the facilities in the motel end of it. They did all that, and then they changed the policy. They changed the policy and said: "Well, we're going to sell it. We're going to get out of the ski lift industry and the motel industry." And they sold an asset that the minister says could be replaced for $12 million, but if you go through all your estimates and budgets over the last 30 years that Manning Park has been here. the investment that's gone into Manning Park is close to $20 million. You can take the figures, but still they gave away an asset after spending taxpayers' money on that asset to the tune of $1.5 million just recently; then they sold it away for two and a half cents on the dollar.

This is the problem: the ministry does not have any direction. It doesn't seem to react to what I think this asset could be. That asset is a wonderful resource we have in British Columbia. The parks can be the foundation of developing more jobs and developing more industry.

It's easy to say we're going to privatize; that this is going to create new jobs; that we're going to put it all out to local businesses. Really, what the minister is trying to say.... The philosophy of the government and the philosophy of the Fraser Institute is to get rid of public servants. I don't think

[ Page 6340 ]

the minister, when he goes through the estimates of what it costs to provide services in the park.... I don't think they are going to be any less. But what you're going to see happen is that because of the desire for employment people will be putting in bids to provide a service in the park: to maintain it, to clean it up, or to provide firewood, or to pick up the garbage, or to go around and collect the fees. You can always get somebody who will put in a price that is cheaper than the person last year. Any one of us who has worked in construction, or any of us who has been in the business community, knows that if price is the only criterion. there is always somebody who will sharpen his pencil just a little finer. But what happens? They cut back on the service that they are giving. This is natural. It's a natural part of the economy. If you cut down the quality of the product, you're going to cut down on the service. I know the minister will say, "Yes, if they cut down on the quality, they won't get an opportunity to bid next year," but that really doesn't work. What happens within the bureaucracy is that there is another group that comes in with another set of sharp pencils, and they will put in a price that will cut back.

What's happening is that you're going to erode a park policy that has grown since the late forties, through the fifties, sixties, seventies. You're going to erode the policy that established B.C. parks as one of the finest park systems in North America. We were so far ahead of many jurisdictions in the quality of parks services and park development that we either took the position that we could mark time and let it go back.... Because the government had certain other priorities, they were going to cut back on the money that went into the park ministry. The minister, who is one of the biggest, the most athletic and the most bombastic, should have fought a little harder. I think he kind of wimped out; he's just going along with whatever are the priorities of the government. I feel sorry for him.

I feel sorry that he would back off, that he wouldn't fight to maintain something that was there. He took the easy way out and said: "We're going to privatize it. We're going to lay off all the auxiliaries. We're going to cut back." In my own riding they cut back one of the finest workshops which produced some of the highest quality park equipment. Over the years it has proven that their prices on the products they turned out were cheaper than the people who came in and competed to provide the tables, the outhouses, the signs. The workshop was developed under previous administrations — very competent. The parks branch had very competent personnel — well trained, strongly dedicated, and they were doing something. They were allowed to proceed with direction, but they didn't overrun.

Somewhere along the line there was, I believe — I'm quite sure the minister is aware of it — a division of how much money should go into sophisticated ski facilities and how much into wilderness parks. As a person who cannot ski, I was cheering for those who were going to develop more trails, more wilderness parks, more camping facilities. For every million dollars, I'm sure they could have put in more park facilities. They could have enlarged the availability of parks closer to the major cities, which I think there is.... People who come from Prince George, from the Peace River, don't want to go to a wilderness area. They would like to come down to the cities — Vancouver, Victoria — to enjoy the sights of the bright lights. The park facilities could be enlarged and made available to British Columbians.

I know there's always a certain amount of complaint from the hotel owners who say that it's unfair competition, when people come into the major cities, if they don't stay in hotel rooms and pay their $50 and $60 a night; that it's unfair competition when British Columbians come down and enjoy some of the park facilities that their tax dollar has been spent on — facilities outside Trail or Chase or Kitimat. There is a need to provide services to British Columbians. I get kind of sick and tired when I listen to the Minister of Tourism go around and say: "We're going to privatize everything; we're not going to have competition against the existing motels." The majority of motels that grew up around provincial parks grew up to take the overflow. They moved in there because the previous park policy was to develop these resources, to develop the areas in the wilderness and various sections of British Columbia. Tax money went in there to develop that area, and then the overflow was taken up by the private developers, the private campground operators and the motels.

A lot of people want to go to those areas but they don't want to camp out in the wilderness. They want to visit the lakes, the mountains, and they would rather have the motels. But what I feel is happening with this attack on the parks by certain people in the motel and campground industry is that they are zeroing in on the parks as if they are the villain, the unfair competition. All these parks were developed by previous administrations with their tax dollars — not to compete but to develop facilities and services for the people of British Columbia. They are attacking the goose that laid the golden egg. I think that the minister, through his policies over the last two or three years of cutting back on the services and cutting back on the money that is spent in maintaining an asset of this type, is maybe playing into the hands of the private park owners. The people he is letting down are the citizens of British Columbia, the families who want to take their children out to camp in safety in parks and camp with some of the facilities we have.

I know another study that was made by the parks branch. It called for improvements in some of the facilities available. After security, the need for flush toilets and hot showers topped the list. When you look at what we have.... We have an asset there. We have a lot of active children and families, and we have people coming and going. We are going out to encourage people from all over North America to come and view British Columbia, to come and share some of the beauty and the resources that we have. We're not inviting them.... I don't think we're doing it from a benevolent point of view; we are doing it because it's good money. There's good money in the tourist industry, and there is a need to bring in tourist money to develop this new job concept.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Along with providing the proper security, jobs for youth and reinstatement of the youth program, providing hot showers is not asking too much for the millions of dollars that B.C. taxpayers have invested in developing our parks. We have an investment. It's not something that grew there. When you go back over the many budgets that the parks branch has had, there are millions of dollars that have gone into developing those assets. I think any contractor or any developer will tell you that you're going to put in anywhere from 2 to 3 percent just to maintain the asset in what was developed. An extra 1

[ Page 6341 ]

percent not just to maintain it, not allow it to erode, but to improve it is just good economic common sense that somehow this free enterprise government has failed to practise.

"We're going to cut back, we're going to privatize, we're going to sell our assets." This is stupid. Is that an unparliamentary word, Mr. Chairman? If it is, I take it back, but if it's not stupid it's bad economic planning and it's bad for the tourist industry.

[3:00]

These are the approaches that we have to take. I say "we" as members of the Legislature. There is so much that we can sell. I was really disappointed that the minister didn't give any long-range objectives about what we are going to do. There was nothing on what the government's policy is on the development of the Cascade wilderness area. When you go in to study the history of the Cascade wilderness, we have in that area some of the historical trails that were put in by the old British engineers, by the gold rush people, by pioneers that developed British Columbia. These are historical trails. If we don't preserve them.... And I think the Minister of Parks has a responsibility to the people of British Columbia, not only the present generation but the generation that is coming after us, and the generation that is coming after them. We must — and I say we, because after the next election I think there's going to be a change in the minister's position — preserve those particular trails, and we must have some program that is going to ensure that that area is developed to its fullest economic potential. There have been many studies, and I know the minister and the cabinet are fully aware of them all. The harvesting of what little timber there is in that area is not going to produce the amount of revenue that really would justify the destruction of a lot of the historic trails in there right now. When you realize.... It's not that I think anyone in the forest industry would go out there and deliberately destroy the trails for any feeling of vandalism or destruction.

If you study it, all those trails follow the lines of least resistance. They all followed the easy routes through that area. It didn't matter if it was the original gold rush people, the original settlers, or the British engineers who put the roads through; they followed the lines of least resistance.

HON. MR. GARDOM: All trails lead to Rome.

MR. MITCHELL: I didn't know Rome was up in the interior.

What happens when you turn that area loose — and you say you're going to log it — the same engineering policies as the initial ones.... They're going to try to follow the same roads when they put their logging roads into that area, and they're going to destroy part of history.

I was disappointed. Of all the long-range parks programs that we must have in British Columbia, that was one.... Nothing came from the minister to give us any direction as to where we're going to go. Those hundreds of people and those thousands of dollars that have gone into the study of the Cascade wilderness park, and not a word has come out. Where is the government going to go? More important, what is the minister recommending to the government?

I see my light is green. I've covered a number of topics, and I would wait for the minister's answers.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I must say that I'm in a bit of a quandary as to how to respond to what the member has said.

He talked about the drastic and dramatic cuts that have been made. I guess it's his philosophy that if somehow or other it isn't done in-house or by public servants, then it can't be done properly. So he's talking about cuts. Would the member please refer to the estimates book. This year our amount for parks and outdoor recreation in the basic budget is up from last year. Then there is another S6 million for capital maintenance and new parks development.

The member must not have been listening to my opening comments, because I referred to the fact that in the past year we have added parks, wilderness areas and campgrounds, and we have developed them. We've done a great deal of that. We have, through privatization.... If the member recalls my opening remarks, the savings in the same operations are in the range of 30 percent. With our budget at the same level, we are able to have our trained parks people doing more in their capacities. I find nothing strange about having someone else, if they can do it cheaper, provide the wood, check the toilets — clean the toilets and provide the toilet paper — collect the fees and that sort of thing. I have no problem with someone else doing that so that our parks people can do their job better, and that's what is happening.

As for the morale that the member is talking about, I'm not quite sure where he's getting his information. As I travel around, I find that our people are pleased that they don't have to do some of these tasks and that they are doing more parkstrained professional functions. Where the member is getting that....

He's talking about a lack of policy in Parks and a lack of orderly planning. I'm sorry, I can't accept either one of those. Our philosophy, our policy for parks remains the development of recreational opportunities and the preservation of wilderness areas, because those are the things that attract people to the outdoors.

As far as some of the park development in or near urban areas that he's talking about is concerned, if people want to camp there and use these closer to the facilities.... In the last few years we have given free Crown grants to municipalities and regional districts all over this province — I think it may be in the range of $21 million to $30 million worth of land. We don't see the need for us to be trying to manage from a distance a park that is of primarily local interest. We're allowing that. We're providing that. We have purchased land. We have provided free Crown land to these areas. There are a lot of community and regional parks that have been developed all over this province by the regional districts, by the municipalities. Just because we don't hire a bunch of people and send them in ourselves and step on the municipality's toes does not mean that this is not happening. We are supporting them. We are helping them. Our people can provide that type of support.

The member says something about surveys about security in parks. I'm not aware of that survey, and certainly I get a lot of correspondence on our parks, and I get complimentary letters about our parks. So when you're talking about attacking the park system, Mr. Member, I would suggest that you're the one that's attacking it. I and my staff are supporting and trying to develop the parks. There have been security problems and vandalism problems in our parks. Our people now can do a much better job of that.

Getting back to this business of privatizing the operation of these parks, we're getting more money or more value for the taxpayers' dollars. In the surveys that we've seen, informal surveys and letters that I get in the office, we're getting

[ Page 6342 ]

people saying that they don't notice any difference in the operation, or that it's a better operation. Not in our major parks; there our staff is on duty, and they're doing interpretation and so on. But in the smaller parks, in the rural parks. we're finding that if someone takes on the contract to deal with this, they can drop in for an hour in the morning, an hour in the middle of the day, an hour at night, as it suits the purpose, and they are doing a much better job. Whereas when we had to send people in from a distance, they might get there one day a week to look at this. These people are looking after it on a continuing basis, so actually the maintenance of the parks in many cases is very much better.

Perhaps I should dispel the Manning Park issue. Again, I don't know where the member gets his information. I had agreed with the member that there was some money spent on a generator, but I didn't have the exact particulars. The $350,000 figure comes from him or from wherever. But it certainly.... We were operating Manning Park, so we continued to keep the equipment in operating condition. That's the type of thing that we spent. I don't know where this claim comes from.

The only significant work performed at Manning Park at the generating plant involved a $30,000 expenditure on the generator that services the ski hill at Gibson Pass. This work was performed in the fall of 1983, and it was necessary to ensure safe operation of the ski hill for the winter of 1983-84. This was the first season of a private operation in which we gave a one-year permit to Mr. Cook and Mr. Wilkinson to operate the ski area. We can't very well give them a permit to operate a ski area with a generator or something that isn't working. You generally turn over a working operation. So $30,000 was spent on the generator. The only other one that I could think of was that in 1978 a 600-kilowatt generator was installed at an approximate cost of $130,000. That was when we were operating the park.

The other thing is, the member works up his figures from past estimates. That probably included operating costs of Manning Park. Certainly that is one of the reasons we have privatized it, because we were losing $400,000 to $500,000 per year of the taxpayers' money to keep a ski hill in operation, and to keep a restaurant in operation. Now we find that the private operators can operate these, and we get a percentage of their gross revenue. So we get money instead of spending taxpayers' money on it. The park remains there. It's a park use permit. We still can retain control of the park functions. That's what I've tried to say to the member: that we are trying to operate parks, not ski hills and restaurants at far greater expense than the private sector can do it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. You will all have your opportunity to stand in the minister's estimates.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: As I say, it's difficult to counter or to discuss cuts when the cuts haven't happened. We have upgraded our system, added parks, added wilderness areas, capitalized on every works program that is going to get people working in our parks. We can quickly generate jobs in our park system, and we have, on any of the programs. We've gotten trails, we've gotten all of that. We have, in the last while, the Mackenzie heritage trail. We're working on other trails. We've got the trails and corridors policy that has come into effect since I've been the minister.

It's easy enough to pick a particular area of conflict between logging and trails and say that there should be trails. But I can assure you that we have done a lot for multiple use, for preservation, for corridors policies, and we will continue to do so. Our objective and policy and philosophy is very clear: that there is a very great value to preserving recreational wilderness values in the province.

[3:15]

I know one of the comments the member made is: "What development is going on in this wilderness park?" We don't want to build roads and parking lots in our wilderness park; we want to preserve the wilderness aspect. That is what is their main attraction. We will build the parks, the campsites, the roads and that somewhere else, and let the people enjoy the wilderness. So if the member is criticizing me for not wanting major development in our wilderness parks, then he's perfectly justified in that criticism, because I don't want to see major development in our wilderness parks.

MR. MITCHELL: I appreciate that. It maybe was a poor use of the word "development," but what I'm saying, getting onto the Cascades park, is that they are considering allowing logging in those wilderness areas. They're allowing the development of logging roads in the area and over the historical trails that make that particular area a heritage wilderness area that should be protected.

It's not because I think that the logging companies are going to go in there to do it solely to destroy it, but they are going in there. The government is encouraging or allowing the small amount of timber.... The studies have been made on the timber that will be harvested in the Cascade wilderness area. If it's harvested with any proper forestry management, there is very little money to be made in it. It's uneconomical timber, unless they go in and do what they did in the Queen Charlotte Islands: go in there and high grade it. If they go in and high grade it and use the same logging road system, they will destroy the historical trails in that area.

I'm not saying that I am the authority on the Cascade wilderness area, but there is a large group of citizens who know that area inside and out. They have studied it; they have done economic studies on the forestry, the wilderness concept and the potential for that area to be developed in the future as a tourist destination point. We have to play with figures, and we have to look at figures. We have to look at what is the best potential for British Columbia: the short-term potential of going in there and highgrading the logs with logging, or whether we are going to do some preservation.

I think the minister is right, and I was wrong when I said development. It should be the preservation of that wilderness area. But there has to be some development. I know he's going to say that I'm using that word "development" again, but there has to be some development of plans to make the wilderness available and some promotion of it as the destination point for tourists. I say tourists from all over British Columbia; if they're 50 miles away from home, they're tourists.

The minister said that I quoted from a document from his ministry, and he didn't know anything about it. So if he would like to write it down, it's the provincial park survey technical report prepared by Sharon Jernoski and Robert Conry, of Horizon Research and Evaluation Affiliates, for the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, parks and outdoor recreation division, dated March 1983. I didn't invent it. I'm just quoting from some of his massive material that he sends

[ Page 6343 ]

out to me. I appreciate if maybe be doesn't read it all or maybe he just selectively reads it, and I use what I want. I didn't invent it and it was....

This is what a lot of people who are in the outdoor communities, who are in the wilderness hiking clubs, who are families.... My constituents write me letters, and they tell me these horrible stories of going into provincial parks and having nothing but drunken parties and people running around. It terrifies them. I know the minister and I.... We're both big and tough, and we would snarl right back, but there are a lot of people out there who are not used to confrontation. They're not used to the noise of drunks staggering around and kicking their garbage cans and throwing beer bottles at their table.

They're not used to that, and this is why I think there has to be, in every park, some kind of policy so that we can say in British Columbia that we do have a park ranger policy of security. It would attract another five million tourists to British Columbia if we could say that, and it would be true. It's not something where I'm just trying to create jobs for policemen or something, but it is a need.

The minister didn't answer my question as to why they cut out the youth employment program, which did provide jobs. I'm sorry that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who knows, in her ministry, of the thousands and thousands of young people coming out of school who are out on the street in the summer, without any hope of getting a meaningful job or getting an opportunity to participate in some kind of training facility....

I think the parks branch did have that service. They did an excellent job, over many years, of developing their youth employment program. But for some unknown reason, they would rather cut that money out and use it for a half-a-million-dollar party at Expo. I don't know why they would cut that out and spend the money somewhere else. Because it did two things. It made a better park; it opened a lot of trails that were not there. The regular park employees cannot maintain.... They have enough problems maintaining the existing park. It was used to develop parks, it was used to increase the facilities in those park areas, and it gave youth an opportunity to get out in that area. I've talked to many of them; some went through the program and continued to work for the park branch. I talk to one on a regular basis who spent two summers there, and went on to another profession. But he still got bitten by the bug of the wilderness area: the hiking, the canoeing, and everything that.... I guess you'd call it, for want of a better word, a disease that he caught because he worked in part of the youth employment program. I think it was a good program.

I ask the minister to read this report. Read some of the conclusions. If we're going to have a development of a park industry, we have to remember that the major users of our parks in British Columbia are families; that's why they want that security of a park ranger program. They want the security of safety. Not only does it provide jobs in the local area — when the family goes in, they buy food in the stores, they go to the restaurants, they buy gas at the gas station — but before they go, they're part of creating other jobs. There's an economic spinoff. They're buying new tents, new trailers, new sleeping bags. This is an industry. It's not only the pleasure of going out into the wilderness and camping, but it's the economic spinoff that we have to develop to create jobs throughout B.C., in the retail trade and in the service trades.

This is something that with a good policy within the ministry, with a good promotion....

I was happy to see that he said he was going to promote parks. There has been a kind of a drift the last few years. I say that we have to promote them. We have to give the additional basic services. I think that, as I said before, it can be a foundation of a whole new industry. I'm afraid there has been a period within the parks branch — the cutbacks — where they appeared to think that it's a kind of a dying industry, because there were higher priorities where the money would go. So these are the important parts.

We talked about Cascade Park. We talked about Manning Park. We've asked questions. The figure of S350,000 for a generator was put to the minister, and he was going to come back to this House so we would have the actual figures. He never brought back, from the question period, how much money was spent on the upgrading of Manning Park before they gave it away — pardon me, sold it — to the highest bidder. He never came back with those figures. You're now saying that $30,000 was spent for a generator to run the ski lift. But in 1968 he spent $100,000-and-some-odd for a generator for something else. In answer to my question.... Was the only money that was spent in the last year before Manning Park was sold the $30,000 generator for the ski lift? And there wasn't a larger generator, there wasn't more money spent on upgrading it. I'll repeat the question that was given in the question period: how much money was spent in upgrading the hotel and the facilities for the park prior to its being sold? I believe you took that on notice; I hope that you have it available for your estimates.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, I challenge the quorum.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I now count a quorum in the committee.

[3:30]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'd like to thank the member for really supporting our parks program, parks plans, parks operations and parks objectives. That's what you're talking about, but you imply criticism about it. That's exactly what's going on in many cases where we are trying to develop the parks. We have spent more money on them; we've upgraded them; we are improving the maintenance. We are doing all of these things. So if he means.... And in the promotion of parks, I have a bit of difficulty there, because we are continually promoting our parks through brochures, pamphlets, that sort of thing. We are continually criticized by the opposition for putting out brochures and spending money on printing and advertising and that sort of thing. Which way do you want it?

Certainly we would like to spend more money on it because we think it's a good investment, but we have to get that advertising money from other areas that some people consider more critical. We do the best job we can in promoting, and I'd like to commend all of the people in our ministry for the wonderful job they do in promoting the parks system by the service they give, and by the encouragement and welcome they give to the people who come to our parks. We do a great deal of promoting. If you mean how much money we spend on promoting, we spend as much as we can as long as it's a good investment, without taking away from other more critical areas.

[ Page 6344 ]

The other thing: I would doubt.... The member said he's getting letters from constituents who say there is nothing but drunken parties at some of our parks. I would like to see one of those letters if you'd care to send it to me. We have had letters, and as you know — all of us know — there have been drunken parties at some of the parks. There have been acts of vandalism. There have been acts of, as we might say, stupidity in some of these parks. But we do have people who patrol them. We have locked gates in many of the parks after a certain hour. We don't necessarily call them park rangers, but park employees go around and provide that security. I would certainly welcome specific complaints that the member has so that we can deal with these. We certainly try to respond in any way that we can.

The member referred to a report. I think in almost any report.... I could write one myself that says we should do a little more here, a little more there, and we would like to see this happen. But I don't think that's a condemnation of the park system. I think the member himself said that he was selectively picking material out of that; I guess it's important to be a critic. But I think actually you are a supporter of the park system and the parks programs that we are engaging in.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Certainly, let me again emphasize that this year, in addition to a slightly higher basic budget over last year for our parks and recreation program, we have in these times another $6 million: $3 million for parks capital maintenance programs and $3 million for new developments. We are adding parks, campsites, facilities; we're paving campsites. We're doing all of that upgrading. This is why I find it so difficult to counter the claims about cuts. I don't know where you get this. Show me where the cuts are. We have cut back some of our full-time-equivalent employees. We have contracted out the work. The work is being done, and our people are the supervisors who are seeing that it's done correctly and that our high quality park standards are maintained. I really think our trained people can do a better job there.

As for the youth employment program, I think it's something like four years ago when that got changed. The employment programs under government were put under sort of an umbrella, and they were the youth employment programs. I tried to tell the member that we have tried to capitalize on every Provincial and federal program in our park system. We've got a lot done in our parks by using these people. So it's maybe in a different form. It changed some four years ago; I didn't change this last year.

As for the member's final question, I believe, on how much money for upgrading at Manning Park, prior to privatizing that, to selling off that equipment and facilities, we did not do any major upgrading other than perhaps standard maintenance on a grader or something so that it was in safe operating condition when we turned it over. I think that's fair. If you want to go back over three years, five years, ten years — whatever you want to go back over — and say how much money was put into upgrading the facilities, I'm proud to say quite a bit. But those facilities are now in place. We will be getting, I believe, 2 percent in the Manning Park operation. We get 8 percent in some areas, but we'll be getting 2 percent of the gross revenues that those people take in, instead of paying out half a million dollars to keep it operating. I don't know whether you understand that or not.

MR. COCKE: A $20 million giveaway and you're standing there....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, I'm sure that the member for New Westminster would buy a boat, lose a million dollars a year on it and keep operating till it sank, but I'm not prepared to do that.

MR. MITCHELL: I often think maybe our minister is a little paranoid. I'm trying to give you positive cooperation. I'm trying to give you positive ideas. I'm a debate leader, not a critic. You don't even listen to our Leader of the Opposition when he renamed us all. We're giving cooperation to you; we're debate leaders; we're positive upfront.

You never quite answered the question I asked you. Was $30,000 all you spent on a generator last year? Now that's the question I asked.

Also, before you get up and talk about it.... Not three hundred and some-odd thousand. You're saying — and I know it's going to be recorded in Hansard — that you inferred that if you don't get up and say yes that it was $30,000, that's all we spent, and we didn't spend any $300,000.... You know, that's all I'm asking. If that is the figure, I wish the minister would get up and say yes, $30,000 is the only figure that we have spent.

There's one other part. We talked about the Manning Park loss of half a million dollars a year. As you said, you wouldn't buy a boat that lost half a million dollars a year before it sank. What part of the cost of Manning Park...? Now when you go back, and I know your staff can get you the information, part of the cost of Manning Park was the building of the roads, the maintenance of the roads, and everything in the park. Can you confirm that the road system within Manning Park has been taken out of that operation, and that they have been gazetted and are now coming under the Highways ministry for operation and maintenance?

Is this one of the money-losing parts of that operation? Was it a major money-losing operation or cost that you've now taken out? You've very conveniently taken it out so your political friends — and I'm not being paranoid — can make a....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Any imputation of a dishonourable motive against another member is frowned upon. The member will withdraw any such imputations.

MR. MITCHELL: Well, if political friends are unparliamentary I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Please proceed,

MR. MITCHELL: But I have a lot of political friends. I hope they never think that I've been unparliamentary.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, where will this ever end, this business of things being out of order? "Political friends" surely to heaven isn't out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair heard an imputation; the member has withdrawn. If the Chair wasn't in order the Chair apologizes, but the withdrawal has been made and the member continues.

[ Page 6345 ]

MR. MITCHELL: I withdrew, Mr. Speaker, because I didn't want to get thrown out and be charged $250 a day if I'm not here. It was very selfish on my part. My wife wouldn't stand my losing all that money. My mortgage couldn't afford it.

This is getting back to the question to the minister. Could he confirm the $30,000, and could he confirm the cost of what it took, under the old parks branch, to maintain and look after and build the roads that were part of the package of Manning Park? But the information that I have received is that this cost is going to be taken out and picked up by the jovial Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser), and it's no longer a cost of those who have bought the facilities or are leasing the facilities or whatever took place for half a million dollars. Does that mean that we're going to get a higher percentage than 2 percent? What is the reason for it, and what are the actual figures?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The $30,000 that I referred to for the generator was to fix it up, to repair it, to make sure that it was in working order. I cannot say that that was all that was spent on that generator in the last year, because they put oil in it, and they probably spent some time tightening bolts and that sort of thing. But that I consider part of the operation. As far as any capital amount spent is concerned, to the best of my knowledge, according to all the information that I have, that was all the money spent in upgrading it. This is why I say it's difficult to answer that. What are you talking about? Every bit of ongoing maintenance that keeps the generator running while we were out operating the park? There are ongoing costs that are part of that. So I hope the member can be satisfied with that answer.

As for the highway to the Gibson Pass ski hill, yes, that has now been gazetted under the Highways ministry program because it is a public road. As a public road, it had to be. While it was entirely in our jurisdiction it didn't matter whether we paid it out of the Parks or the Highways budget. There it is, and it's being maintained by the Highways ministry because it qualifies as a public road. We're still talking about the money that we lost on the ski hill and restaurant operations. I don't know how else we can treat a road that is in effect a public road, except as we do in other areas. If we did not do it that way, then the operators could in effect close it down at the bottom of the hill and say: "It's our road." So they simply took that portion of it from us. In exchange for that, of course, we get some percentage of their operating revenue — of their gross operating revenue, not their net.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: So as not to break the thread of this particular debate, I should inform the minister — through you, Mr. Chairman — that approximately six weeks ago I was invited to a speaking engagement in Princeton and toured Newmont Mines — with a very gracious host, by the way. While there, a group of former employees of the park contacted me and a person accompanying me to discuss this matter with me. We met for several hours. They are former employees who were laid off when the park was privatized.

Just as a little aside on this issue, those former employees were never hired back by the current owners. In fact, local people in the community are not even hired to work at the parksite, because the new owners are paying the absolute minimum wage that they can get away with and will not allow a union in that area. That's not my purpose in getting up to explain this to you, and I'm sure you're very much aware of that. In other words, it's union-busting, in my view — paying people the absolute minimum wage; and local people can't even get hired. Former employees will not even be considered as potential employees at the location because it's feared they're going to bring the union into that location.

I listened very carefully to the minister's answers in this regard during question period and this afternoon during the course of this debate, and what I'm about to tell the minister is not based on fantasy, because one of the people whom I met with was a former accountant of the operation with the parks branch — during the height of the season there were sometimes nearly 200 employees working at that operation. First of all, when my colleague from Esquimalt asked a question about the generator.... I toured the site, spent some four and a half hours with people who knew every inch and corner of that park — knew the boundary lines, what was sold and what was not — and visited the generating plant. The plant has three generators. I don't want to get onto this for too long, but I want to tell you that a brand-new generator was installed, at a cost of $350,000, prior to the sale of that facility — along with the two older generators, which are still in shape. I was talking to the person who paid the bills. I know you don't have this information directly, but please don't stand in this House, Mr. Minister, and give us the $30,000 maintenance fee.

[3:45]

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Am I too loud? Oh, sorry.

That is one point. Another point is that the major reason the parks branch was losing money on that operation — in fact, I don't think they were, because the people who worked there at union wages all paid taxes, assisted in local employment and all of these things.... Nonetheless, we'll accept the minister's figures, through the annual reports, that the park was losing money: fair enough. Not that much money, by the way; not that much money. But the major portion of that loss was for the maintenance and upkeep of the road system within the park, which is quite extensive. The road to the ski lifts alone.... I'm just going from memory here. There were some 11 or 12 miles that required maintenance, the main cost being snow removal.

Prior to the park being privatized and sold to the private owner.... I have here in front of me the names of the company and the directors of the company. In spite of that.... Well, I'll stay away from a political remark for the moment about the company itself. The major cost to the parks branch was the snow removal and the maintenance of the roads and highways within that facility. Prior to the sale, the government had agreed with the potential buyers.... I'm not sure that they were the highest bidder, but I'll accept the minister's response to that that they were the highest bidders. I can hardly believe it — $500,000 for a $12 million facility, utilizing the minister's own figure. A certain accountant I spoke with tells me, in fact, that he valued the assets of that park at approximately $18 million. I have in front of me as well, Mr. Chairman, a list of the assets. So don't tell us about $12 million, but I'm accepting your figure.

AN HON. MEMBER: Such a deal you can't refuse.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Of course.

Mr. Minister, that deal was struck so that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways...so those roads would be

[ Page 6346 ]

gazetted. Those roads are now part of the provincial highways and the road system of this province, and every taxpayer of this province is contributing to that private facility — what is now a private facility — to maintain those private operators in business. Worse than that, Mr. Chairman, although I can't prove it at the present time, I was reliably informed by a number of people that there are some discussions underway for this company, headed by Mr. Rossi, whom you know quite well, because he is and was chairman of the Yale Lillooet Social Credit Constituency Association and is still a director.... But that's beside the point. I heard your answer in the House the other day. Anybody from any political party can forward tenders to the government when tenders are issued. There's nothing wrong with that. But it seems to me that somebody has some inside information.

Renovations to the lodge, which originally cost.... In 1972 the cost of construction of that lodge was approximately $1 million. It is now valued at over $4 million. Just prior to the sale and privatizing of that park that lodge was renovated at government expense — another major item. Don't tell me it's not so, because it is so.

One other major item.... I've got a list here as long as your arm, but I just want to talk about one other major item. Those two monstrous ski lifts.... There are three actually: there's one tow rope and two very fine ski lifts in the area — nice facilities that were operated by the parks branch. They were completely overhauled at taxpayers' expense not too long prior to privatization. I'm telling you in this House, Mr. Chairman, that it's my view that that private buyer had private information, prior to submitting his tender, that this work would be done. I'm very angry about it. You call yourselves good businessmen.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Who is kidding who?

I have a lot of other items relating to this transaction. I just wanted to tell you, Mr. Chairman, and to let the minister know, that I've been listening to his answers very carefully. I didn't want to break up the line of debate of my colleague over here, but, Mr. Minister, I was there. We met and spoke with people who are prepared, if necessary, to submit affidavits to this House plus, perhaps, documents that.... I didn't ask for the private documents that they had in their possession; I didn't ask for them. They didn't offer them, but I bet you if I made a phone call this minute, I'd have them down here in two days. I bet you they would, but I would expect the minister would accept my explanation on it.

Look, this was a bad, bad deal for the people of British Columbia. You gave away approximately $17 million to $18 million worth of assets for $500,000, and it may be in the process of being flipped at this very moment. Mr. Minister, you just think about that for a while.

I have all kinds of other information. I see that my colleague from Esquimalt is out of the House for a moment, so I have another little item which I may as well raise while I have the floor, Mr. Chairman. That relates to the questions I posed to you this afternoon. I accept your explanation in question period today that you didn't have the answer, that you were not familiar with this operation. Perhaps the questions were not posed as well as they might have been. I'd like to give the minister some more information. I know you always come back to this House. Perhaps even during the course of these estimates you may be able to answer the questions I'm about to pose to you before the end of your debate in these estimates.

Mr. Minister, your ministry issued a licence of occupation, file no. 2401290, lease No. 232354, to Coast Mountain Aquasources, located at Hotham Sound in Jervis Inlet, the area known as Freil Falls. It's one of the most beautiful falls in all of British Columbia. Tourists visit the site, usually by boat. It's visible if you're travelling on the ferry from Saltery Bay to Earls Cove. Tourists and local people say it's a very beautiful sight. You may recall that about a year and a half ago — perhaps a bit less — I wrote to you and requested that that area be placed under park reserve so that it could never be alienated from public use. But the fact is that on May 15 of this year, in secret, over the objections of the Sunshine Coast Regional District, a number of environmental groups, a number of sports fishing groups, a number of tourist groups, hundreds of local citizens, a number of other groups.... I have the file here; you're welcome to read it, but I know you have it all in your office anyway. Most of the letters that I have were actually sent to you, with copies to me. They objected to the government leasing this area for the sale of fresh water out of British Columbia by tanker to this or any other company in British Columbia.

In fact, when the representative of this particular company came to visit me, I suggested they perhaps should look at Ocean Falls, where we have a lake ten miles long called Link Lake, with deep-sea port in place, beautiful fresh alpine water. But no, they persisted. You have in your office somewhere all of these objections that were sent to you. On May 15 of this year your ministry secretly issued a licence of occupation to Coast Mountain Aquasources, without any reference to the regional district. They merely received a letter stating that this had been done, period. This lease is for a three-year period, at $2,892 per year, with an option to renew for a further seven years.

Furthermore, I'm asking you right now: were any environmental studies ever done prior to the issuance of this lease? It is my information, in checking around this morning, that no environmental impact studies had been done prior to the issuance of this lease. Another major factor: we're informed by the senior officer of this company that these tankers, when they come back from their overseas sailing, have to come back with ballast. We're informed that this ballast will be released in Georgia Strait. Also, knowing something about the shipping industry, Mr. Chairman, these tankers often pump their bilges out at the same time. So there's another fact that the minister should take under consideration.

I'm very angry about it. This area, Mr. Chairman, is one of the prime aquaculture, mariculture, fish-farming areas. It has the greatest potential in all of the world; not British Columbia, the whole world. Literally millions of dollars of government money, plus private money, has been spent in that area to promote these industries.

I must take my seat. I only meant to be up ten minutes, but once I get going.... Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll have further questions in a few minutes.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: A great deal, I guess, is how you interpret the figures. At Manning Park the ski lift was overhauled every year between seasons. A prospectus was put out to potential bidders stating the state of all the equipment, and proposals were invited. The assessment was done by a consulting firm who made the recommendation on the

[ Page 6347 ]

basis of the proposals that came in — their evaluation of it. So I do resent the matter of implying that it was a special deal for special friends. It was put out there and evaluated by a consulting firm. The ski lifts and generators were maintained every year. I indicated that to the best of my knowledge $30,000.... Now what the member is talking about on the $350,000 generator I don't know, but if that is the case and I've been misinformed, then I will certainly apologize to that member.

When you say "prior to," I don't know what you mean by that, because there were a lot of things that were built there prior to the sale — a year, two, three, five, ten. If the member has that information, by all means I'd be willing to accept it. I can say that the prospectus was put out, that it was evaluated by a consulting firm, that their recommendation.... They did the analysis, it was open to everybody, your caucus I believe asked for the information. We sent you a copy of all that material, the agreements, all of it. It's available for you. So I do resent the business of the secret deals. You've asked for it; you've got the whole package. The reason we don't duplicate it is that it's that thickness when you get all of it together. So you asked for it; you've got it. You can evaluate every single clause in it and take a look at it and see what you can come back with.

[4:00]

As for the licence of occupation at Freil Falls, I haven't had a chance to get the exact particulars since question period. It is not unusual in the ministry to issue a licence of occupation which is a short-term tenure so that a person can say.... If they can prove up on everything else, then they can go ahead with a project. Before they can go ahead with the project, they do have to meet all the environmental concerns and all of the objections and must overcome them and deal with Environment, with the other ministries and that sort of thing. So I don't find it unusual, even though I don't have the particulars, to issue a short-term licence of occupation for a minimal amount to give them some indication that if they come up with a project that is acceptable environmentally, will work and so on, they have some security of tenure.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to respond on the Freil Falls situation. This company has been after that site for well over two years — closer to three years. I have the whole file in front of me, as I said. I cannot accept three years, with an option to renew for a further seven years, as a short-term licence of occupation. I understand your ministry and I generally have no objection. As a matter of fact, I praised your ministry not very long ago over legalizing what people were doing illegally in a sense in Pender Harbour where some 450, at an acceptable rental fee.... I have no objection to that. That is not the point at all. The point here is that a licence was issued without any public hearings whatsoever, behind closed doors that nobody knew about, on May 15 of this year. We didn't even have a chance to state our point of view on the issue, which has been stated previously anyway. It's one of the most beautiful areas of the world, with great potential, and here we're going to have these tankers steaming in there. This company is going to build deep-sea port facilities of a type so ships can tie up and load up with this fresh water coming down these beautiful 200- or 300-foot falls — whatever height they are. The beaches in the area will be alienated because it's a great.... I have the figures here somewhere; I think it's some 6.2 hectares.

Three years is not short-term. Mr. Chairman, I'm looking for one note here. I'm sorry. I can't seem to find it.

I'm just making the point that we're very disappointed, that you're going to get a great deal of protest. One other point in this whole thing I should point out to you is that the Sunshine Coast Regional District board has sent to Dr. Pearse, who is carrying on a royal commission on Canada's water supply across this nation, as you well know.... They have sent a brief to the commissioner regarding this particular falls, the preservation of this area. and the question of how we should be shipping water. I should tell you I am not opposed, where water is dropping straight into the ocean, as it is in Ocean Falls, where there's no fish-spawning of any type taking place, or where we can transport water out.... I have no objection to that. It's the site I'm talking about. The federal government, as you may well know, has not come up with a concise policy at this time, and they will not until Dr. Pearse submits his report to the government of Canada and the government of the day. They view the whole thing very skeptically, and I can tell you this from firsthand experience. I've been involved in this now for the past ten years.

Nonetheless, it's the site that I am concerned about, not the philosophy of shipping fresh water out of British Columbia. A number of good projects have been put forward, and I wish these companies the very best. As I mentioned before, we have deep-sea loading facilities with entirely clean, fresh glacial water at Ocean Falls. Nothing is happening there. Mr. Williston is running around the country trying to find some operation to put in there. Actually. I think cabinet is probably going to shut the place down in the next two weeks, but that's another story.

In any event, I'm telling you and asking you now to reconsider the issuance of that lease, because you haven't heard the end of it. There are other things happening.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: To respond briefly, they do not have a lease; they do not have the authority to build a deep-sea dock there; they do not have any of that, as I tried to indicate. They must meet all the environmental concerns before they get approval to develop that. I don't think I should have the right as a minister to say: "You do not have the right to investigate whether a business opportunity exists there, or whether there's any potential for the sales, or anything of that nature." And that's why we use the licence of occupation to say you have... Three years to put together financing and marketing and get approvals for all of these things is a very short term in that world.

The member says he has a complete file of all the correspondence and everything, and then in the next statement he says that this was done in secret with no knowledge by anyone else on anything. I have a large file on it myself. The licence of occupation I don't have in my file, because it's a standard procedure to allow the person to investigate and to see whether approvals will in fact be acceptable. So you have assurance; you'll have lots of say in it before any final approval goes in there. That's the way it works.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I'd like to bring a couple of things to the attention of the House, but before I do that I'd like to briefly comment on the fact that I'm very concerned with what's been happening in the whole thrust of estimates, debates, and the lack of adequate forewarning in terms of which debate is coming up next.

[ Page 6348 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a matter for the Committee of Supply, hon. member. To the estimates, please.

MR. MacWILLIAM: In preparing for the estimates of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, which I wasn't aware were coming up today until not even, I guess, an hour ago.... It doesn't give one a great deal of chance to prepare a logical and reasoned assembly of information in order to present the case. I'd just like to bring to their attention that cooperation works both ways, and if you're wishing a logical debate on issues...

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the estimates, please.

MR. MacWILLIAM: ...please give us some forewarning on this.

I'm also angry because of what I've seen has happened in regard to the sale of Manning Park. I'm extremely concerned about what this government has done to a resource owned by the people of this province. A park worth an estimated value of $20 million wasn't even sold; it was given away. It was given away, because you cannot consider a half-million dollar sale on assets worth $20 million to be any kind of sale. It was a giveaway, and it was a breach of public trust.

If you call this good financial management, Mr. Minister, I call it a financial disaster. A sale of prime assets owned by the people of this province that amounts to five cents on the dollar — if that's good financial management, I'm afraid we're in very, very bad straits. This government has been elected with the responsibility of being a steward of our natural resources, and I think in this case it's definitely abused that mandate in lining the pockets of private individuals in a giveaway of a public resource. I think they should be ashamed of themselves — $500,000 for $20 million worth of assets.

In the sale, the company receives a 33-room lodge containing meeting-rooms, a 150-seat restaurant, 15 cottages each capable of sleeping 8, a workshop, a power plant, and ski-lift facilities: $500,000 for a $20 million facility. It's a giveaway.

What really concerns me is that it's not known whether this "deal," as we can call it, will prohibit the new owners from flipping this real estate asset — whether or not two weeks down the road they can make up perhaps $15 million in clear profit from this giveaway. I think the minister has abused his responsibility in that regard, and I'm very concerned with what has happened here.

I want to move on to another concern in terms of a local issue in the North Okanagan area which concerns the Silver Star Recreation Area. The Silver Star Recreation Area, including a cross-country ski area and a snowmobile area, has been developed largely through the initiatives of private organizations, the Vernon Snowmobile Association and the North Okanagan Cross-Country Ski Club, as well as other community groups. It's been developed through their efforts. Concern was raised earlier this year in terms of what may be happening to that facility.

I cite a study that has been conducted for the parks and outdoor recreation division by J.S. Peepre — I guess — and Associates. It's a survey asking people who use that facility a number of interesting questions. Some of the questions read: "If fees for trail-grooming were started, would you be prepared to pay, or would you go elsewhere? If fees were started, how much would you be willing to pay? Would you object to this trail area being managed by a private contractor?" The focus of those questions indicates very clearly to me that what is on the mind of the ministry which is responsible for this facility and this area is the intention of privatization of this facility.

We have received through my office in Vernon a number of letters from associations in the North Okanagan, as well as from private individuals, outlining their concerns about the privatization of the Silver Star ski area. I'll read into the record a letter sent to me which is a brief on the Silver Star Recreation Area sent by the North Okanagan Cross-Country Ski Club. To paraphrase the main focus of it, it is trying to relate the concerns of that association toward the concept of privatization. It says: "Commercial development would tend to result in exploitation rather than orderly development.... 'The trails are being quite well maintained by the private operators, but it has been noticed that the usage of the trails by family groups has dropped considerably."'

Sorry, I missed out part of that. This is in regard to what has happened with privatization of other facilities. What they are saying here, to paraphrase it, is that when those facilities are privatized, it's noted that the fees that are assessed tend to cause the use of these facilities to drop drastically. It goes on to say: "We are very concerned at the possible implications of a private operator taking over the area, particularly in its present state of development." The letter makes, I think, a number of very well-addressed concerns.

I would like to ask the minister what the intention of this survey is, and whether the minister does intend to privatize this facility — a facility that, I repeat, has been developed at the expense and initiative of local community groups. Does the minister have in mind a plan of privatization of this facility, or is this simply an attempt at establishing the pattern of usage of this park?

[4:15]

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

If privatizing is in fact on the agenda, I would ask the minister what possible advantage, other than the simple profiteering of the group that would operate that facility, can it have to the community at large? I'll sit down now and let the minister answer those.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I know the member also made an allegation, implicitly at least, about Manning Park. The facilities are there; they're in place. The land that they sit on is under park use permit, so they are available to the public. It's simply a matter of turning them over to an operator to operate. Any transfer requires the approval of the minister, according to the terms and conditions of the permit. So I don't know what you mean by flipping. I would think that, I suppose, if someone could make a lot of money on those facilities.... I don't see how they could take the lifts and the buildings away. If they become very valuable, that means that the operation is blossoming under privatization and might be good. But I have my doubts about that, because it's not going to be a heavy profit-maker, I don't think. I hope the people do make some money at it. But I can assure you that any transfer must be approved in accordance with the agreement that the present operators have.

As far as Silver Star is concerned, I think that's one of the areas that we are very proud of, in that the cross-country people and the snowmobile people started out with conflicts there. Through the assistance of my ministry and a lot of local

[ Page 6349 ]

effort, these people got together and found out how to coordinate their activities so they both benefit. That's one of the examples that I sometimes use with other groups who have conflicts. At Silver Star, the people were able to get around the same table and sort it out so that the cross-country skiing and snowmobiling are complementing each other rather than conflicting.

As far as the survey, I'm not personally familiar with this exact survey. I do know that since I've been in the ministry, some of the groups and organizations have come to us and said that they would gladly pay a fee if the trails were better maintained for that sort of thing. This may be just to get an indication of how the people feel about it in that area.

As for the accusation that the usage of cross-country skiing has dropped where they've been privatized and fees have been established, we have no evidence of that. It certainly seems that the use is carrying on. The trails are being maintained, and in the areas where this has been done, there have been a few conflicts where people have said that to get through the area they're being asked to pay a fee. I guess we're trying to sort that out. How do you get through the area to the park without utilizing the trails which people are paying to maintain? We're trying to sort that out in a couple of the parks, Seymour and Cypress in the Vancouver area, where conflicts have come to our attention. Certainly, other than that, we have no evidence that the usage has dropped. We have people who have said that the trails are well maintained, and they're pleased with it.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I guess the minister and I agree to disagree on that because the information that I have at my disposal does indicate that usage has dropped when fee structure is imposed.

One thing I might make clear to the minister is that the groups that maintain the Silver Star Recreation Area wish to maintain that area as a community development area. They don't wish to see it privatized. They do feel that they do an excellent job at maintaining the trails, and I can confirm that because I've used the trails quite often myself. I don't think that there is a need — at least there's no defined need — to turn this over to private operators. I think that would have a negative impact on the usage of that area.

I'd like to turn to another area of concern, also in the North Okanagan area, and that is Kalamalka Lake Park. In refreshing the minister's memory on this — although I'm sure that he is well familiar with it — Kalamalka Lake Park is a class A provincial park of about 700 or 800 hectares or so. It was purchased by the New Democratic administration in the mid-seventies and set aside for recreational development.

There has been an extensive debate in the community in terms of just how this park should be developed. As a matter of fact, the debate has gone on for a decade. There have been a number of reports submitted. A report was submitted by the Kalamalka Lake public advisory committee about a year ago now. That report was accepted by the minister. The report recommends a plan of development. The report shows a detailed plan for management of the park, and the report provides recommendations for the marketing and advertising of the facility.

The minister suggested as far back as last June that the plan appeared acceptable and that work could in fact begin last summer if funds were available. I guess that's the rider: if funds were available. The situation is that nothing has happened with the park. We've submitted a plan. The community has gotten together and agreed upon the most reasonable mechanism of development of a low-impact development of the park that will allow multiple use of the park and yet not destroy its natural amenities.

The communities agreed to that. The minister has agreed to that. Everybody's happy. but nothing is happening. I think the community needs to know the answer as to why nothing has happened. The plan has been devised and approved. No action. I think Kal Lake Park, if it is developed, could very well prove to be one of the most significant additions to our park system in British Columbia. Certainly in an area that is highly dependent upon its tourism industry, the development of such a tourist generator, the development of this infrastructure, would assist the local tourist industry significantly in attracting visitors to the north Okanagan, particularly to the Vernon region, as a destination point rather than just a passing through of the tourist dollars. This is something that's gone on for too long. We've been at it for ten years. Surely to heaven we can, now that we've made agreement in terms of developing the facility, proceed with it. If we can find $375 million for the Coquihalla, $100 million for the extension and $100 million for the Annacis Island bridge, surely we can find some funding to start a low-impact phase-one development of Kal Lake Park. I would ask the minister why he's dragging his feet on this issue.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, as the member may be aware, if he's gone back into the history, yes, it was purchased. It was not purchased for development; it was purchased to preserve that area in its natural state. That was the main reason that the money was spent to preserve it. Then there was a movement by many citizens of Vernon to try to develop it into paved parking lots and trailer campsites and that sort of thing, which seemed to me to go against what it was purchased for. We did get that sorted out so that it remains in its natural state.

There is some development planned for its use. There is a development plan that has been accepted, and it's a matter of getting funding for that and getting a priorization. Right now under our parks capital maintenance and development program we are trying to prioritize. I can assure you that it's on the list, but so are hundreds of other places on the list. The member seems to feel, as I guess each individual member does, that surely if there's money available for something else, then this little amount, which is what — $250,000 or $350,000 — that's proposed for that development.... But I have also from around the province everyone saying that surely this $250,000, this quarter of a million, this half million, etc., is available. I only have $3 million available, so how do you fit $40 million worth of requests into a $3 million money allotment? So we try to prioritize as to where the greatest demand is, where the greatest need is this year, and keep them going.

It may or may not be developed this year. I have a particular interest in that one myself because I've been involved in it and would like to see it developed and will do what I can, but the list is not completed yet as to the priorization.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the minister wonders how he can find the money for this. He says that the original intent was to simply acquire the land and keep it in its natural

[ Page 6350 ]

state. I'm not so sure that the minister knows that at the time I was responsible for acquiring those lands from the absentee British owners who had had it all of this century. It is the largest amount paid for private land for a provincial park in the history of British Columbia, and it was bought by an NDP administration in what was then a Social Credit riding, because it was perceived as one of the most unique pieces of land in private ownership that should be a part of British Columbia — perceived by the staff and by the government of the day.

So we spent millions of dollars on this site in Coldstream Cosens Bay, Twin Bays; they're magnificent. They're among the most beautiful freshwater sites in British Columbia. Millions of dollars we paid, yet it sits idle. The government sits on its hands. The minister sits on his hands and then says: "How can I find $300,000?" Does the minister know what economists call opportunity cost — the whole question of paying that kind of money and then seeing it lie fallow, when all you're talking about is $300,000 in terms of an agreed-upon development plan? That's nothing short of incompetence; that's a kind of mismanagement. It doesn't make sense if we spend millions of dollars on a piece of land and then let it lie fallow. That's what you've done.

You're talking about a region that has close to a 20 percent unemployment level. We're talking about a region that depends on tourism as a big chunk of its economy in the Okanagan Valley. This is the most beautiful waterfront site, by a country mile, of anywhere in the Okanagan Valley — by far. It's part of the grand old Coldstream Ranch. It makes no sense whatsoever to sit on your hands. Three hundred thousand dollars is a modest amount to boost the economy of that region in terms of expanding tourism, and it only makes sense in terms of what has already been expended.

I would, if I had to try to put today's value on the best thousand acres of the old Coldstream Ranch.... My God, the mind boggles at what it's probably worth. I would say it's worth a minimum of $20 million — that piece of land. A $20 million piece of land sitting fallow — $20 million and you don't think it makes sense to spend $300,000 to make it readily available. That's the old.... You've mismanaged the economy on a grand scale, you've blown it in northeast coal, and away we go. But even on a smaller scale you mismanage the assets that you have. This is a mismanaged asset as it now sits. You're adding to the unemployment problem of a region that doesn't need it. It's a grand land asset in one of the most beautiful regions of the province, and you still can't find the money to make it work, to make it tick in terms of use. That's par for the course for this administration.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It is a beautiful piece of land. It is very good. I don't know whether the member is familiar with the plan for the development there. He sounds as though he would like to see the Kal Beach crush moved over into Cosens Bay, which I don't want to see. That's why I think there should be limited access there. There is access. It is not sitting idle. People are going in there and seeing it in its natural state. Everything is done to try to preserve that, so perhaps members should refresh yourselves about what the actual development plan is. As for his statement that that was the highest amount paid for any land, with the reputation he had for spending taxpayers' money I could readily believe that.

[4:30]

MR. MacWILLIAM: We mentioned the roughly $300,000 development cost needed for Kal Lake Park, and my colleague has pointed out the necessity for developing the proper infrastructure for tourism development in the Okanagan. One of the real problems that the Okanagan has, although it has great potential as a tourism area, is that we don't have the facilities for people. We don't have access to the lakes, we don't have proper camping grounds, we don't have enough camping facilities. Here is an opportunity for the development of a low-impact recreational-use area that will significantly enhance that area as a tourism destination point. Three hundred thousand dollars is a negligible amount. I suggest you take the $500,000 you just collected on the giveaway of the Manning Park and plug it into Kal Lake Park, and let's cut your losses.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Obviously the member sees it as for the tourism development, this $300,000. What he doesn't seem to accept is that that is the same argument for every park development throughout the whole province. I did not say it was not going to be done; I simply said that we tried to set priorities to spend the money in the best possible way this year. There are some places that are completely without any facilities. This park is accessible now and usable now. So I may have to be in a position to decide that if I only have so much money, I should provide access to a new area instead of additional or better access to this one. As far as your comment about camping facilities goes, I will not, I hope, ever approve camping sites and vehicle mobile facilities inside that park.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, the minister implies that I was saying that we need camping facilities and mobile facilities in the park. That wasn't the point of my comment at all. What I'm saying is that, as an area, we lack a number of these amenities that are required for tourism development. We simply haven't got the darn things. The park, according to the phase one development plan, is supposed to be a low impact development. But it is possible on the land around the periphery of the park that camping facilities could be instituted, if even on private land. But let's get access to the park. Let's get the park developed for the use that the community wants. Let's allow it to expand to its potential as a multi-use recreational area. Let's get something done with it.

I would like to ask the minister if he has set priorities; and obviously he has, because he's as much as admitted it. Then where does Kal Lake Park lie in terms of those priorities? Are we looking at next year or the year after, or are we looking at another decade down the road? Where are the priorities, and what is higher priority than this park? Can you define those for me?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: If the member is talking about development of campsites and camping facilities outside the park, then I'm not so sure, if there's that great a demand for it, that that shouldn't be done by the people who then can compete with the other operators who have developed campsites, rather than by government going in there and sticking in some campsites. I don't want to develop a bunch of campsites either. But we can discuss philosophies on that one.

As far as its priority, I've already indicated that it's on the list, which means that it's way ahead of a bunch of others.

[ Page 6351 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: We're discussing the minister's estimates. He has told us that $3 million is available for this kind of capital development. I think it's incumbent upon the minister to advise the House how the $3 million will be expended. That's what legislatures are about. That's what estimates are about. It's the right and privilege of the opposition to be advised how the public's money is expended. Will the minister kindly tell us how the $3 million will be expended, and in what areas and in what parks, so that we can then reflect on his choice in terms of priorities?

If the minister wants this Legislature to grind on till September, he's doing very well in terms of setting that up.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: You know, millions of dollars were spent on this park in the Okanagan. The park sits idle. He tells us there are higher priorities. He has an obligation to tell us what those priorities are and what lands will get the benefit of that money.

Interjections,

MR. WILLIAMS: That's fine. If the member from the Peace wants us to stay here into September he's setting it up right.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: The whole business of a Legislature, the whole business of democracy, is dependent upon this kind of process. And the process is one of the minister being responsible and accountable to the elected people of the province. That's what we're asking for today — some accountability. When this man gets a question in question period he fudges away. He never has answers. He has a faulty memory. The one time this democracy has to deal with these matters is when his estimates are before us.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. All hon. members of this House are aware that in estimates questions can be asked, but it's not absolutely necessary that those questions be answered. With that I would ask that we have a bit of tempered debate in this House.

MR. WILLIAMS: Tempered debate indeed.

The minister has told us that there are $3 million available for park expenditures. The opposition holds the view that this is one of the most important parks in the province, and it has sat idle. Millions of dollars were spent on it. We want to know what priority it has in terms of their funding. That's reasonable. At the very least the minister should advise the House how the $3 million that he has will be used. That's not too much to ask. Will the minister advise us where the $3 million is being expended?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: As I indicated earlier, the $3 million will be spent. It'll be spread throughout the province.

We are looking at a multitude of proposals, narrowing down the list and trying to come up with where the best value will be. Some of these are in the northwest, others in the northeast, southeast and southwest of the province, or on the Island. We do not have the list put together or the prioritization done.

I can assure the member that I'm quite aware of their emphasis on Kal Lake Park as the top priority, because that is the top priority of the member for North Okanagan. It's on the priority list, and so are more projects than the money will allow. I'll do the best I can to respond to the member's concern for Kal Lake Park. But I will also have to consider that in terms of the best for all of the others that we're dealing with,

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. MacWILLIAM: This debate has taken a rather interesting convolution in its logic. The minister said at first that priorities were established. I simply asked for him to recount to me where Kal Lake Park is situated in the prioritization. Now he's telling me that the list hasn't been drawn up. I'm wondering: is there or isn't there a list of priorities? The people in the North Okanagan have been.... I repeat, it's been a decade now that this thing has been in the planning process. We have a report that has been submitted and accepted. The minister said it could go ahead last year. We still have no action on this. I'm told that it's on the list. The minister doesn't know where it is on the list. The people in the North Okanagan want to know where it is on the list. The chamber of commerce wants to know where it is on the list. The municipality of Coldstream wants to know where it is on the list. The municipality of the corporation of the city of Vernon wants to know where it is on the list. The regional district wants to know where it is on the list. I want to know where it is on the list. Where is it?

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, again, I think it reasonable that the minister share with the House what's on the list. What are the other parks on the list? There might well be some consensus about those priorities. But until we know, it's not reasonable. Come on! I know that the standard briefing book is there. I'm sure the deputy has the standard briefing book and all of the likely potential capital expenditures. All you have to do is pull it out of the loose-leaf document and read it and make it available to the rest of us. That information is there, I'm satisfied.

The list may be amended, it may be adjusted, even on the basis of the submissions of the member for North Okanagan. It may be adjusted, well and good. But it's not unreasonable for us to be aware of what those expenditures are. When I asked the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton) what likely lists there were in terms of diking expenditures, I was given the list of the likely expenditures from the loose-leaf document. It was a reasonable gesture; he's a new minister. There you are, a new minister not privy to the system that the old dogs abide by. But, you know, it's a reasonable request. I think that it would benefit the House if he simply provided us with the information.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I take it that what they're asking for is what order it is on the list. I don't have the list in order — number one, two, three, four type of thing. The list is far more extensive than the money available. We're still

[ Page 6352 ]

sorting through it, looking at it and trying to decide how far the money will go, where it will get the best value for the taxpayers, where we can open up new territory and where we can develop existing territory. So that's why I can't really answer which place on the list it is. It is on the short list, if you like, which is far more extensive than the $3 million.

MR. BLENCOE: I want to go back to the Manning Park fiasco, the latest chapter in Socred incompetence, gross incompetence in this province, one that we have not heard enough about. The people of British Columbia want some answers. They see incompetence and mismanagement in terms of the Manning Park Lodge.

Mr. Chairman, we hear the minister today and other days whimper in this House that he called tenders, and therefore he had to sell this park at a giveaway sale, a fire sale of half a million dollars. We know what they'd do in the private sector, or what any competent government would do: they would not sell it. They would take another look. We have an asset here in excess of $18 million, and this minister, for whatever reason, decided to give away such a valuable asset for half a million dollars.

In the private sector, if that minister was a director or the head of a board of directors, and he sold $20 million worth of private assets for half a million dollars, do you know what the shareholders would do to that person? They would fire that person. They would demand a resignation. They would say he was totally incompetent and that he mismanaged the affairs of that company.

What we have here is mismanagement and total incompetence, and the people of British Columbia cannot stand by and allow this to go on. It is the latest chapter in this Socred government's mismanagement of the affairs of this province. In the private sector it would not be tolerated, and they would demand accountability, and they would demand answers, and they would say that that board of directors and the head of that board of directors should go.

You don't sell unless you meet what the assets are worth.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: No, you don't. These assets belong or did belong — to the people of British Columbia. That is the critical issue. That is the issue this government is covering up. They belong to the people of British Columbia. They were valuable assets, and they belonged to the people of British Columbia, and you gave them away. You had a responsibility. You were entrusted by the people of British Columbia to manage that asset properly. They supposedly had confidence in you to manage that asset properly. And what have you done? You have broken that confidence, you have broken that public trust, and for whatever reason you decided to sell. And we all know who bought that facility.

[4:45]

Mr. Chairman, this is the latest example of Socred mismanagement and incompetence in this province, and it's about time it came to an end. The people of British Columbia are fed up with it. Giving away valuable assets is totally unacceptable. It would not be allowed to happen in the private sector, and this government keeps saying: "We want to do business like the private sector." Well, you've lost the faith of the private sector, and those involved in the public sector and those who trust you in the public sector have lost faith too.

There should be shame upon you for selling that asset, for giving it away at basement sales, Mr. Chairman.

Public trust, that's the issue. Public integrity. You should come clean on it and say what you did. You had some friends line up at the public trough; that's what happened. That's what you did, Mr. Minister. Absolutely scandalous!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 38 of standing orders says: "A member who is addressing the House shall take his seat when called to order by Mr. Speaker." The Speaker has called the House to order.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

Two items at the moment. I would ask the second member for Victoria to withdraw any imputations in his comments of misconduct on behalf of the minister.

MR. BLENCOE: I didn't impugn the minister. I just said that basically what we have here is incompetence by this government and this minister, and that's accurate, Mr. Chairman. That's totally accurate. The people of British Columbia know.... It's about time they knew about it. We've read in the newspapers — and the radio — about your incompetence.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Obviously the second member for Victoria did not make such statements then. I would ask the Minister of Health whether, on his statement across the floor, he would withdraw.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The member for Victoria said that the minister had his friends lining up at the public trough. His mental competence, apparently, is unable to remember what he said, so he misled the Chair in his statement. Perhaps he should reconsider and withdraw that which you asked him to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair was asking the Minister of Health to withdraw his aside statement across the floor.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh, sure. With great pleasure, Mr. Chairman.

Now on a point of order, Mr. Chairman, could we have that member withdraw, as he was instructed to do by the Chair?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has recognized that the second member for Victoria withdrew by making a statement saying he only stated so and so. The Chair would accept that he did not impute any impropriety upon the minister with respect to the subject matter of the debate.

I would ask you to continue on section 53.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to mislead some more?

[ Page 6353 ]

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, it's not misleading. I think we need to know from that minister exactly what went on with Manning Park Lodge. We've asked for full information and we haven't got it; the people of British Columbia have not received it. I think it's time we had all evidence, all information, of what exactly went on with that particular deal, because whatever this minister or this government tries to say about that deal, we had a giveaway of public land at fire sale, basement sale prices.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: What I bid on it — that's not the issue. What did we bid on it! That's where this government is at. This was public property. This was a public asset, in public trust, and what did you do? You gave it away for half a million dollars.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Listen to them complain over here, Mr. Chairman. You're totally embarrassed by this. It is a scandal of the first order. You should be ashamed of giving away this particular property and this lodge. We all know why it was given away.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: One day the people of British Columbia will get some answers, because this government will be turfed out once and for all. Then we'll be able to give the evidence and the right information and the truth to British Columbians about this particular deal and other deals. The truth will prevail. Honesty and integrity and trust in government will prevail, and we'll have the answers. We'll know why you gave away for half a million this valuable asset in excess of $18 million. We'll get the answers.

Why is this government so afraid of giving us the answers? What are they afraid of? Why don't they want us to talk about it? Why do they get all upset when we say the truth? We demand the truth. We want honesty and integrity in government. We want forthrightness. The people of British Columbia demand it, because they're tired of this government and its shenanigans. It's time it ended.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I presume the member did somehow or other want a response. It would seem that all he was doing was giving a little soapbox speech. We have given you all of the information available as openly as possible. I have told this House that we decided — a philosophical decision if you like — that we should not as a government be operating ski lifts at any time; that that was more appropriately the right of the people in the private sector. So that was a philosophical decision, that we should not be in the ski hill operating business. We are in the parks business, and I maintain that we should be in that.

We did not sell any land. If that member is talking about honesty, the land is not sold. Those people have a right, through a park use permit, to run a ski hill and a restaurant on it. The land belongs to the people of this province. So if you want to talk about accuracy, please get accurate. What we sold there was what would be done in the private sector — was a liability. When you are losing half a million dollars a year on an operation that you shouldn't be in, I think you have to consider it a liability. I think if that member went to the private sector and found a factory or anything that was losing all that money, they would not insist on replacement costs; they would either shut it down or get out of it.

We did not want to see it shut down; we wanted to give the private sector an opportunity to run the ski hill and the restaurant — the things that are properly the purview of the private sector. Certainly what we have sold is a liability. I will not, I hope, ever accept the socialist philosophy that you should keep operating it no matter how much the taxpayers have to pay to operate it every year.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'll be very brief. I couldn't resist getting to my feet again on this issue. For the information once again of the minister, we will agree that that facility was losing money. But the reason the facility was losing money was the heavy burden of costs of road maintenance and snow clearing, and that function before privatization was taken over by the taxpayers of this province through the gazetting of those roads and highways, which are now part of the British Columbia public highway system. That's the only reason that system was losing money.

Mr. Minister, I'm going to ask you quietly. If we are to take your word in this situation, I am now requesting that at the earliest possible date all of the tenders that were placed for the privatization of that operation be tabled in this House. We would like to know where these tenders were advertised — what newspapers. We find no record of advertising. How many bidders were there? What were the bids? Who did the assessment of the assets on that particular operation? We would like to have those documents tabled. Who did the assessment on behalf of your ministry and the government, and what were the figures involved? You admitted to $12 million in this House some few days ago. So we would like all those documents tabled in this Legislature at the earliest possible date.

MR. MACDONALD: I was simply going to ask the minister the same thing. The minister has talked about a prospectus, which should be easy enough to table; it was a public document. There's a contract of sale. Will the minister table that? There is an appraisal, and I think the minister referred to it in the words: an assessment or something showed that this was a fair price in the circumstances. Will the minister table that? We're dealing with public business here, and the minister is getting very self-righteous, and that's not an attitude that anybody's entitled to adopt before they put everything on the table when it is public business. Those are simple questions, Mr. Minister. Will you table those documents with the people of British Columbia?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I've hesitated to table that agreement in the Legislature because of setting a precedent that we should table every single agreement, and there are hundreds of park contracts each time. What I have done is the next best thing. It is a public document available.... All you have to do is contact our head office or our regional office and ask to see those documents. After the debate in the House I sent over the total package that was put out for tender. I sent that over. I sent over to you copies of all the schedules attached to it — the complete signed agreement between the ministry and the people who are operating that. I've sent all that over to you. It's available. It's a public

[ Page 6354 ]

document. If you want to table it, then go ahead and table it. It's about two inches thick, and all of it is there.

I have no problem in presenting to the House the request from the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead): who the bidders were, and all of that. I cannot provide all of the tendered documents. That is never done, because financial background and other confidential information is put in there. But who did the assessment, who did the evaluation, who the bidders were, how the process worked — I could make all of that information available to you, and it is available to you. It was advertised, it was sent out. It was available to anyone. I rather resent this about these "secret documents." You've got them.

[5:00]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I just have a couple of words on this whole question of the philosophical aspect of the whole thing. The minister says that it's philosophically wrong to continue in the ski business. If that's the case, and the Socreds have been in power in this province for multizillions of years.... Not for long, however. Believe me, with this kind of business aptitude that they have, they're going down the tube. But let me say that they were the ones who spent the multi-millions of dollars on the development of the facility and then turned it over to the private sector for $500,000. When the taxpayers have to pay that much for this new philosophy, then I tell you that somebody is going to have to make the taxpayers understand this new philosophy. The minister says they're losing and losing. I was in Public Accounts yesterday, and I was studying what they're spending on advertising in the last two or three years.

MR. BLENCOE: It's enough to make your head spin.

MR. COCKE: Yes. Why didn't you do a little bit of advertising with McKim for that ski slope and get people up there? It's a marvellous ski slope. There is no reason why the private sector can win on a proposition like that and the government run operation can't. Mr. Chairman, if the government can't, then why did they go into it in the first place? Why did they spend those millions of dollars on the development of Gibson, that great mountain area in Manning Park, and then back away from it? I can remember the days when we used to ski just above the lodge there. Then suddenly it was discovered that there was this marvellous area toward Princeton just a little bit. It was a marvellous area; it is a marvellous area. And it's a loser? After spending all those millions of dollars, they say: "Well, let's go out in the private sector and find" — the way the minister's talking — "a bunch of suckers who are prepared to lose 500,000 bucks a year." It just doesn't make any sense at all.

Mr. Chairman, we're paying a very high price for a new philosophy. The facilities are what counts. I recognize that that land is there. The land is owned by the people. It's not accessible to the people, however. But it's owned by the people. So someday down the line we can get into it, if we're not prepared to pay. I suggest that the reason it was costing us $500,000 a year before, as my colleague for Mackenzie said, was that in those days you charged against the facility the $500,000 plus for snow removal, for road clearance, road maintenance and all of those things. Now we are paying for it. We poor suckers. The taxpayers are making a profitable business for the private sector. Holy smokes! Philosophy is costly in British Columbia.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: There are a couple of things I should correct. The public has the right of access to the park. It's clearly maintained in that. As far as the snow removal, I suspect that the opposition is including the Hope-Princeton Highway cost of snow removal as well as the other....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That is a highway. It runs through the park so it's always been done. The difference is in the small portion, which is a public road, from the highway to the Gibson Pass area — the snow removal in the wintertime. That is a public highway. I think the point should not be lost that whereas we were paying, through one ministry or another, for snow removal, we are still paying that under Highways. Correct. There is a difference, though, which that member will probably never appreciate. In addition to the snow removal, we were paying a lot of taxpayers' money to keep the tow operating, the restaurant and that sort of thing. We're still paying the snow removal, but we're getting 2 percent of their gross operating expenditures turned in to the government, rather than taxpayers paying it out. I know the member won't understand that, but when you are spending a whole bunch of money, and all of a sudden you are getting some money back, that to me makes more sense.

MR. MITCHELL: I'm glad I'm back in my debate leader position. You see, over here we have the good guys and the bad guys. I'm the good guy and all my colleagues are the bad guys. What they're trying to get through to the minister is: how can you have a so-called philosophical belief in free enterprise and then say: "All right, the taxpayer will pick up all the losses and you can have all the money end"? I know he's going to say that we're getting 2 percent of that. But I can show you all kinds of businesses out in the community who will be more than happy to give you 2 percent of their profits if they can keep 98 percent — which they are going to do, provided the taxpayers pick up all the money-losing operations.

What the public and this opposition are getting fed up with is the deception. Is that unparliamentary? It's unparliamentary. It's the confusion that keeps coming up when we ask simple questions. What is the cost of maintaining those roads in Manning Park? What is the cost that is now going to be hidden away in the Highways budget? These answers have not come from the minister.

I said earlier, when I first started to speak, that if we're going to have democracy, if we are going to have a parliamentary system, we must have cooperation from the minister, the cabinet, the government members and the opposition of this House. Let us remember that our constitution still says there are 57 elected MLAs, and we all have responsibilities. You can't go through parliament.... We can't go through this system that we live under if we are not going to be honest and upfront. If we ask an embarrassing question.... The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) asked a question and he got some snide political remark from the minister. Now this is not going to give the improvement that we need if we are going to have cooperation in parliament, if

[ Page 6355 ]

we are going to continue democracy. That takes both government and opposition challenging some of the philosophical beliefs that the minister has now adopted.

He keeps changing the goalposts because the Fraser Institute tells him that we're going to do it this way. This is what it is, and I feel sorry for him. I feel sorry that this minister is being used to spread a philosophical belief that I don't think the majority of the people of this province believe. They've allowed previous governments to spend $20 million in that area. There was never any complaint that they were developing ski facilities. But for some unknown reason the government has now decided to change it.

What I asked this minister earlier on was to give us some idea what direction his ministry is going to take for the development of the parks system in British Columbia. As I say, the parks system that we have, and the facilities and the resources, can be a foundation for many new jobs. We got very little. I asked: what are we going to do with the Cascades? Are you going to allow the loggers to go in there and destroy all the historic heritage trails that were built? There were no answers to the community groups up in the Cascades who have studied this and presented the government with documents and economic studies showing that the destruction of that area by logging is not economical. I know that the report has gone to cabinet, and these are the sorts of answers the public and the opposition want. Is that a simple request? What is the government's position on the south Chilcotin wilderness area? There are many community groups in British Columbia and in that area who have made intensive studies of the potential for use by British Columbians, for the development as a destination area that will attract tourists and bring money into British Columbia, creating new jobs. But we get nothing out of the minister.

I have been waiting for the minister to give an answer, because I keep reading items in the paper. What is the government's position on the south Moresby? The south Moresby islands have worldwide attraction. We must have a policy. As British Columbians, as Canadians, and as people who are part of this world, what type of protection is this government going to lay down for the development of south Moresby? Are they going to leave it and keep putting it under the carpet? You get rumours. There has been a study, Mr. Speaker, and they have, I believe, five different recommendations of ways of preserving it. They are graded on how much.... Number one cuts everything that's allowable to cut. In many cases you're going to destroy the maximum potential of that south Moresby area if the maximum amount of timber is allowed to be harvested in the manner that the Forests ministry is allowing the rest of the Queen Charlottes to be harvested — destroying it. One minute you ask questions. The public has been requesting some leadership from the government, then rumours come out that they're going to allow the number one method, and the companies are all excited, and then we get a press release from the minister denying that they have made a decision.

I know the minister doesn't want me to use the word "development" of a park policy or park philosophy, but we have to have some goalposts, some guidelines, and the minister and the government must set down what is going to be the eventual decision of the government. If that decision is wrong, then the public has a right to oppose it. But we just can't keep letting it drift.

If we are going to develop south Moresby, then it should be developed in conjunction with the private sector, the local communities, the tourist industry, the Minister of Finance. You have a heritage in south Moresby. Just skim through any of the reports that have been made by concerned citizens and groups. But not a word came out of this minister when he made his opening remarks or when he has talked in answer to what I have said. What is the decision? What direction is the minister going? Are they still playing games with the community groups? Are they still playing games with the logging firms? Are they still going to allow everything to be cut and shipped out of the country? What are we going to do with south Moresby — 138 islands with the greatest concentration of wildlife, animals and birds? Once that is logged over and destroyed, it'll never be replaced. The United Nations have asked for that area to be preserved, and nothing comes out of the ministry. There's none of the Social Credit back-benchers asking for answers, anything.

[5:15]

The same thing with the Stein forest area — it was put on a park reserve. There have been studies by the forest companies, by the community groups, that it is really not the best and most economical timber resource area. If they do harvest it, the cost of putting in the roads.... They'll all be taken out under section 88 of the Forest Act, so the money that's going to come back to the community or anyone is not that great. It's going to cost the taxpayers a lot of money. It's going to take a larger ferry to get the timber across the Fraser River. What studies have been made by his Ministry to see which has the best potential? To develop the area as a potential park, not for our particular children but our grandchildren.... Is it the most financially beneficial to the community, to the province?

The responsibility for the financial return to the province, and the protection and the preservation of our park resources, lies on his broad shoulders. He has to make that decision. If he's not prepared to share the information he has on such little things as developing a 1,000-acre park in the North Okanagan area; if he can't listen to input from the opposition as to the priority of that particular park; if he feels that he can sit on the spending of that $3 million when we're talking about millions and millions of dollars for developing parks and preserving our park resources, our future tourist industry; if we can't have an open debate, then I find it.... You wonder: are we losing democracy? That's what's bothering me more: that we end up with these political little games that the minister wants to play and some of his cabinet's snide remarks.

So what I'm saying in closing up parks is that we must have more open communication. We mentioned on the Manning Park agreement.... A number of people tried to get that agreement, and it was not made available. Then I asked for it in the House. No, he wouldn't file it. I will say that it did come to my research assistant. A nice little letter came from the minister to my research assistant, and I came to the conclusion that he preferred blondes to grey-haired people. She got the agreement, and we've had a chance to study it. But what I said earlier.... The final documents only arrived today, and at a quarter after 11, I was told that we were going to go onto Parks estimates. I know the minister sent us his nice little letter earlier on, but the final documents came today to complete the agreement. We thank you, but I'll have a chance to study it eventually.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: If the final documents only arrived today, then I can do nothing but apologize. As soon as

[ Page 6356 ]

it was brought to my attention that two small items were missing out of that package that I sent to you, I asked that they be sent over immediately.

I'm accused of making snide answers, snide remarks, when the allegations without foundation that have been made here.... I find it somewhat difficult to be accused over and over again, in the protection of this House, of being dishonest, of not giving open answers because you don't agree with them.

Now when you ask exactly how much it costs to snowplough a road, and I answer you in general terms, it's because I don't know which winter, how much snowfall, how many bucks — Highways has the figures. Then you accuse me of not being open and frank. So it's easy enough to do that. We have said over and over again that the documents were public documents. If you wanted to go and take a look at them, that was available. When the member asked me if I would table them now in the House, the answer was no because I didn't have them with me. Then I made them available as soon as possible.

But those are the types of things that.... Then you implicitly try to accuse a minister of deception or of hiding something or things of that nature. I give you as honest an answer as I can. You say that we don't have a philosophy; we don't have anything of that nature. Do you want me to read all of these documents for you? I commend to you the reading on page 25 of our annual report, which was tabled in this House. Read it; read some of the material. Don't just read the material that's written for you by the people who have one objective, and that is to attack, to criticize. Read some of the information that's available. We have brochures out that say what we are doing in parks, what we intend to to, our objectives, our long-range plans, all of that. It's there. Now if the member wants me to read to him; well, maybe we can make a bed-time appointment or something, and I'll read him a story, read him to steep. But for heaven's sake, I'm not going to read all of this in the House.

You say that we put out rumours, and then respond to them by denying them. I don't start those rumours. Somebody out there.... It's become a standard tactic, where if they want to get some attention they go out and start a rumour in the press. If you don't respond to it, people say: "Aha, it must be true." If you do respond to it, you say: "What's wrong? Why is he denying it?"

There are a whole bunch of rumours that have gone out that people start for the very reason to try and get a public conflict, confrontation, something going. I would commend to anyone: ask, we'll give you the answer. But I cannot give you a specific figure when there is no such animal. I rather resent that when I can't come up with an exact figure, you turn around and say I'm trying to hide something. Now I guess that's part of being opposition, that you must be a critic, you must attack, you must do all of that. Nothing can be done about that, because you see yourself as a cynic, as a critic.

For instance, I made the comment in one context about development at Kalamalka Lake park. You distorted that in this debate in saying: "Oh, the minister objects to any parks development." That is categorically untrue. I have not objected to parks development. There's a lot of development in parks. But that's how you use something out of context and then distort it to try to make a criticism.

I think we both have the same objectives, that we have a good park system in British Columbia, that it is properly run, that it is doing well. It's not a new philosophy to cut your losses when you know the losses are going to continue. So that's another one. However, I suppose we could go on indefinitely on some of these points.

We do have a parks philosophy. Our staff are very proud of that. So am I. I think you've given the very example. You started out with the Cascades, then you went to the Stein, then you went to the Moresby, then you went to the other one. What you're saying is that the government or this minister is not interested in protecting any land or preserving any land in this province, simply because I do not automatically rubberstamp every preservation proposal in this province.

Perhaps you should get together with some of your colleagues who also will attack the erosion of the land base for forest use in this province. Perhaps you could talk to the Minister of Forests and convince him that we can keep preserving a chunk here with no logging, another chunk here — there are hundreds of these proposals that come to me — and it's not going to have any effect on the logging.

So I think it's a bit deceptive to take one example and say this would not harm the logging industry in this province, when if you added them all up, we could take out 50 percent of the forest base into preservation tomorrow if I just approved all of the proposals.

You accuse me of not saying whether they're going to log this trail or what the decision is. But I'm not prepared to make a decision in advance that hasn't been made yet on the basis of the input from all the other ministries. I really can't say much more than that. I'm not prepared to make a decision on everything that is still under review, under discussion, under evaluation. I don't have the luxury of being a critic on one topic. I also have to consider all the input from other ministries — jobs, forestry, environment and all the other areas. We have to consider those. We don't have the luxury of just being critical on one specific issue. You have that luxury.

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

MR. MITCHELL: You know, when you say "the luxury...." I'd like to repeat that I am the debate leader, and what I'm trying to do is get some debate. I would like to correct this twisting of the word "development." It was the minister who attacked me when I asked what kind of policy is being developed for the Cascades. He said: "We want to protect that as a wilderness area and you're asking for development." He was the one who twisted that word around. Maybe the word "development," when I used it in that context, was wrong. Maybe when I said that we should have some kind of a policy and said "develop a policy...." He twisted it into development and then he twisted it back into another park. It had nothing to do with it. If he wants to twist things, if he wants to play political games, I can play political games as long as he can. But I don't want to play political games; I want some answers.

I ask the minister: is he saying that he does not have any decision on the Cascade studies? Is that what the minister is saying — that they have the report, they have studied the report, but at this time he does not want to give any answer to the application for preservation of the Cascade wilderness park? Is he saying that they have no answer? Is he saying they've made no studies, and they've come to no decisions on the south Chilcotin wilderness area? And I'm asking about the south Moresby. He can twist and say that we'd be taking 50 percent of the logging out of the Ministry of Forests if he

[ Page 6357 ]

okayed every application that was made. I never made applications that covered 50 percent of the forest land; I asked for some answers.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: Well, I'm the debate leader here, and I'm asking you for an answer. You're the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. What complaints you have with some group in Peace River, fine, you settle that argument with him. All I want is very simple answers. You could say: "No, I haven't made a decision on south Moresby. I'm not going to allow the companies to log it all off. We're going to preserve some of the very fragile parts of the environment up there." I really don't think that information that you have acquired through the competent staff that you have there is something that you have the right to sit on for your own personal information. That is public information. These are direct questions. If the minister refuses to give these answers, to discuss it openly, then I'm saying we're going right back to where we were a few years ago. All this government wants is confrontation; all they want is political attack. They do not want to practise democracy as we know it. I'm sorry that that minister, who happens to be the person that I have the privilege of being the debate leader for, is not accepting his responsibility in the way I think he should accept it.

[5:30]

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, a change of subject here. We're going to talk a little bit about lands. I see a smile on the minister's face. He knows, when he sees me coming down the hall with a letter in my hand, that it's usually from a squatter who's asking the government to give him some free land. It's the issue I'd like to discuss, Mr. Chairman, and I know you have a problem in your constituency up north too.

It's becoming a major problem, I think, in the far north. I can't speak for the south, but in the far north more and more people are going back into the bush and staking out a piece of property and building a house on it. Then a year or so down the road when they get a Trespass Act letter, they contact their MLA or write a letter to the minister and say: "Can you give me this land for free?" It's becoming more and more of a problem, as the number of letters that I give to the minister....

I think one of the problems that we're finding is the price of Crown land and — more so — the availability of Crown land in the far north. I think most of the members of the House understand that in the far north the way you secure a piece of property is not by going to your local real estate office, because it doesn't exist. You go through the government, often, to get a piece of Crown land, and more and more people are deciding that they can't afford it, or they're just ignoring the laws that are in this province and in this country and saying: "I'm going to go out and if nobody is living there I'm going to build a house on it, and it's going to become mine."

I don't know if I have the answer to it, and I don't think the minister does. I'm not being critical or negative to him. But there has to be a solution that we have to come up with, because more and more people are using this aspect of squatting. I don't know if it is something where we can come up and when somebody is.... In the case of the letter I gave to the minister this week concerning the individual who has lived on the property for something like 15 years now, way off in the bush past Iskut, the mother right now is pregnant; she received a trespass letter saying they were going to burn down their house, and she was concerned, in the condition she is now, about being burned out, which I said will not happen at this stage.

But I don't know what we can do or what we can bring forward. If it's to make the individuals sign a contract to say that they're not going to ask for improvements.... I know at one time individuals would squat and receive some kind of occupancy permit, and the next thing they would want is a road built into their property and for the government to maintain the road and to service it, or to have extra services brought in. I don't know if we should put together some kind of program where the individual says: "Okay, there are going to be no services. I don't expect anything to be brought in."

Another aspect I think we have to look at is taxes. If individuals have lived on the land for 15 years and now the government — whoever is in government — comes around finding that they've been in trespass, I doubt if they've paid taxes for some 15 years.

The one aspect I wish the minister would look at is when the ministry sends a letter to an individual who is in trespass and says they're going to burn their house down. It doesn't happen, and I know the minister isn't going across the province burning homes down. But it is intimidating to a lot of individuals when they do receive this, even if in their minds they believe it is lawful to live where they are — to squat. The intimidating aspect of sending a letter saying: "We're going to burn your house down...."' Maybe we could find some other method of communicating to the individuals that they are trespassing, instead of threatening to burn their houses down. We have to have more of an open policy on Crown land in the north.

Maybe the minister could explain the question I directed to him in regard to the market price that's used on Crown land. What is the formula that's used? For instance, in a place like Good Hope Lake, where there would be lots of available Crown land, how do you justify the cost of Crown land, where there aren't residential lots per se? There's a Highways camp and then two reserves. How do you justify the market price on Crown land in a place called Good Hope Lake?

I don't know, Mr. Chairman, if we're going to find a solution to this. There are more and more people doing it. Maybe it's the economic climate, but more and more people are moving into the bush and squatting, building a home. We have to come up with some kind of creative and positive approach to this. I don't have the solutions, but I wish I did. Then maybe I could say what you're doing wrong. But I don't. There are more 'and more people falling into this situation, and I'd like to have the minister's comments on some of the questions that I rose to ask him. I'm sure I'll have some more letters tomorrow from constituents to add to them.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In answer to the member's question, yes, this presents a quandary. As he indicated, as you get away from the urban areas.... In the urban areas people have more or less accepted that if you want a piece of land you've got to buy it. As they get further out, some people sort of feel: "Gee, there's lots of it there, so why can't I have it?" They move onto it, and then it presents a difficulty a few years later when it comes to our attention that somebody's set up shop, and somebody asks: "Why can he go

[ Page 6358 ]

out there and I have to apply?" So we say: "Because that's the policy. You must apply."

I guess I don't have a set answer other than that the member must consider a few things. You mentioned market value, and I guess we should get at that one. If we have market value determination, that means that whoever acquires that land, whether by lease or sale, gets it at the going rate. How is the going rate established? We have people in this province who have taken courses and are listed as professionally qualified appraisers. From within the ministry we have these people, and we have them outside of the ministry. We're trying to move outside the ministry as much as possible for professional appraisals because I feel that you can't be the appraiser and the seller at the same time. Though they're all qualified and presumably trained in the same way, they are determined by what sells in that area and what is available, and yet the appraisals that they come up with vary a great deal, so we try to set up appeal processes.

One of the reasons that we find it difficult to say let's give somebody the land free is.... I can only use an analogy. People will say: "But no, I want to farm it." I'm not thinking of that. But if I say, here is a piece of land free that sells at $5,000; you could sell it tomorrow for $5,000.... I have to look at it in terms of would that person then.... Why would he not take one piece of land, sell it for $5,000, go get another piece of land, sell it for $5,000 and then have $10,000 to develop the third piece he got for free? I'm expanding it to make the point that the reason market value is the method that we try to use is to make sure that people can get that land for what it's worth. Sometimes I feel that the market value is too high. I don't always agree with the appraisers, but then I am not a qualified appraiser, so I have to go by the professional advice.

What we have tried to do as much as possible to overcome this is that where there is an expression of interest in land in an area, then we try to make it available to others, because if one person is given permission by trespass to move onto land, then someone could say, "Well, if he can have it, I can have it," and the thing can expand. Why would anybody in this province buy land if it were available free? That's human nature. That's got nothing to do with policies or anything of that nature. So my best advice to people is to apply for the land.

I know what part of their answer is: "But if I apply the answer is no." We do have conflicts with Forests, with Environment, where some of the.... We don't want to get subdivisions started. If you give it to one, where do you stop? You can't say, in this case.... What we've tried to do in many cases — and now we've been criticized for that — is that where some land has been in use over a long period of time, we've tried to legitimize it by licence of occupation, which is the least form of tenure. But the people generally want more. They want the lease, which guarantees them 30 years — the bank won't loan them money against a licence of occupation — or they want title. Once they have title, of course, then we have a difficult time. We've even checked: can you put a covenant against it, so that if you move off the land you give it back to the government? The answer, in legal terms, is absolutely not. Once you've got title, you don't give it away; it's yours to sell and dispose of as you see fit.

So those are the problems that we have. I can only say that the best thing is for people to apply. If some interest grows in an area then we will try and respond to it. But we cannot respond other than by saying, "You are in trespass," when people have moved in, trying to gain land by forgiveness rather than by application and permission. If we do that, we don't have a system or a policy. That would be irresponsible. So as much as I can bleed personally for some of these individual cases, I don't have the luxury, as a minister, to just say, "Well, you look like a good guy, I might as well do it," because this could destroy the whole policy. It could be illegal. It could be ultra vires. It could be all of these things, so I have to take legal, technical and professional advice.

I think that about covers what the member was asking. I don't know of any other questions.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'll be very brief. The last time I got to my feet I asked the minister to table certain documents which I was not aware you had sent over to our caucus. I checked with our research and indeed some of the documents were there, but some were not.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: What was not included? These documents, although many, many requests have been made by a number of agencies over the last while, were only forwarded to us after questions were raised in this House regarding Manning Park. Documents that are not available are other tenders. Is this the only tender presented to the company, or were there other tenders? Could those documents be tabled? Because we don't know what the bids were. The agreement of sale was not included among those documents. Could the minister at some point table those? We would, as well, like to know where the facilities at Manning Park were advertised. It would appear that there was very limited advertising for tenders and bids on this agreement.

While I have the floor, I have one more very quick comment, and this may have been answered while I was out of the House. Mr. Minister, one of the major complaints I'm getting — and I'm sure this is happening all over the province — is about the astronomical increase in fees for the lease of recreational land throughout the province. You don't have to respond to this; I know time is of the essence at the moment. The fact is, I would very much like the minister to reconsider and have a look at some of those lease fees. They have gone up double, triple and quadruple over the last couple of years. It's been astronomical, and, in fact, they are forcing people out of recreational properties that they received in good faith.

[5:45]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Just responding briefly, I believe advertising for the Manning Park was done in the Vancouver Sun, the Province, and probably in trade magazines when it was put out to proposal. Certainly we can make that available to the member. If there are other documents missing.... I did say that we're not prepared to table the detailed tenders, because some of that is confidential information. But we can certainly make available the list of who tendered, and any other agreements that are actually public documents. They're available at the ministry. I did say that they're available for your use. I finally sent you a copy.

As for the recreational lease fees, again, that was attached to the value that people attached to the property. When it came in, it was reasonable. Those properties, because there's limited supply, went up, so their lease fees went up. We're reviewing the whole thing. We've changed the marinas. We've changed the agricultural lease policy. We've changed

[ Page 6359 ]

the oilfield policy. We've changed a number of them. We're reviewing all of this pricing arrangement to try to make a fair return to the government, which, in effect, is to the people of British Columbia, and at the same time to allow them to develop. So we're certainly looking at those.

MRS. DAILLY: One quick question to the minister, and it has to do with the parks and housing project in the municipality of Burnaby which has been promised by the government for many years — even before you became minister, so we can't hold you entirely responsible for the fact that nothing has happened. The project I'm talking about is Oakalla, and I think the minister is well aware of the fact that.... I know it's partly the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Smith's) responsibility, but I want to ask the minister if, after all these long years of promises by the Social Credit government to the people of Burnaby, he can tell us if there is any movement in phasing out Oakalla and bringing in the housing and the parks promised for Oakalla grounds.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I can only say that it is evident that I have enough problems without getting into someone else's jurisdiction. I haven't got into the Oakalla situation at all.

MR. BLENCOE: I just have a few questions for the minister vis-à-vis the housing component of his ministry. It's our information — and the minister may be able to shed some light on this today — that the federal government, through CMHC, is disentangling itself from non-profit housing funds. It's looking at negotiating with the provincial governments how it can remove itself from the non-profit housing aspect. The information we have — and maybe the minister can tell us again today — is that, in the context of national negotiations on CMHC removing itself from financing for non-profit housing, B.C. has been a bit of a stumbling-block, and that the reason for this is that they haven't been able to achieve a global funding or five-year agreement with the provincial government.

The federal government has been reluctant to turn over block funding for housing to the province to administer because they haven't got assurances from the British Columbia government that money allocated to housing will indeed go to housing in the province of British Columbia. We have had examples of money earmarked by the federal government for various programs being channelled off by this government to other particular pet projects of this government. Housing groups, of course, are naturally nervous about this government's commitment to social housing, particularly when we look at this government's record in the last few years in the social housing area and hear some of the remarks that we've heard from the new Deputy Minister of Housing, who has indeed made some remarks about social housing.

We would like to know, and I think the people in British Columbia and those involved in social housing would like to know, what is happening with the negotiations with the federal government. What is British Columbia's position in terms of the global agreement on housing? What controls have the federal government insisted upon to ensure that the federal housing dollars will indeed be spent on housing for those in need? Will the province assume a greater responsibility for program planning and the delivery of social housing? The ministry has indicated that social housing dollars could be better targeted. If the dollars are to be better targeted, does this mean greater individual subsidies and therefore fewer households assisted? Or is the government prepared to increase the funding across the board?

The minister has been quoted as saying the private sector should be more involved in the non-profit sector. The private sector now is practically the exclusive supplier of non-profit housing through construction. Does greater involvement mean that the private sector will become involved in managing non-profit housing in British Columbia?

In a nutshell, Mr. Minister, there is great concern. There is vagueness in terms of the provincial government's position on social housing and the non-private sector. We would like to know, as many people in British Columbia would like to know, where we're at with the negotiations with the federal government. Will we soon have an agreement for global funding for housing in the province of British Columbia? What will British Columbia's role be in that global agreement?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The best answer I can give you is continuing negotiations. I am somewhat surprised by where the member gets his information about the concern that the money allotted for housing would not be used for housing. I mean, that is clearly established, so I don't see us as a stumbling-block.

Yes, we would feel that we could have a greater role in the assignment of the housing and in dealing with it in our social housing programs. We feel — our basic position — that we should try and get the most and best housing, for the least cost to the taxpayers, for the people involved. I'm rather proud of the record since I've been in the ministry — 600 units, 200 units, that sort of thing. So I won't accept the comment about a dismal record. I think we've got a good record. We will never keep up, because the housing is so nice that as we build more, more and more people want it.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm pleased if the minister is giving the assurance to the people of British Columbia that every single dollar allocated in the global agreement — to be signed as yet — from the federal government for housing will indeed go toward housing in British Columbia. The minister is giving us the assurance today that we won’t see, as in other areas like education or post-secondary education, dollars being filtered off into pet projects. We won't see housing money, for instance, go to pay the deficit for Expo 86. If the minister is telling this House today that every single dollar from the federal government for housing will go toward housing, I'm glad to hear that. I'd like to ask the minister....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. BLENCOE: These members are remembering the Manning Park incident, and are probably a little uneasy about that whole debate today, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to ask the minister a question, if he says he's proud of his record in the housing field. Can the minister tell us whether the province has been taking up the full federal allocation for senior citizens' housing?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes.

[ Page 6360 ]

MR. BLENCOE: You said yes? You have been taking up a full allocation? Could you give us the numbers — how much money you've been offered and how much you've utilized? Do you have that information available, Mr. Minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 53 pass?

MR. BLENCOE: I'll ask again, Mr. Minister, as we had discussion over certain other issues, over park allocation priorities.... I'm asking the minister: can he tell us how much money the federal government offered to senior citizens' housing and how much money the provincial government used for senior citizens' housing in this province?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The exact amount is not determined until the proposals come in and that sort of thing. What we've been saying is that perhaps we should be talking in dollars rather than units, which leaves it sort of open-ended. To the best of my knowledge we have, in one form or another, been taking up the allocation. The allocation for housing comes to the province, but some of it goes to co-op housing, which we're not involved in; some of it goes to other forms of housing which we're not involved in. But I can assure you that any of the money that came to our ministry in the past, in the global agreement, went to housing, and I can assure you that in the future, any money from the federal government that's allocated for housing will go toward housing people. It may not go toward building blocks, but it will certainly go toward housing people.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister's got the hole in the wrong place. He's back in the House again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: Is the minister aware of the big waiting list for senior citizen housing? Is the minister aware that numerous senior citizens are waiting, and have been waiting for years, for adequate housing in the province of British Columbia?

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, even though it exceeds the $3 million that is allocated, I wonder if the minister will provide the House with the list that we requested earlier with respect to capital projects so that we can have some idea of the amount of demand that the minister faces in terms of funding at this stage.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I can agree to give the member a list of the proposals that are before me. I can't give him a list of the projects, because we haven't decided on them.

Vote 53 approved.

Vote 54: ministry operations, $58,299,086 — approved.

Vote 55: ministry enterprises, $10 — approved.

Vote 56: British Columbia home program, $10 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.