[ Page 8235 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Liability insurance. Mr. Skelly — 8235

Louisiana-Pacific plant. Mr. Williams — 8235

Alleged anti-American statement by Vancouver alderman. Mr. Reynolds — 8236

Gasoline storage at service stations. Mrs. Wallace — 8236

An Act To Establish An Institute Of Native Indian Languages For British Columbia (Bill M20). Mr. Hanson

Introduction and first reading — 8237

Tabling Documents — 8237

Ministerial Statement

Provincial parks anniversary. Hon. Mr. Kempf — 8237

Mr. Mitchell

Tabling Documents — 8237

Private Members' Statements

Nuclear accidents. Mr. Rose — 8238

Hon. Mr. Pelton

Motor vehicle testing. Mrs. Dailly — 8239

Hon. Mr. A. Fraser

Houseboat rentals on Okanagan Lake. Mr. MacWilliam — 8241

Hon. Mr. Kempf

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

On vote 56: minister's office — 8242

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Reynolds

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. MacWilliam

Mr. D'Arcy

Insurance For Crops Amendment Act, 1986 (Bill 16). Second reading

Mr. Hanson — 8252

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 8252

Erratum — 8253

THURSDAY, MAY 15, 1986

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

LIABILITY INSURANCE

MR. SKELLY: In the absence of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie), I would like to direct this question to whoever is responsible for his portfolio.

On April 28, 1986, the Sproat Lake fire department in Port Alberni had its liability insurance cancelled. They're having difficulty obtaining liability insurance at any price. As of last night, the fire department was forced to consider withdrawing its services if they are unable to obtain liability insurance. What action has the minister taken to make sure that volunteer fire departments in this province are covered by liability insurance so that they can continue to provide this essential service?

HON. MR. PELTON: Certainly I realize that at this time there's a great deal of discussion with respect to liability insurance in many quarters, not just in volunteer or other types of fire departments. In the absence of the minister, in this case, I'll take that question as notice. I'm sure he'll provide the hon. member with an answer as quickly as possible.

MR. SKELLY: Discussion about liability insurance has been going on for a long time. This Legislature has been in session for a long time. The minister has been saying that he's looking into liability insurance for a long time. Does the acting minister not consider fire services essential services, and should the members of those fire departments be covered by liability insurance? What action does the minister intend to take immediately to make sure there are fire services in areas of this province where they're provided by volunteer fire departments?

HON. MR. PELTON: My response to the hon. Leader of the Opposition is that I will take that as notice and pass it on to the minister, and he will bring back a response as quickly as possible.

MR. SKELLY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. A number of other organizations, in particular small businesses, are having some difficulty obtaining liability insurance, again at any price. A few days ago I met with a small airline in the Shuswap-Revelstoke provincial constituency that is in danger of having their insurance cancelled or increased beyond the point where that airline is able to pay the costs of liability insurance. What action does this minister plan to take to investigate the liability insurance problem in British Columbia to make sure that small business people in this province are able to obtain liability insurance coverage at rates that do not bankrupt those small businesses?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Liability insurance is not only a British Columbia problem, it's a national problem, indeed an international problem at the present time. It was brought about largely by such situations as the Bhopal incident in India. But we do have an interministerial committee, we have a committee within our own ministry examining the situation with respect to liability insurance, and indeed we have an intergovernmental committee. However, I will tell the hon. member that the market is improving in B.C. somewhat. It's not as good as what we'd like it to be, but I have known instances where, with a little shopping around, liability insurance is available in most cases. We are working on it. We're aware of the problem, and I'll be meeting, I believe it's on June 2, with federal counterparts to further discuss the problem.

MR. SKELLY: Again to that minister, I would like to point out to him that the volunteer fire department at Sproat Lake has approached ten different insurers and been rejected by those companies. So if the market is improving, the Sproat Lake volunteer fire department certainly isn't aware of it.

I want to ask the minister, has he provided a deadline for that interministerial committee to report to him and for that minister to report to the House on the action that he plans to take to make sure that those small businesses and those volunteer fire departments are able to get the coverage that they require so that they can provide the services that people in B.C. require on an essential basis?

HON. MR. VEITCH: First of all, I wasn't aware that the Sproat Lake fire department was a small business. I thought his comments were with respect to small business previously, and I answered in that context. However, there's no need for a deadline, because I'm having reports on a constant basis on the matter; and yes, I think the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, as the Canadian and North American market improves and adjusts to meet the obvious problem that exists today.

LOUISIANA-PACIFIC PLANT

MR. WILLIAMS: I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development The Minister of Industry advised the House two days ago that he was not warned of the implications with respect to countervail duty in terms of the very generous loans that were granted to Louisiana-Pacific. Has the minister reconsidered his statement?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WILLIAMS: So while the minister confirms that his staff reports indicated there were problems there, he is still telling the House that he wasn't warned. So be it. You were warned in terms of changing policy, in terms of government becoming the major risk-taker with respect to this operation. Why was the decision made, given the warning that under no current policy of this administration could that kind of loan be given? Why was the decision taken, given the warning in terms of criteria that had clearly been established regarding other corporations in this province?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: There were no warnings given to the minister about any of the items that that member has taken up. First of all, in the discussion of various economic policy objectives, staff seldom warn the minister about things. However, the staff of ministries are encouraged

[ Page 8236 ]

to raise all issues that might become part of a discussion, and so we have things called discussion papers which come before the ministry and which are considered by the ministry, by the minister, by cabinet, by my colleagues, before any decisions are taken. We do that in a very prudent manner in achieving the objectives that the government has, the basic objective of which is to attract new investment in order to build job opportunities for British Columbia people. That's an objective that we've taken proudly. We want investment in our province from all over the world, and that's one of the reasons we've developed Expo 86: to bring to our province visitors from all over the world, business leaders, in order to be able to make them aware of the opportunities available for them in our great province.

The same thing was true with an American company called Louisiana-Pacific, which we wooed to come to British Columbia — and I'm proud of it, Mr. Speaker. I don't have any problem standing up and defending the right of British Columbians to have job opportunities, and that's what this is all about.

[10:15]

MR. WILLIAMS: Was the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development led to believe that British Columbia was in direct competition for this plant with several American states and the province of Alberta?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I honestly don't know how to answer that question. I believe that anybody would have wanted the job opportunities that this plant creates. I was not led to believe that there was active competition because, frankly, Mr. Speaker, I wasn't in on the active negotiation for this plant. I promised the House that I would bring an exhaustive list during question period next week of the kinds of incentives that are being offered to companies like Louisiana-Pacific, and in fact in Louisiana-Pacific's case they were considering four new plants. Three of them went to the United States and one of them came to Canada — to British Columbia, providing jobs for British Columbians. They have eight such plants. In many of the instances in which they have plants in the United States....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Speaker, very substantial and attractive incentives were given in other locations. We're in a very competitive market here, and I'm going to be very happy to show that member what kind of competitive market we're in, next week. But I don't know who else was competing for this plant, and I don't care. We wanted that plant and we went and got it, and as a result 300 new jobs are going to be created in an area of this province that very much needs it. We're going to be using a wood resource in this province that has never been properly used before, and this is the kind of issue that that member should be standing up and championing instead of trying to sabotage.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, he said he wanted the deal at any price. That's what he's telling the House. What a wonderful target for the Louisiana boys.

My further question is: was the department looking at other possible oriented-strand board proposals, or waferboard proposals, and what is the status of those other proposals, submitted by Canadians, Mr. Speaker?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are other proposals before my ministry at the present time, and we're studying them.

ALLEGED ANTI-AMERICAN
STATEMENT BY VANCOUVER ALDERMAN

MR. REYNOLDS: My question is to the Provincial Secretary, and it relates to statements made yesterday in Vancouver by one of the aldermen there, a left-leaning, anti-American alderman by the name of Libby Davies. In talking about U.S. sailors who are visiting British Columbia, she said: "We want to make a clear statement that they are not welcome here." I would like to ask the Provincial Secretary if she would take the time to call the U.S. consulate in Vancouver to make sure they know not only that U.S. sailors are welcome in British Columbia, but also that all British Columbians are proud to have the Americans as our allies, and that we want them here in British Columbia not just during Expo but any time of the year.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to convey the message. I hope it is a unanimous message from the House.

I would say that I am really disappointed to hear that the largest city in British Columbia, Vancouver, has a representative on it — or more than one — who would show that kind of lack of protocol and lack of friendship with the best neighbour that any country could have. If we were to make a choice of who we would like to have as a neighbour in this country, I am sure that most British Columbians, as opposed to the left-wing opposition in this province, would prefer to have the United States of America.

In addition, I want to say that I am really surprised that any member of that council would seem so selective in whom they attack in terms of their not wishing to have people in the city of Vancouver. I notice that there isn't that kind of attack on very many other countries that have been represented, and which this government and hopefully the city of Vancouver will welcome, no matter what their political stripe.

Mr. Speaker, it is really a very grave and upsetting statement to come from any member of any council in this province, particularly the largest, representing the largest city, because that kind of message goes not only throughout British Columbia but Canada-wide and North America-wide, and unfortunately, to the shame of that council and its left-wing members, throughout the world. I think that is a sad commentary. I would be glad to give the message to the U.S. consul.

GASOLINE STORAGE AT SERVICE STATIONS

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Environment. There have been a number of accidents and near misses respecting the storage of gasoline at service stations. Has the minister decided to institute regulations to protect the public and secure safe storage for petroleum products?

[ Page 8237 ]

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the numbers of incidents that have taken place. One of the current ones is out in the Port Coquitlam area. We are taking some action and are looking at the possibilities of making some regulations that would control the installation of these tanks.

At the moment my understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that such regulations are carried out under the Building Code. But we are looking at it, and we certainly see a requirement to bring forward something that would regulate more stringently the installation of these tanks.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO ESTABLISH AN
INSTITUTE OF NATIVE INDIAN LANGUAGES
FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. Hanson presented a bill intituled An Act to Establish an Institute of Native Languages for British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: It would have to be with leave.

Leave granted.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, as the members of the House are aware, the native people of the province of British Columbia did not have a written language. Their language and culture was communicated through oral traditions. That fact of life, and the fact that British Columbia is one of the most linguistically diverse places on earth, having half of all the native languages of Canada within the boundaries of the province....

I've introduced this bill that would give the native people status, in terms of having the responsibility and authority to have an institute that would study curriculum and put Indian languages into the educational system of this province.

Mr. Speaker, one only has to go to Expo and any other international function where Canada is represented to see that the native culture is highlighted, and we bask in the reflected glory of the Haida and the Tsimshian and the coast Salish people's accomplishments. People such as Charles Edenshaw, Bill Reid, Robert Davidson, many other great artists.... We bask in the reflection of their accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, Japan would regard the elders, the people who are fluent in the language and culture, as national treasures. The unfortunate thing is that as these people pass away — and there are fewer and fewer all the time — the language and the cultural heritage of the Indian people of the province is being swept away. It is not too late if action is taken now to establish an institute to give the Indian and non-Indian people of the province the opportunity to understand the richness of Tsimshian, Gitksan and Carrier, and all these other languages, Mr. Speaker. It's about time that this was done, and I appreciate the House's granting leave for me to introduce it today.

Bill M210 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.

Hon. Mr. Veitch tabled the 1985 trade practice annual report and the sixty-fourth annual report of the liquor control and licensing branch of the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

PROVINCIAL PARKS ANNIVERSARY

HON. MR. KEMPF: I rise to make a ministerial statement.

Mr. Speaker, as all members would know, 1986 marks the seventy-fifth anniversary of parks in British Columbia. In that light, I ask leave to make an introduction.

It's a great pleasure for me this morning to introduce a special visitor from my constituency, the official mascot for B.C. Parks in its seventy-fifth anniversary, Jerry the Moose. Mr. Speaker, Jerry will host many.... [Laughter.] I know that the House is very happy to see Jerry, but there's a story to be told as well. Jerry will host many special events this spring and summer in parks throughout British Columbia. He'll be making surprise visits to shopping malls, schools and parades, and he may even take a day off to visit Expo. A British Columbia Parks birthday celebration is planned for the long weekend in August, and a major part of this program will be the announcement of...

AN HON. MEMBER: How is he in the hot-tub?

HON. MR. KEMPF: He won't fit in the hot-tub.

...winners of our first-ever parks contest with six fabulous parks prizes, generously donated by the private sector. The contest will publicize the tremendous quality and variety of our world-class park system in British Columbia.

There are both serious and fun sides of parks. We regularly deal with the serious side through our master plans and resource-management projects, and through reports such as that of the Wilderness Advisory Committee, but this is a time for fun and celebration in recognition of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the best provincial park system in Canada. Jerry and I extend a special welcome to all members of the Legislative Assembly to visit as many of our beautiful parks this year as possible and to encourage all of their constituents to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, please welcome to the House Jerry the Moose.

[10:30]

MR. MITCHELL: I'm not sure if that was a ministerial statement, as we started off to say, but I do feel that I should reply. I say this because of something I've been saying for the last two or three years that I have been critic and debate leader for Parks: we must continue to process and push the most important asset we have, and that is our parks and our people. When you look at it, if it takes a little humour, if it takes someone dressed up, then let's do it. But the only thing that I find bothersome is that we look at everything as TV hype. We've got to look at it seriously; it's a serious program that we have in job creation, and I know we have hired one of the constituents from the minister's constituency, and I'm not against that. I do believe he is a professional actor and we do need some employment in that field. I wish him well and I wish more and more people to raise the figure of 16 million Canadians who have visited our B.C. parks; we want to make it 32 million.

Hon. Mr. Segarty tabled the 1984-85 annual report of the British Columbia Council of Human Rights.

[ Page 8238 ]

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, with respect to private members' statements, l would ask leave of the House to permit the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose), who is positioned number four, to speak first on his subject this morning.

Leave granted.

NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS

MR. ROSE: I thank the hon. House Leader, the Minister of Health and welfare and almost everything, and also thank the House for this courtesy. I observe that motions for unanimous consent don't always receive such prompt and unanimous approval.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: I noticed that yesterday. So I do thank him doubly, after yesterday's experience.

Mr. Speaker, all of us were shocked and concerned about the recent nuclear accident at Chernobyl. Chernobyl nuclear accident was a tragedy not only for the Soviet Union, but it was a tragedy for their neighbours and perhaps the rest of the world; and probably a tragedy for nuclear energy as well, but I'm not unhappy about that part of it. I have been consistently fighting that high-tech turkey, called the Candu reactor, now for about 15 or 20 years.

This isn't quite the same, but I want to know, without being alarmist, whether members realize that within 500 miles of our border, just south of Spokane, we have a war reactor at Hanford, Washington. This reactor was built something like 40 years ago. This reactor has had several major accidents to it. Sister Rosalie Bertell, who is a world-renowned expert on nuclear energy and nuclear fission, has said that Hanford is an accident going someplace to happen, or words to that effect. It's an accident waiting to happen.

The Hanford reactor has now been closed down. What I want members to know is that places in Poland and Hungary and as far away as Italy have received substantial fallout from that accident at Chernobyl. We also know that we had fallout in Coquitlam...

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: ...and Vancouver, enough to be concerned about the water supply.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: I'm trying to be deadly serious and I resent frivolous, gratuitous comments from the member across the way, whose chief stock-in-trade is frivolous, mischievous comments.

Chernobyl caused nine deaths, and so far 299 seriously injured. It is presumed that it will take, after that reactor is buried, hundreds of years to cool. It is not an insignificant matter. We've had our own problems here. I'm not pointing the finger at the United States or the Soviet Union and leaving us out of it. We had an accident at Chalk River, and a cleanup was necessary in 1952 and 1958. People like Bjarnie Paulson have got cancers all over their body because they were sent in there insufficiently equipped to look after that cleanup. There's a tremendous case and cause for what is sometimes called the radiated veterans, who have an incidence of cancer a dozen times more than the rest of us.

If such a little thing as a blowout of a nuclear reactor in Russia could cause all that trouble and concern, and one at Three Mile Island which caused us some concern, just think of a nuclear war with 50,000 nuclear warheads flying around. And we talk about Star Wars, protections and limited nuclear wars! What lunacy are we up to? This is absolutely ridiculous.

The Candu reactor's base is plutonium. The base at Hanford is plutonium. It's a weapons reactor, located on an Indian reservation, on a fault line, an earthquake fault line. So it's inevitable that something is going to happen.

What protection are Canadians being offered? As a provincial government, what can we do here? I've been thinking about this. I've been thinking about how we could, without alarming people unnecessarily, seek ways to protect ourselves from what will happen. Well, here's the history of Hanford. They had a mini-meltdown twice before. They've had spills before. I could give you all kinds of chapter and verse if I had time. I have only one minute left, I'm told, and I know that someone else wants to speak.

Why can't the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) seek an audience or somehow consult with the Minister of External Affairs to seek a reference to the International Joint Commission. We have a Canada-U.S. Joint commission that looks after boundary matters — matters such as pollution, Skagit Valley flooding, all kinds of things. That is a commission staffed with experts equipped to look after these things and investigate them. I called for this once before, when we had the Three Mile Island incident and I was a member of the federal House. So I'm calling upon the government, through this Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, to contact the Secretary of State and seek an investigation of Hanford and other boards....

We've got plants next to the U.S. border, too. So I think it behooves both countries, for the safety of their citizens, to have an impartial body.... Don't ask the nuclear industry or the Atomic Energy Control Board. They have a tremendous history of coverups, and if I have a chance to speak about that in a little while, I will.

I'm asking the government of British Columbia to go to the federal government and seek a reference to the IJC to investigate the safety of not only Hanford but also other nuclear plants on both sides of the border, so we can prevent another Chernobyl from happening in Canada or the United States.

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, I won't take up a great deal of time, so that my friend on the other side may continue to speak on this subject. I must say that only a fool would disagree with any of the things that the hon. member has said. Certainly the Chernobyl thing once again brings to our attention the dangers inherent in this type of thing.

I noticed that when he first began to speak, the member made particular mention of the fact that he does not want to alarm people by discussing this subject. So I thought that I might take a moment just to tell the House what I've been able to find out, knowing that this was coming before us today, about what precautions we have in place. Heaven only

[ Page 8239 ]

knows we don't want to have a real test to see how adequate they are, but there are some precautions that have been taken, and some exercises that have been carried out to see if it can be measured how well they work.

But first of all, about the nearby nuclear plants, plants in the States are regulated, as members probably know, by the American Nuclear Regulatory Commission. My understanding is that this agency employs world-class technology and safety standards to minimize the possibility of problems at any of their nuclear plants. I also understand that the American standards call for containment structures, which I don't think they had in place in Chernobyl, and this is to minimize the escape of radiation in the event of a meltdown. The Soviet plant that failed did not have containment provisions, as I've just said. The nearest American nuclear power station is the Trojan power plant, which is about 160 miles south of the border at Rainier in the state of Oregon, and it's owned by Portland General Electric Co.

On the emergency response side, many events, such as oil spills, tsunami waves, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, etc., involve both the American and Canadian governments. Our emergency response systems for those types of disasters are very good indeed. Certainly that was evidenced by the immediate reaction we were able to take to the tsunami that they thought was coming to the Alberni area from Alaska. In the event of a problem at the Trojan plant, I can tell you the steps that would be taken. After notification by American officials, the first thing that would happen, of course, is that Environment Canada would become involved and would predict the upper air movements from the power plant. The Department of National Defence at Nanaimo would provide more detailed predictions of the movement of the radiation cloud within British Columbia. The public health department and local elected officials would implement emergency plans in the target communities, and the public would be advised to take precautions — secure drinking water, etc., etc. There was a test run on a St. Helens eruption, which is an entirely different thing, but it gave some indication of how these tests work out.

I see the light is on and I've only got a moment left, so rather than go into detail, I'll tell you that the tests proved very good indeed for a possible St. Helens eruption. We were notified within 45 minutes by American officials. One hour after the supposed blast we had direct contact with on-site scientists; one and a half hours after the supposed blast there was a prediction of cloud movement; two hours after the blast the target communities had been alerted; and four hours after the blast emergency plans were being implemented. I have other information, but having said that, and because I'd like my friend to have a little more time, I will take my seat.

MR. ROSE: Well, I thank the minister. I would have preferred, while I enjoyed receiving the information, a reaction about whether or not he would take my representation to the cabinet with the proposal I had, rather than a reassurance that we are safe from the eruptions of St. Helens.

But I am not reassured at all by the nuclear regulatory group in the United States. Like the Russians, and like the Canadians, we have a history of secrecy relating to the whole nuclear industry. We are never told the truth about these things. These are lethal devices from which there is no defence if they happen close to you. The U.S. has had meltdowns. A former Energy department official says a major safety inspection of newer N-reactors at Hanford was skipped five years ago — we're not talking about the old one. But the safety inspection by the Atomic Energy Commission was skipped five years ago.

Here's another one from Loma Saltzmann's book, The World's Most Dangerous Garbage, page 117: "Yet another Hanford leak, perhaps the biggest of all, was kept secret for more than 20 years. In the meantime, the natives on the reservation and other people who worked there were radiated." I've got something on this from the same source. Dr. Thomas Mancuso of the University of Pittsburgh studied the death certificates of former workers, and I quote from a little further on: "Thirty-five thousand workers showed increases in several forms of cancer, ten to twenty times the federal average."

Now Canada is not concerned about new plants next to the border. I have a copy, and I'm quoting from Hansard in 1979, and this is an aide-memoire passed to the United States from the then Secretary of State for External Affairs, Flora MacDonald, and that's the same government back in there again. Here's what the aide-memoire said, and I quote from part of it: "Therefore, although the government of Canada is not opposed in principle to the construction of a nuclear power station near the border, it wishes to be kept informed." My God, it's the policy of the government of Canada not to oppose nuclear power stations next to the border, and this was the issue of Sedro Woolley at the time. So I am not reassured.

[10:45]

But as far as the secrecy is concerned, here is a quote from the then Liberal member from Thunder Bay–Atikokan, and he talked about the Atomic Energy Control Board and the AECL. "I have never had experience with any group that I mistrust more. They operate in a semi-secret way and they use big public relations operations to put people off."

This is a bad industry, it is a dirty industry, it is an expensive industry, and we should get out of it, and we should let people know how we feel about it.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Pursuant to standing orders, the Chair would recognize the member for West Vancouver Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds), who does not appear to be here, so the Chair recognizes the member for Burnaby North.

MOTOR VEHICLE TESTING

MRS. DAILLY: My statement is on the restoration of motor vehicle testing in the province of British Columbia. The removal of mandatory provincial testing by the Social Credit government was, in my opinion, one of the most callous, irresponsible and reprehensible moves any government has made in this province, because the results of that have brought about injuries and accidents.

AN HON. MEMBER: Proof.

MRS. DAILLY: I have proof here, and I've been called to give proof already by one of the back-benchers who obviously has his head completely in the sand on this issue. It's one of the former ministers, who you'd think would know better, but unfortunately he doesn't.

Very recently, a company called Minit-Tune International Corp., which is a B.C.-owned company, presented to the minister — and I know he's well aware of this — facts and

[ Page 8240 ]

their concern about the removal of mandatory testing. In the brief time that I have, I can pick out just a few of these. The Minit-Tune International Corp. letter to the Minister of Highways commends the government for their recent announcement of mandatory commercial, but they ask for its restoration for all cars, passenger and non-commercial. Speaking of that, I want to point out to the minister that although I commend the fact that something has been done about the commercial inspections, I am not in favour of the way it's being done. I would like complete restoration to the way we had it originally in British Columbia, done by the government testing stations.

What does this letter say to the minister? "Since the vehicle inspection facilities operated by the government were discontinued, our mechanics have been acutely aware of the increase in the number of vehicles operating in an unsafe condition on the roads and highways. If a vehicle is unsafe and not roadworthy, and the owner decides not to repair it when they come to us, there is nothing we can do about it. It's a shocking situation." That's the situation I'm talking about. To even suggest that with cars driving around with mechanical defects, it does not necessarily follow that there is inevitably to be accidents, is again holding your head in the sand, as the former minister has just done.

Here are some of the statistics. Of a total of 743 vehicles tested in the lower mainland on April 14, 1986 — pretty up to date — 34 percent would have passed the previous motor vehicle testing; only 257 out of the over 700 brought in. The number of vehicles that would have failed the previous motor vehicle testing was 486. So 486 would not have been allowed on the road if we had gone back to mandatory testing — and this is just one two-week testing period.

The reasons, of course, are minor and major. There were 312 major defects found. Major defects involve primarily steering and brakes. As one man said recently, anyone who drives with their steering wheel defective is akin to a drunken driver. Isn't it interesting that we have a government which does a fair amount of advertising on the matter of drunken driving, but is not concerned about the steering wheel defects in cars? I can't understand it, Mr. Speaker. I cannot understand a government that could be so stupid about this issue. The stupidity is leading to tragedies in this province, and that is my concern.

During question period recently — I don't believe the minister was here — I brought up to the minister that the police board in Vancouver is concerned about restoration of mandatory testing. Quoting from a May 9 article in the Sun — pretty recent — Police Superintendent Ziola says: "If a vehicle is not properly maintained, you may not see it in an accident in the city, but when it drives at high speed out on Highway 1, it's a different story." So every day the Social Credit government is putting the lives of the people of this province at stake because of their reprehensible, callous, irresponsible attitude to mandatory testing.

HON. MR. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few things regarding statements made in the press on this subject, and first of all inform the House that the records we have show no increase in accidents caused by mechanical failures for the last seven years. According to our records, less than I percent of accidents are caused by mechanical failure, and are staying constant at that at all times.

In 1985 the total number of accidents increased over 1984. In 1985 there were 102,928; 1984, 98,506. Except fatal accidents — 1985, 428; 1984, 447. The observation I make there, Mr. Speaker, is that we should all be happy with the trend on fatals. They're going down.

The ministry statistics for the first two months of 1986 do show an increase in injury accidents. However, the same statistics show no increase in the defective vehicle category related to injury accidents.

The Vancouver Sun showed that injuries are climbing for the following reasons: subcompact cars carry more passengers on the average; poor driving habits being displayed by drivers in the lower mainland; ease of availability of financial settlements from ICBC; lack of deterrents for drivers who commit driving infractions. None of these statements is related to the mechanical condition of the vehicle.

The article does not address the possible increase in traffic loads. For example, Expo 86 will result in additional traffic volumes in the lower mainland. Factors such as this have to be taken into account.

The lady said that we were irresponsible as a government in getting rid of mechanical inspections in 1983. I just want to refute that and say that we were not irresponsible, and advise the Legislature that inspection of vehicles through the old inspection system was only a once-a-year check. I can assure you that there was no follow-up, Mr. Speaker. It didn't assure the safety of the vehicle.

The key factor is continued enforcement provincewide of the rules. That's one reason that we have police patrolling the highways. I think it was also said in this Vancouver Sun article, Mr. Speaker, that an unsafe vehicle in the city, travelling on a highway outside of the city, is subject to the same laws as an unsafe vehicle from the country travelling to or in the city. That is the approach to enforcing laws as applied provincewide.

One must remember that the old system was discriminatory, which would, in the opinion of the legal people, be subject to successful challenge under the new Charter.

If the Vancouver police department are concerned, they have all the powers to enforce a program on their own.

I conclude on this remark, that I think that a lot of that article was politically inspired, because Mayor Harcourt made comments, and Mayor Harcourt is an NDP candidate for the next election.

MRS. DAILLY: I thank the minister for being here today to give his government's case, because I appreciate the fact that he has much to do tomorrow. But I simply must say that, of course, I found it rather sad that the minister had to end on a note of partisan politics on an issue like this which is dealing with the lives of the people of our province.

The people who want the restoration of mandatory testing, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, come from all political parties in this province and from apolitical people. It was the police chief, not the mayor.... But even if the mayor had made this comment, surely because he happens to have an NDP stripe, does that mean that everything he says is suspect and wrong?

Put aside the mayor's comments. What did the police superintendent say in the city of Vancouver? He said that last year there were 644 injury-causing accidents in the first three months. There were 1,377 such accidents in the first three months of this year. The minister trots forward his statistics; I suppose you can say that I trot forward mine.

[11:00]

[ Page 8241 ]

This should not be a game and a war of statistics. I am asking this government to look at the facts as they exist. If a car that is defective is coming at you on the highway or anywhere, your chances of having an accident, or of that car creating an accident, are far greater than if that car was subjected to some form of mandatory testing. I must say to the minister that I cannot understand why the government is being so obstinate and dogmatic about this issue. I ask the Social Credit government to put aside their partisanship on this issue, to put aside their dogma; and I ask the minister, before we have more and more tragedies on our highways, to take the leadership and get his government to assist him in restoring mandatory testing.

MR. MOWAT: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. MOWAT: On behalf of the Social Credit caucus I am proud to introduce to the House today four bright, capable and energetic young people. They are the legislative interns assigned to the Social Credit caucus during our current legislative session: Laurie Boucher, from the constituency of Dewdney; Diana MacGibbon, from Gordon Head; Nancy Peck, from Vancouver South; and Brian Young, also from Gordon Head. We've had the pleasure of working with them for three months now, and individually and collectively they have contributed to the efforts of this House to approach its business in an informed and analytical manner. Their hard work and dedication indicate once again the value of the legislative internship program. Their presence and refreshing enthusiasm certainly remind us of a bright future that British Columbians can look forward to as our province's young people assume their roles in society.

I believe I speak for all members of this House in extending my congratulations and thanks to Laurie, Diane, Nancy and Brian, and in giving them our best wishes for future endeavours.

HOUSEBOAT RENTALS ON OKANAGAN LAKE

MR. MacWILLIAM: Okanagan Houseboats last March made an application to Lands, Parks and Housing for a permit to develop a houseboat rental facility on the Westbank Indian reserve in the Okanagan. The plans called for up to 100 boats to be operating on Okanagan Lake, although the initial number, I believe, will be closer to 50. Despite the efforts of citizens in the area, the government has granted a one-year lease for the development in late March, I believe, and apparently at this time construction of the facilities is now nearing completion.

Concerns regarding the development have been growing throughout the Okanagan Valley. They centre around three issues that are largely environmental.

First, there are concerns about the possibility of environmental damage to Okanagan Lake as a result of the rental houseboats and from those using the facilities — the fear of damage to be done from garbage being thrown overboard, emissions from the houseboats themselves, as well as noise pollution from the boats and the sound systems installed on the boats.

Secondly, there is the issue of the handling of sewage. While the design of the houseboats does not allow the dumping of sewage directly into the lake, once the boats are back to the marina the plans apparently call for the raw sewage to be pumped up onto the Indian reserve land in an untreated state. Now I feel that this practice is unacceptable. The question, I think, has to be asked whether the Pollution Control Board has approved this procedure of the disposal of raw sewage onto reserve lands.

Finally, there is also widespread concern about the lack of regulatory control, the lack of regulations covering an operation of this type. It means that there is little control over the hours of operation, little control over the qualifications of the people who are renting the houseboats, the quality of the boats themselves, and even the compliance of the operators with the terms of the operating lease.

Since approval was granted by the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing a number of things have occurred.

First, a group of concerned citizens has been organized, calling themselves the Ogopogo Group. Apparently they want the issuance of the lease to be delayed, and a public review of the application. They want to get the Ministry of Environment involved, and they want to develop a set of regulations covering the operation of the houseboats.

Secondly, the regional districts as well as concerned citizens on the lake have formed a committee to produce a paper on what types of regulations are needed to cover developments of this kind. I might add that the committee is made up of administrators from south, central and north Okanagan regional districts, administrators from Vernon, Kelowna, Penticton and Summerland, and representatives from Shuswap-Revelstoke regional district.

There have been two additional applications subsequent to this application, and these applications have apparently been received by Lands, Parks and Housing. Apparently one application, although the initial application didn't include it when it went into Lands, Parks and Housing, now has been submitted. The application is looking at the provision of a float plane facility.

I think the whole issue of commercial development on Okanagan Lake is a complex one; there are several factors involved. So far, the major actor from the provincial government side has obviously been the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing. Another ministry that should be involved, Mr. Speaker, is the Ministry of Environment. Apparently, an official in Lands, Parks and Housing made a public statement that the Ministry of Environment has been directly involved; but in investigating the matter we found that that is in fact not the case. The ministry's present position, I feel, is still not clearly known.

Mr. Speaker, the mayors of the major communities around the lake, as well as administrators of the affected regional districts, are concerned enough about the situation that they have formed their own committee. The citizens around the lake are worried enough that they've banded together in organized groups addressing this concern. As well, they've drawn up a petition to the government, which apparently the government has ignored. I understand that the petition was attempted to be served upon the Premier, but he refused to meet with this group. It's my understanding that the petition has approximately 1,400 names attached to it.

The concerns expressed about the houseboat development are largely to do with the ecology and with the safety of the area. I think that clearly falls, at least partially, under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton). At the present time the province has so little control over the Okanagan houseboat operations that the Ministry of

[ Page 8242 ]

Lands, Parks and Housing has admitted that it doesn't have the authority to ensure the company's compliance with the operating lease that the ministry has in fact granted. The addition of two new commercial applications demonstrates to me the need for some direction in this matter.

I think that properly drawn regulations which ensure responsible behaviour by the operators of the commercial establishments and oversee the safety of the houseboats themselves, as well as encourage environmentally sound practice by all parties, are in fact the responsibility of this government. The government, I feel, should act immediately to initiate discussions, in order to draft regulations which would govern not only the houseboats at Okanagan Lake but all commercial use of the lake, as well as the utilization of the lake for the disposal of waste materials.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Just very briefly, as this whole question of houseboats and the permits for same can come under my ministry, I just want to make a few comments in regard to the subject the hon. member opposite has raised here this morning.

I want to say that yes, a one-year lease has been given to that company. They asked for more; they wanted a long-term lease and we said: "No, we'll give you a one-year lease, and you must prove yourself." We want to make sure that every opportunity is given an entrepreneur to develop something, to invest money, to provide jobs in the province of British Columbia; and that's what we've done in this case. We've said: "No, you can't have a long-term permit. You've first got to prove yourself." I think it's incumbent upon us to do that sort of thing, to say: "No, you can't have that, because it's not going to work without trying it." I don't believe that is the route to go.

I was very much involved in that decision. The decision was made to give a one-year permit. If those people don't prove themselves in a year, then they must come to us, hat in hand, seeking yet another permit. And, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that at that time they'll be very, very closely scrutinized. I think that was the right decision to make on behalf of all of the people of British Columbia, to ensure the development was made, to be sure the money was invested, and to be sure that the opportunity was given our citizens and others to enjoy that particular lake.

Mr. Speaker, we're in close contact on a daily basis, if not weekly, with the houseboat owners' association of British Columbia. We know there are no regulations. We are asking that association to be very careful in what they do on our lakes in British Columbia or there will have to be regulations; we don't want that. I don't like Big Brother government. I figure, the less rules the better. If those people can govern themselves, good for them; and they've been told that. They've been told: "Watch your act very closely, because if you don't, you'll have government regulations," and my God, Mr. Speaker, I think we've got enough government regulations already.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I was expecting a comment from the Ministry of Environment. However, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing gets no argument from me in terms of the commercial viability of these operations. That's not the point at all. The fact is, lease was granted without public input when public input was requested. Lease was granted with consultation with the members of the industry and the houseboat association, but not with members of the public and the residents who are plainly affected by these decisions. Lease was granted, ignoring the concerns of the residents. Lease was granted without proper public access to that decision.

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of recommendations for the Minister of Environment to consider, recommendations which could be enacted under present legislation contained in the acts of the Minister of Environment, the Environment and Land Use Act as well as the Pollution Control Act.

Firstly, that under section 4 of the Environment and Land Use Act, the minister hold a public inquiry to address numerous environmental and socio-economic concerns related to the increase of commercial and recreational activities on the inland waters composing the Okanagan Lakes basin.

Secondly, that under sections 2 and 3 of the Pollution Control Act, the minister consider directing the pollution control board to inquire into and determine causes of and remedies for the ongoing deterioration of the water quality of the Okanagan Lakes basin. Also, that in accordance with the minister's recent announcement declaring the Okanagan an environmentally sensitive zone — an announcement which I congratulate the minister on, because it reflects the very concerns that I brought forward in my private member's statement a year ago — the minister prescribe more vigorous standards regarding the discharge of effluent or contaminants — which includes municipal, industrial, commercial and recreational wastes — into the inland waters comprising the Okanagan Lakes basin.

[11:15]

Thirdly, that the minister, through Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, consider the establishment of a regulatory authority for the Okanagan Lakes basin, with powers to monitor and enforce such regulations and legislation as has been deemed necessary to ensure the ongoing environmental and recreational safety of the Okanagan Lakes system.

I make those recommendations to the minister, and suggest that it would be in the interests of residents throughout the Okanagan Valley — residents who, I might add, are very concerned about the ongoing quality of life in the Okanagan; that it is the responsibility of both the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing; in fact, the responsibility of the government — to ensure that the environmental quality of the Okanagan Lakes basin is in fact maintained.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MRS. JOHNSTON: In our gallery this morning we have 50 grade 9 and 10 students from Matheson Junior Secondary School in Surrey and their teacher Mr. Mark Hunter, along with 25 Inuit guests who are visiting us in Surrey for a few days and who certainly have taken an opportunity to visit their own pavilion at Expo. I would ask the House to please give them a warm welcome.

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

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

On vote 56: minister's office, $208,882.

[ Page 8243 ]

MR. MITCHELL: To begin with, I think I should thank the minister for inviting me to his grand opening yesterday at Goldstream Park in my riding, where we opened a box and out came his new toy, Jerry the Moose.

But I want to say that he doesn't have the finesse and the traditions of one of his predecessors, the present member for Columbia River. When he opened a park in my riding, not only did he invite me, but he invited me with the same type of an invitation that the rest of the people had. He also had a little more finesse and a little more dignity. He invited my wife and myself to share the platform with him. But I notice that the present minister-maybe it's because of his newness — lacks those little finesses that I think a minister of the Crown should display. I'm quite convinced that when he opens a park or displays his new toy in ridings held by members of the Social Credit Party, those members will be treated with a dignity that was not shown the elected member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

The minister in his earlier remarks mentioned Cypress Bowl. For the benefit of the House and especially you, Mr. Chairman, I think we should review what Cypress Bowl is and the problems actually happening at Cypress Bowl because of the present government's position. Cypress Bowl is a class A park, and as a Class A park, all British Columbians and all Canadians — all members of the general public — have a statutory right, by legislation passed in this House, to enter, freely go through that park, and enjoy the benefits and the scenery. This government, with its so-called privatization, has taken certain sections of Cypress Bowl — which I say again is still a class A park — and leased them out to private enterprise. In the first announcement to lease them out, one of the major facilities they talked about was the ski lifts.

Now I think there is a very philosophical debate within the Parks ministry and among lots of people within the parks community about whether it was a good move for provincial governments to spend literally millions of dollars to install ski lifts for a minor group of British Columbians, the skiers. If you invest a million dollars in this very technical equipment, along with that goes 3 percent per year for maintenance of that equipment. That's just to maintain it in a safe standard and to keep it in operation. I know this isn't a great expense in the park budget, so philosophically the minister and the government felt that maybe some of this equipment should be leased out, and maybe that would relieve funds going into maintenance of that equipment. There was a certain merit in it because it was a vast sum for a small group. I don't say that skiers are that small a group, but compared to the 16 million people who visit parks, they are a small group.

There was another section of that park leased that has bothered not only me but also a large group of outdoor people. The government leased out not only the mechanical equipment but also the cross-country ski trails, and these cross-country ski trails had been installed at the taxpayers' expense. Once the trails are in — the stumps are cleared, the land is laid out — they are basically self-supporting, and there is not the built-in expense there is with the mechanical equipment. Normally they cater to older people like myself, who enjoy cross-country skiing and the pleasure of being out in the wilderness. They are not the group that likes the thrill of going down the high slopes — and the thrill of maybe breaking a leg and getting off work. They are the largest group of ordinary citizens. But in its wisdom this particular ministry, when they gave out the lease for Cypress Bowl, not only ran a black line over the mechanical equipment of ski lifts, but they also ran little black lines up and down the cross-country trails. Even then, after signing the lease....

I was surprised, when I heard the minister talking in answer to the member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam), when he said that we'll see how it goes, and we'll only give them a one-year lease. For Cypress Bowl, his ministry gave a 50-year lease. But after drawing all their lines and drawing them through the cross-country tour, there was still a vast area of Cypress Bowl park-which again I say is a class A park — that was allowed to remain in the park status. As part of that lease the government gave to the company $80,000 as a subsidy to maintain and to keep the roads open, allowing access to the public.

A very unfortunate situation is now developing, and I was really concerned. People who believed that they were British Columbians and believed in all fairness they had a right to the undeveloped area of the park, people who were hardier and enjoyed cross-country skiing, who weren't confined to the cross-country trails that had been leased out, have been denied access to the park.

The worst part about it, Mr. Chairman, and I say this as an ex-policeman: this ministry and this government, and condoned by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), allowed the operator to use the police forces of this province to go up and arrest people whose only offence — and I speak to you as a lawyer, Mr. Chairman — was that they were wanting to ski on public land that is protected by provincial statute that gives them that right. An individual was arrested.

Mr. Chairman, you know as a legal person that you do not arrest Canadians indiscriminately. This is not a police state. There is no legislation that allows the government and their arm — the policemen — to go out and arrest people whose only offence is that they want to ski on public lands. The minister may lack the finesse of parliamentary traditions of recognizing MLAs, but I never thought that he would support the use of police to terrify Canadians. Maybe the minister has never had the opportunity to see people who have been arrested for the first time, who have been confined to a police car, who have been taken to the jails. What was his only answer when there was a group of people representing all British Columbians who wanted to enforce the laws of this Legislature? His only answer was: "I don't care about that group of troublemakers. The 44,000 people who go there and pay their way — they're the only ones I'm interested in." Those 44,000 go there because of agreements, they go there because certain parts of the park have been allocated under a lease for skiing, but if it's only one Canadian who wants to...

MR. REYNOLDS: Break the law.

[11:30]

MR. MITCHELL: ...use the rights that are given....

You know, the member sitting beside me says that if you walk in a class A park you are breaking the law. I don't know why we have statutes, why we pass legislation, why we bring in a class A park, when we have a member sitting there who says if you walk in that park you are breaking the law. If that person had broken the law, then he would have been charged. He would have been charged, and he would have gone to court; and if he had broken the law, he would have been convicted. But there was not an offence. The state has used

[ Page 8244 ]

police to terrify people, saying that they're going to go to jail. They go to jail but they're not charged; that's the worst part of this offence. They were arrested; they were taken away from their friends; they were put in a police car; they were taken down to a police station. The minister, instead of coming to their defence; the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), instead of coming to their defence; the Premier of this province, instead of coming to their defence.... We have one of the government members sitting there and saying they were breaking the law. Well, if they were breaking the law, why weren't they charged? They weren't. It was used as a terrifying tactic.

The minister failed to come to their defence. I say that is far worse than not sending me an invitation to his opening, far worse than not showing the dignity of recognizing an MLA for an area. But you never, never in British Columbia, I hope, will ever see where the police in 1986 are used to terrify citizens without grounds. I ask the minister what his policy is on that particular incident, and how it's going to come up with other programs he has.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Vancouver East.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Doesn't the minister get a chance?

HON. MR. KEMPF: Go ahead, please.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, before the minister replies.... I'm sorry that I...because he has priority; he's got seniority; he's got heft; he's got moose power. I should have given him the floor.

On Cypress Bowl you gave a bombastic answer when we asked you, and now you've heard a speech. Part of the park, rightly or wrongly, has been given over to a private company for their groomed ski trails, and they can charge people. But outside of that area, you can't molest citizens going into a class A park; not yet, under Social Credit's new order. So why don't you spell out very simply to the public what parks require a payment of a fee to a private company in order to use, and what parks are for the public generally? Give them a break, eh?

Nobody's published a map that I've seen, or made any sense as to what is the right of public entry, with skis on or not, and what is for the private company. Spell it out, instead of having people hauled off down to the West Vancouver police station, and the Attorney-General doing his usual thing, not replying to letters. That's hard work for the Attorney-General. You're going to tire him out, not replying to all those letters.

HON. MR. KEMPF: In answer to the member for Vancouver East's question, all parks in this province are available for the public generally. I'll spell that out very clearly, as the member asks. But, Mr. Chairman, I'm not here this morning to argue the estimates of the Attorney-General; certainly that will happen in due course in this committee. I was quite surprised to listen to the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) talk about those people who were arrested, in regard to the Cypress Bowl skirmish last winter. Certainly, as I understand it, they weren't charged.

MR. MITCHELL: They were arrested.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Member, in your long, distinguished career as a policeman, had you never taken someone down to the lockup? Have you personally never taken someone down to the lockup that wasn't charged? I'll just leave that question out there, Mr. Chairman.

I want to talk about parks. Because that member is the parks critic in this committee, I want to talk about parks. The member talked about his invitation. I'm sorry if he felt that he should have a better invitation to the celebration that took place yesterday in a park in his constituency. As all members will know, I invited him publicly here in this chamber the day before. He got a better invitation than members on this side of the floor, who, Mr. Member, you'll be very happy to know, didn't even get an invitation. So where else more public could I invite the member than right here in this chamber. It was done in this chamber and it was done with a very good feeling. Yesterday, when the member was out at the park, I made a point of introducing him to the crowd there and of saying that that park was in fact in his constituency. So I don't really know what more I could have done.

Before I get to the real story about Cypress Bowl, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew earlier talked about Jerry the Moose being a TV hype. I've got to tell you, I wish he was. I haven't yet been able to talk anyone from the media into taking TV pictures of Jerry the Moose. Hopefully that will happen in the very near future. Jerry the Moose will be travelling far and wide in the province of British Columbia in this summer of Expo 86, and hopefully beyond, to tell the good story of what we have in parks in this province. Even the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, my Parks critic, will agree to that — I heard him say it this morning. We have a great parks system in our province, the best of any province in Canada. We should all be very proud of that. I want to tell all British Columbians what it is they have as far as that asset is concerned, and tell not only British Columbians but also those who visit our province, because I believe it has been the best-kept secret in this province. Mr. Chairman, I intend to see that that changes.

I listened to the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew talk about Cypress Bowl and I really couldn't figure out whether he's for or against skiers, or really what it was that he was alluding to. But I've got to tell the real story of Cypress Bowl. Yes, part of that park — a class A park — has been privatized. I guess that's the philosophical difference between this and that side of this House. But I'll give you the real story. I'll tell you of the advantages. We've heard of the disadvantages — and I'll talk about those as well. But I want to talk for a moment about the advantages of the privatization of Cypress Bowl.

You know, we now give an $80,000-a-year subsidy to that company in their husbandry of that particular part of Cypress Bowl park. Had we not privatized that part of the park, it would be costing the taxpayers of British Columbia in the vicinity of $200,000 a year for the operation of that park. The member for Vancouver East shakes his head. But he doesn't know. Those are the facts. And you can knock them all you like, you members opposite, but that's the saving to the people of British Columbia as taxpayers. I'm proud of that.

As I told the member the other day, there are a very few — it's just a handful — antagonists who don't like the privatization of that park. That's why they're doing what they're doing, not because they're being denied access. That's not the story. The story is that they're doing it for a purpose. That's their prerogative. They've got a purpose in mind, and that's

[ Page 8245 ]

okay. They can do their thing. However, thousands upon thousands — the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) mentioned a figure himself — of very happy Vancouverites and lower mainlandites enjoy Cypress Bowl. They have enjoyed it, they will continue to enjoy it. Literally thousands of very happy people, some even in the area represented by the member for Vancouver East. Happy constituents you have, Mr. Member.

There's a small handful of people who don't like the privatization, and so are doing their thing. That's their prerogative because this is still a free country, thank goodness. Because we in this ministry realize that they too are British Columbians, we're working very hard; before the next season comes along at Cypress Bowl, we'll find means even by adhering to the wishes of those people. They too are citizens of British Columbia, and regardless of their political stripe or their methods or reasons, they too will be listened to. It's incumbent upon this ministry to do that.

Mr. Chairman, the privatization of Cypress Bowl is good for the taxpayers of British Columbia. It's certainly good for those thousands of people who enjoy Cypress Bowl for skiing in the wintertime, and it will be good for that small handful of people too.

[11:45]

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I just have to say a few words. I was sitting in my office when I heard the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew get up. I wanted to say some things about Cypress Park and put some things on the record, and thank the minister for the great job he has done since he became minister in dealing with a few people — not just the dissidents that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew talked about, who purposely go up there to try to get themselves arrested to create a TV story, but some other people who had concerns about the privatization of the park and the way it was being operated. I met with those people in my office and solved their problems. The minister is going to come up with a formula that is acceptable to people who aren't concerned about getting their pictures on televisions and creating a political story, but those who really want to get the full use of the park.

It's quite interesting. The gentleman who got himself arrested happened to appear on a hotline show in Vancouver, and the host said to him: "Have you been to see your MLA yet?" He said, "No," because that wasn't his purpose. He's a member of the other side, of their party. He was on Dave Barrett's show, who is obviously a member of that party. I think Barrett asked the question innocently, hoping he would say: "Yes, and he did nothing for us." But when the guy said he hadn't been, he had to say: "Well, for God's sake, man, you'd better go and see him." A lot of that group had been to see me, but they weren't the kind of people who wanted to create an arrest situation just to get some publicity.

The other thing that disturbed me, Mr. Chairman, is the member for Esquimalt attacking the West Vancouver police force. I'm obviously biased because I live there, my children have grown up there and gone to school there. I think it's one of the finest police forces on the lower mainland, certainly well respected by the people in West Vancouver. For that member, who's a former policeman himself, to say in this House that the government had anything to do with telling the West Vancouver police force to go in and arrest an individual.... I think he should apologize to the West Vancouver police force, because they don't operate that way. I'm sure it wasn't an easy decision for that policeman, but if you watched it on television as I did, he was being intimidated by a man doing what the policeman thought was breaking the law. As the minister mentioned to that hon. member, many a time as a policeman he's arrested somebody and the prosecutor has decided not to prosecute. Maybe the problem is going to be resolved — and I'm sure it will — to the benefit of all the people.

Cypress Bowl is a tremendous cross-country ski area. The job being done by the corporation that took over is fantastic. Tens of thousands of people are using that hill, paying a small fee for the use of a ski facility close to a downtown core. The letters I've received from those who support what we've done far outnumber the other side. A lot of those letters are not from members of any political party; they're just British Columbians who appreciate a well-groomed ski hill, and one that doesn't cost the taxpayers any money. The minister mentioned the $200,000 and somebody said: "What about after revenues?" That was the cost to this government after revenues to keep that hill open every year. Now the government receives money and doesn't have to worry about those losses. The taxpayer of British Columbia is the beneficiary of what we did in privatizing that park.

I wanted to make sure that that was spelled out, but mainly to thank the minister, who I think is doing a good job. There is a problem there, but he's solving that problem. We don't need televisions and people intimidating people. Sit down in his office. I found in dealing with this minister that that's the way you can solve problems, and I'm sure if members of the opposition had a problem in their constituency — whether it be a park or any other area under his capacity — if you went to see him, he'd solve your problem. He's interested in doing things for all of British Columbia, not just whether you're a Socred or a New Democrat.

MR. MITCHELL: When I listen to some of the speeches in this House, I often wonder how we have progressed as far as we have in British Columbia and in Canada with rights. We mentioned these West Van police. I also know a lot about that particular case, and let's go back to another case that was before the West Vancouver police, and went also before the Crown counsel, who works under the direction of the Attorney-General. That was when other skiers were skiing on the area outside of the leases and were harassed by employees of the company that has the park. For anyone who knows anything about skiing, when someone comes along and threatens them and stands on their skis so they can't go ahead or backwards, that's harassing, and it's not something you laugh at. When those people went to the police to lay a charge of harassment and assault, it was not allowed to proceed with the.... Because of instructions from the Crown counsel, the police would not do an investigation and would not lay the charge.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Matters involving the park are relevant. Matters involving another ministry and the actions of the courts or the Attorney-General's ministry are not relevant. To the Parks vote, please.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I'll rephrase what I said. I'm talking about the actions of employees in exactly the same situation that the previous speaker mentioned. The

[ Page 8246 ]

reason that there was the high publicity to get the evidence that was denied, because it was back in the bush, was to get the evidence of assault or trespass or anything else right before witnesses. To make fun of TV cameras.... There's not a better way of getting evidence than to take pictures of it. But I am glad to hear, and I hope, that there will not be harassment of people who want to use the rest of the class A park that this government hasn't given away.

What I am leading up to is the new policy that the minister has brought out in Wells Gray Park. There is a new plan for Wells Gray Park, and part of that is the development and the commercialization of it. Part of it calls for the provincial government and the parks branch to put in trails to open up various parts of that park, which I say is excellent. I say that if we have a wilderness park, we should have some areas that are accessible for all the public, not only those who are the more athletic type. There should be some trails in for safety and for development. But my big fear — and this is the fear that I mentioned with the cross-country trails after they were put in — is this: is this minister going to draw a line up and down those trails that were put in at public expense, that are self-supporting like the trails that were put in at public expense for the benefit of hikers and cross-country skiers and the older people like myself and the non-athletic types who want to enjoy the outdoors? Is there any danger that this minister and the parks branch and the Social Credit government, will they then lease out these trails to those who own the commercial venture either at the beginning of them or at the end of them?

If you want to walk up trails that were put in there, is that going to cost you $4 to go to a lake or a glacier or some other viewpoint? There has been a very dangerous precedent set by this ministry in Cypress Bowl, and I want some assurance on behalf of all the people of British Columbia that we are not going to expend taxpayers' dollars in developing parks and then lease them out on 50-year leases, because this government will not be here for 50 years. It won't even be here for 50 months, but they are selling the assets of this province with their agreements to their friends under the guise of privatization.

We want some assurance that if there is any development in any parks, they won't use the same precedent that this government was hoodwinked into giving at Cypress Bowl in the park. We want that assurance that that mistake will not be made in any other class A or provincial park.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, if the member is asking me to make a commitment that no further privatization will take place in parks in British Columbia, the answer is no. I won't give that commitment, because as we have seen at Cypress Bowl and as the member from the area who just spoke said, the people are enjoying that facility more now because there is more of a facility there. As I said before, it is costing the taxpayer of the province of British Columbia less. So I think whenever that is possible, whenever you can get a better service at less cost to the taxpayer, certainly as government and as a minister of the Crown, that is the direction in which you should go.

But that member misses completely the point in regard to Cypress Bowl. I told the member that 99.9 percent of the people using the facility — and they are literally in the thousands-are very happy with the way the facility is being operated. They come back time after time after time to enjoy that facility. Yes, as I said twice already in this chamber this morning, there are a very few — a very, very, very, very, very few — people who, for their own reasons, don't like the privatization of the park and make a big thing of not being able to get beyond Cypress Bowl into the wilderness area of the park. But even those my ministry has recognized, and we are at this very time working very hard to ensure that by the time the next season rolls around, there will be an alternative for those people to be able to get beyond Cypress Bowl and utilize that area of the park which they wish.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know how I can make it any clearer than that. I give my undertaking to that. But I am certainly glad that the member brought up Wells Gray, one of the jewels of our park system in British Columbia. Yes, we have a Wells Gray master plan. I've got to tell you that an awful lot of input from the citizens of this province, particularly those living in the area of Wells Gray, went into the Wells Gray master plan. We think it is a good plan.

No, it isn't etched in stone, and nothing should be, because times change, people change, wants and wishes change. We are constantly changing, and I think this ministry, particularly in the area of parks, has to be willing to change with the times. However, we have in place the Wells Gray master plan, and it is heralded in that area as being one heck of a good plan. Yes, the plan will provide increased public recreation opportunities, such as the construction of new trails. That was asked for in public meetings by the public, and that was given in the Wells Gray master plan. I believe it will enhance the usage of that park, and particularly in this 75th year.

I would ask that the member visit that park for the first time. I would plead with him that he do that, and not only that but that he go back to his constituents and plead with them to visit Wells Gray Park in this year of the 75th anniversary of parks in this province, particularly when Jerry the Moose visits Wells Gray.

[12:00]

MR. GABELMANN: I want to make a few brief comments about Strathcona Park this morning, but before I do there are a couple of other matters.

I think that these estimates should not pass without some reference to the late Jim Boulding of Campbell River, who died a few days ago, as I am sure the minister knows, just days before he was to receive an award called the Heaslip Award awarded on a joint basis to Canadians by the United Nations and the National Survival Institute of Ottawa.

This year, Jim Boulding was the only recipient of that particular award. Normally four Canadians are eligible, but in 1986 it was decided that Jim Boulding's special work and special place in parks and environment-related issues in Canada deserved mention and deserved the unique honour of being the only person to receive the Heaslip Award this year. Unfortunately Jim died on a Wednesday, and the award was to be given on the following Saturday. His wife Myrna was able to attend in his place.

Jim was 54 years old, and I think most members of this House have met him at one place or another over the years, as he and his wife and others have developed the Strathcona outdoor educational centre on Upper Campbell Lake just outside Strathcona Park. Jim spent his life working for a better environment and working to promote and enhance Strathcona Park, to try to get the many changes that were and are needed in respect of that particular park and that area in central Vancouver Island. I say on behalf of many, many

[ Page 8247 ]

British Columbians that Jim Boulding will be missed. He died too young, too soon.

His wife said it was ironic that he would, in his last days, be the recipient of this particular environmental award, because he lost every environmental battle he ever waged. In one sense that was true, yet in another sense I think Jim Boulding's legacy will be the enhanced awareness and value that we all place on our environment and on our parks system in general, and on the particular beauties and values in and around Strathcona Park and the Buttle and Campbell Lakes system.

In a moment or two, I want to talk also a little bit about Strathcona and some of the things that Jim was trying to achieve and those of us in that area would like to see achieved. Before I do, I just want to get a couple of other smaller parks-related issues out of the way.

The first relates to Cape Scott Park on the northwest corner of Vancouver Island, a park that has been designated essentially as a wilderness class A park. Cape Scott is essentially the most important tourist attraction on northern Vancouver Island. It's not certain how many visitors it attracts each year, but estimates are that last summer some 3,000 people or so hiked out the one or two days — depending on how fit you are — to the beaches on the coast. Unfortunately the park's budget is still insufficient in terms of maintaining the trails in that park. The $50,000 it is allocated is just not enough to do sufficient work. On occasional years the park is able to benefit from assistance from the Holberg armed forces base, where young soldiers, armed forces personnel, go out and do some park trail maintenance. Unfortunately that's not a guaranteed thing. The budget is just not sufficient to maintain a trail in an area that's subject to pretty high rainfall, as a result of which the trail can be impassable most parts of the year. Last year was an unusual year. It was passable for most of the summer because of the unusual dryness. But for the most part it's very difficult. It needs a greater budget than it now receives. I just want to stress that people in all walks of life in northern Vancouver Island recognize that Cape Scott is potentially, if not already, the major tourist attraction on northern Vancouver Island, and it's a very important element in their tourist promotion strategies. So that's something that I hope the minister can look at with a view to enhancing that trail maintenance budget in particular.

I also want to say that I pointed out to a couple of senior officials in the parks branch just the other day that tourists coming to B.C. who pick up a copy of the parks branch map of park facilities around British Columbia can look at the map and on it they will see red dots and black dots. The red dots indicate places where there are camping facilities or facilities for recreational vehicles to pull in or whatever. If you're sitting in Vancouver and say to yourself that you'd like to go to northern Vancouver Island, when you pick up that map you will see that north of Mohun Lake, which is just outside Campbell River — which is half of Vancouver Island physically — there's only one red dot indicating a camping spot. That happens to be at Schoen Lake Provincial Park, which is pretty well inaccessible by anybody other than those in a pickup truck or a four-wheel-drive. The road in there is pretty rugged. You're not going to get in there with a camperized vehicle unless you've got a rugged pickup with a camper on it that you don't mind driving through the bush. The road is rugged, the campsite's overgrown and it's really off the track. So essentially, with that exception, there are no government indicated campsites in northern Vancouver Island. Yet there are a great many. The regional district spends $194,000 a year on parks and campsite-related facilities in northern Vancouver Island. The parks branch spends nothing, outside of the little bit they spend on Schoen Lake and Cape Scott. And forest companies all have campsites up there. But tourists would have no idea that they could go up there, because there is no indication that there are any campsites.

The ministry can rectify that in two ways, in my view. One is by establishing several places in the northern part of Vancouver Island where people can camp. Taking over one of the highway rest-stops just south of the Nimpkish valley would be one positive way to accomplish that goal. And there are other areas up there that could be developed or perhaps taken over from the regional district. In addition, the ministry might consider indicating on its maps where there are other camping facilities operated by forest companies — or by regional districts, as is the case up there. So I just want to make the point that when you look at the parks map of Vancouver Island, you would think that there were no places to camp in northern Vancouver Island. That's a real inadequacy in terms of development. If we really do intend to try to develop a tourist industry in connection with our parks and recreational and environmental areas, then we've got to deal with that.

I want to go back to Strathcona Provincial Park itself. There is probably no park in B.C. that has more public concern expressed about it than Strathcona. People in the Comox Valley, people in the North Island area and people all over Vancouver Island view Strathcona as a very special area and a very important part of their lives. I do some hiking in that area and have been into various parts of the park, and in the summer on a weekend it's like walking down Main Street in Vancouver, there are so many people using that facility in the summer. Interestingly, there are all kinds of people from Europe. Many of the people you meet are from Germany, Switzerland and other parts of Europe. It is a major international attraction, and should be promoted more vigorously than it is at the present time. But we've got some serious problems with that park. The boundaries are inappropriate in many areas. When you drive across Vancouver Island from Campbell River to Gold River, you go into the park and out of the park and back into the park again. You would never know. You see signs saying, "Strathcona Park boundary," and you don't know whether you're going into it or out of it, because there's logging on both sides of the boundary line and no indication. It's not the fault of the sign; it's the fault of the fact that the area really isn't a park for practical purposes. It's an industrial area. Mining and logging go on in that park in a very active way, and it's most inappropriate. But certainly there's not much we can do about it- it has happened. There needs to be a rationalization of those boundaries so that the area around Buttle and Campbell Lakes and Elk Mountain is included in the park. There needs to be a rationalization so that the boundaries don't follow straight lines on a map, but rather follow some of the contours and some of the physical features that should be included.

What I want the minister to respond to is what process he intends to embark upon to make the decisions about the particular boundaries of the park, and what his intentions are in respect of the interior of that park. Some suggestion is being made that it should be changed from a class A park into recreational status to allow industrial activity, such as mining and whatever else. Is the public going to have an opportunity

[ Page 8248 ]

to have full input into the discussions that relate to the changes, both in boundary and in categorization of areas within that area? Is the public going to have full opportunity to discuss that and to be involved in that, and how much value does the ministry place on that particular public discussion? I know that there are any number of people, in the hundreds and probably thousands, on Vancouver Island who want to participate in the discussions about how that park can be enhanced and how it can be protected, and I just wonder what the procedures will be and what the timetable will be for the decision-making process.

I want to close by saying that there is a great deal of concern about the potential for even more mining in that particular park. A decision was made in the mid- to late sixties to allow Western Mines — as it was then known; Westmin Resources now — to go in and set up a mine in the middle of one of the province's greatest parks, a decision that everyone in that area regrets. I certainly do, but it's done and we can't do anything about that now. But we can do something about making sure that continued desecration of that park doesn't continue. I hope that the master plan, when it's presented to the public, will come at that issue from the point of view of trying to enhance and protect the park values that do exist in that area, because that actually in the long term will serve as a greater generator of jobs and employment than all of the industrial activity that could ever take place in that park.

HON. MR. KEMPF: I thank the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) very much for his very logical debate in my estimates regarding parks. I must say, and I admit, that I know nothing of the tale he tells about Jim Boulding. I too, after hearing the story, am very sorry to hear that anyone should pass from us at the age of 54 years. I would appreciate very much if the member would make available to me particulars of that situation.

[12:15]

Cape Scott: as far as the trail maintenance is concerned, as the member knows, I've only been in the ministry for slightly over three months and I'm not totally familiar with all parks and all park situations. That's why I talked earlier, though, of more of a parks awareness in our province. I feel very strongly — and I said it earlier — that our parks in British Columbia are our best kept secret. I think we have to make our citizens aware of that resource, make them very aware of what it is they have in parks, how those parks could be used and where they are. I find, too, Mr. Member, that many people don't realize the very vital resource that we do have. I think once we make people aware of what it is we have in parks in our province, they too would be very willing to expend more taxpayers' dollars in the area of maintenance and upkeep and development of those parks. I intend, in my term as the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, to make people of this province more aware, and to seek additional funds for those purposes.

The parks map: again, I guess we're talking about parks awareness. Certainly we should be promoting all parks in our province, whether they be municipal or regional district parks, or whether they be parks in the private sector. That's why I've extended to the private sector an open-door policy whereby they can have input. That input will be recognized by us, and hopefully, maps such as that of which you speak will come out in the future, showing all of our parks. I see no reason why municipal parks can't be in our parks map so that visitors to this province and citizens alike are aware of just what we have in parks — in all areas, not just in the northern half of Vancouver Island, as the member has pointed out.

Strathcona Park. I accept the member's concern. Again I say I am not as enlightened as I would like to be about all of the parks in British Columbia, and certainly in the months ahead I will attempt very diligently to find out what problems plague our parks, and in particular Strathcona, as it is one of our largest provincial parks and certainly needs to have a lot of attention. I think all of our parks in the system need more rationalization.

When you talk about what will or will not be done in our parks.... Certainly I agree with public discussion. On a recent open-line program in Burns Lake, in my own constituency, wherein live a lot of people who are very concerned about our largest park in the province, Tweedsmuir.... They were concerned, and I was too.

With all due respect to my colleague the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton), I very strongly felt that that Wilderness Advisory Committee should have met in other areas of the province, particularly Burns Lake because of its closeness to Tweedsmuir Park. It has been suggested in the Wilderness Advisory Committee report that some logging should be done in Tweedsmuir. I've polled the people living in the vicinity of Tweedsmuir, and I've got to tell you that that's the last thing that they ever want to see.

I take my direction from the people of this province, Mr. Member, as I think every elected representative should. I'm talking now of the majority of the people. I will be doing that in regard to discussions on Strathcona Park as well as Tweedsmuir Park and others in this province. I agree fully with public discussion, and there will be public discussion when changes are considered in our parks system.

MR. GABELMANN: I appreciate the commitment that there will be public discussion in respect of possible changes in Strathcona. Can the minister give me some idea as to when that might happen?

HON. MR. KEMPF: I'm sorry, I can't do that. I'm very new on the job. As soon as possible, Mr. Member.

MR. MacWILLIAM: First of all a general question, or perhaps some observations I've made with regard to B.C. parks facilities and some general recommendations to forward to the minister. I don't know if the minister has had an opportunity to travel through the province recently, or at least since he's become Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, or if he has had direct experience in utilizing a lot of the provincial parks system. I bring to the minister observations that I made last summer, when I went on a kind of a busman's holiday with respect to my responsibilities as opposition debate leader for Tourism. As the minister can well appreciate, the B.C. parks system and tourism go hand in hand.

I draw my observations from an extended trip that actually went down the west coast from Port Angeles all the way down to the California border and then looped back through the interior of Washington and Oregon, up into British Columbia, through the Okanagan into the Rockies, across from the Rockies into the Cariboo area and into the northwest area of the province, over onto the Island, down the Island and then back up through the Hope-Princeton. It was a fairly lengthy trip, but I took the opportunity to look at the park

[ Page 8249 ]

facilities, and what was and wasn't available, talked to people, both visitors and local tourists and also compared the facilities with what is offered in some of the northwest states.

Some of the observations I made.... I must admit that they are more mental notes than anything else, but I think they are valid even now. When I went down through the U.S. states, particularly Oregon, which has an excellent state park system, I found that what people demand — at least what a lot of the U.S. tourists pretty well demand — is the facilities to accommodate RV camping or tenting or whatever, those facilities being washroom facilities, hot and cold running water, the facilities to allow one to take a shower, amenities for washing clothes, washer and dryer facilities. Pretty well when you travel down through the States, you find that those are part and parcel of the state park system. U.S. tourists pretty well demand that kind of service when they travel.

I talked with many of the U.S. tourists travelling through British Columbia, and that is the comment or criticism they have of our present park system. The park facilities themselves, the natural surroundings, can't be argued with. We have a beautiful park system in terms of the natural environment. Their criticism seems to be that although we've got these great parks, and the initial facilities are well developed, they don't have access to hot and cold running water to do their laundry and stuff like that. I think it is a criticism that has to be taken in terms of what we can do in the future to accommodate what is becoming a more discriminating traveller, whether it be an RV traveller or somebody even tenting. They are becoming more discriminating in what facilities are available for their utilization.

A particular concern that I had, especially with the small day parks.... When a tourist drops off to one of these day park facilities and uses, for example — and I am totally serious with this — the washroom facilities, in many cases they are in a deplorable state, truly a deplorable state, where you can't really even walk in there without almost choking on the air. I think that this is totally unacceptable, in trying to offer what has been heralded as one of the best tourist areas in North America, that we have such deplorable conditions in our washrooms and the facilities in the day parks that are available for our motoring public. I think — and I mean this in a serious manner — that although it might seem a small problem, that when a tourist comes to British Columbia and faces that kind of a facility, it really turns them off; and we may not be getting the return visits that we could be getting by encouraging them to come back. Perhaps the minister would like to make some comments in that regard.

I think maybe I'll leave it at that and let the minister comment. Then I've got some other things that I'd like to go over.

HON. MR. KEMPF: I thank the member for Okanagan North for his thoughtful debate. Yes, I guess, as one that was born and raised in British Columbia, I've travelled the length and breadth, if you like, of this province and have seen a lot of our parks. Not only that, Mr. Member, I too am very familiar with Route 101, particularly that part of it which runs through the state of Oregon. I've got to tell you in this House that the state of Oregon probably has one of the finest parks systems in the world, and they are to be congratulated for that. It is a fantastic parks system, particularly on Route 101. Certainly it is my wish, as the minister, to assure the people of British Columbia that we, too, will work toward having that kind of parks system in British Columbia.

I think we have to be very careful. You talked of running hot and cold water and those kinds of facilities. Certainly there are some of our parks that have those kinds of facilities now, and there are more that I wish to see have them. I think we've got to be very careful though, Mr. Member. As you realize, the weather in Oregon and the weather in British Columbia, particularly the northern two-thirds of British Columbia, is a little bit different. There is a difference in the length of season, etc. I think we have to be very careful. One of the things that the ministry watches very closely when considering upgrading a park to running water or whatever is that we don't go in direct competition with a private operator. It's one of the things we have to be very careful of. I don't intend to use taxpayers' money to upgrade a provincial park if it follows that a private operator a mile down the road goes out of business. That's not the intent of a parks system, and that's certainly not my intent as the minister responsible for parks. There are, however, many parks that could be upgraded to the kinds of facilities of which you speak, and certainly we are taking a look at that and do take a look at that at all times.

As to the cleanliness of some of our parks, yes, we do have a problem, but it's certainly not the intent of the ministry or those working in it that we have those kinds of conditions. We do, Mr. Member — and I've heard this from a number of our people — have a very serious problem with vandalism in the province of British Columbia where that relates to our parks. I think it was just this morning I saw a newspaper article — not of one of our parks, but of vandalism that was done in a park in this area, I believe. I just forget the particulars. We do have a very real problem with vandalism. However, that's not to say that we shouldn't be keenly aware of the fact that we may have cleanliness problems in some area. Again, if you can bring that information to me, certainly I'll talk to my people about it, and I can assure you it will be rectified.

[12:30]

MR. MacWILLIAM: I could bring that information to you and will attempt to do so, because there are a number of specific instances that come out very clearly in my mind in terms of unacceptable standards. I appreciate the minister's comment in that regard. I don't argue with the minister that there are many parks right now that do have hot and cold running water, but I don't recall in my travels — I might be wrong — staying in any provincial park that offered laundry facilities. As a recommendation, perhaps you should look at this, because that was certainly one criticism that came, again, particularly from the U.S. travellers that I talked with. This is something they'd really like to see. I'm sure the minister will take that recommendation in the spirit in which it was given.

Moving on, and this is with one park in particular. To refresh the minister's memory, this is a letter written to the minister, I guess, shortly after he became Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, under the signature of Ms. Annette Devlin, who is the secretary of the Fauquier community club, Fauquier being a small community on the east side of the Arrow Lakes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Near Needles?

[ Page 8250 ]

MR. MacWILLIAM: Right across from where Needles used to be, except a little higher up. To refresh his memory, the letter is fairly short so I will read it into the record.

"As concerned citizens of the Fauquier community club, we are inquiring as to who is responsible for the Fauquier provincial day park. The park was constructed by the parks branch, but is not being maintained. That is, there is no garbage pickup, no grass-cutting, no washroom or picnic table maintenance. As there is no campsite in Fauquier, the park is being used as one, therefore the problem is twice as bad. At the same time, a boat ramp and breakwater that were constructed are also in need of maintenance. Your cooperation in remedying these problems would be appreciated."

I did contact Ms. Devlin and I asked her at that time if the minister had responded and to forward the minister's response. Now the lack of accompanying correspondence from the minister indicates that he may not have, and perhaps he can clarify that. But I think more important and to the point is, is the minister aware of this ongoing problem and has he sought a means of rectifying the problem, as the upcoming tourist season is basically now upon us?

HON. MR. KEMPF: No, I am not aware of the Fauquier provincial day park situation. I am sure I would have remembered it had it crossed my desk. Maybe it just happened at that time when I was coming into the ministry. But, Mr. Member, if you make a copy of that available to me after the House rises, I can assure you that I will certainly look into it.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, I will make that copy available to the minister. I ask that he deal with this matter as soon as possible, because I know that the residents of that area are concerned about that problem.

Another local problem — and I know the minister is aware of this, because I did get a response from him — involves access to Kalamalka Lake Park, which is a class A park that was established some time ago. As the minister is probably aware, he received a number of letters from individuals who have summer cottages on the east side of the lake, where the only access to those cottages is through parkland. The only other means of access would be, of course, by water.

Now they had written the minister asking for assurance that the road would be kept open, because the road was basically an access road given by permission of the former owner of the property — Coldstream Ranch, I believe. The minister had given assurance that the road would be kept open, but he did not, at least in his reply to my questions, mention anything in terms of maintenance of the road facility. Now it's not a public road, inasmuch as it would not come under the responsibility of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, and there is a problem with maintaining the road. The residents had requested whether the minister could assure them that there would be scheduled maintenance or an attempt at maintaining the road, as it causes quite a few problems.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I trust that the area the member is talking about is that which is a little complicated, as far as the property on the lake is concerned, in that the land belongs to the Land Commission. Is that the same property we're talking about?

MR. MacWILLIAM: It's my understanding that the land which the road accesses through is actual parkland, so it is within the park boundaries. As a matter of fact, the cottages are within the park boundaries. The minister has given assurance that the road would be kept open for access, but in a letter, if the minister would like to peruse his files of March 7, 1986, I had written him directly asking for confirmation as to the status of the road and plans for its maintenance. The minister did respond by saying the road would be kept open — those were his words — but did not respond in terms of the question of maintenance. I wonder if he could do so now.

HON. MR. KEMPF: I remember the issue of the road itself. But I didn't realize, when sending the letter to the member, that there was a problem with the maintenance. Having brought it again to my attention, I will look into the matter once again and apprise him of what can or will be done in regard to the maintenance of the road.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, to go back to the minister on a point that was raised during statement periods, and that is the present problem, as perceived by local residents, with the leasing of Crown foreshore to Okanagan Houseboats Ltd. along the Westbank area, I would like to ask the minister, actually remind him, of a statement that he made earlier in the discussion when the minister said that he takes direction from the people of this province. I ask him why the petition and why the opportunity for public debate of this matter was not given to the residents who had voiced their concerns regarding the permit of lease.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, this issue came up and apparently was going on prior to my becoming minister; and it came up very early in my tenure as minister. The decision was made, and I believe rightly so. Possibly there should have been more input, but certainly I can assure the member that there's been an awful lot of input to me since the decision was made to give that organization the one-year lease.

Twenty-twenty is perfect hindsight, Mr. Member, but a one-year lease has been issued to this company now. That lease has been signed. As I said earlier, they wanted more, a much longer lease. It was decided, and I think rightly so, that they would be given a one-year lease. I can assure you that they will be very, very closely scrutinized in their first year of operation.

It's a one-year lease, and if they don't do things the way they should do them or the way the majority of the residents in and around that area think they should be doing them, then at the end of a year we're going to have to consider seriously what will have to be done after that.

MR. MacWILLIAM: The land for the development is apparently claimed by both the Westbank band as a whole and also the band chief, I believe, a Mr. Ron Derrickson. Was the minister aware at the time of granting the lease that the ownership of the land itself was in dispute? I'm talking in terms of the federal Indian land involved.

HON. MR. KEMPF: The answer, Mr. Chairman, is no. We in this ministry were involved, as I understand it, only with the foreshore lease. It had nothing to do with the privately owned uplands land.

[ Page 8251 ]

MR. MacWILLIAM: Was the minister aware of this situation, which is presently before the federal House, and apparently a situation that is involved with an ongoing RCMP investigation? Was he aware of this at the time the lease was granted?

HON. MR. KEMPF: No, I was not. Again I say, Mr. Chairman, that there was no reason for me to be. We were concerned only with the foreshore lease.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I mentioned earlier today that there have been two additional applications for commercial development on Okanagan Lake. Those applications have been received by the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. Apparently the first application — from Sundance Estates Ltd. — calls for moorage facilities to be built on the lake near Okanagan Mountain Park. The development is apparently to cover 17 hectares and 5,000 feet of frontage. The moorage is to be for 25 or 30 boats initially. Has the minister made a decision on this application?

HON. MR. KEMPF: The answer, Mr. Chairman, is no. I can assure the member that it and any other applications that may come before us will be very closely scrutinized.

MR. MacWILLIAM: The second application made is also an application which impacts on the Westbank Indian reserve in Westbank Bay. The application calls for a five hectare development at the bottom of Gellatly Road in Westbank on a site which was previously a class C park before being turned over to the Westbank band as part of a land settlement. The plans outline a 15-site campground, a marina with fuel and dock facilities and a float plane service centre with aviation fuel sales. Was the minister in receipt of an application which included the float plane centre with aviation fuel sales? Did the original application contain this as part of the commercial plan?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. KEMPF: I am not aware of this application as yet. But I can assure the member that any such application will be given very close scrutiny in view of the very rapid changes that are coming about in the houseboat industry in the province of British Columbia.

MR. MacWILLIAM: For the minister's information, the original plan submitted to his ministry did not in fact contain provision for a float plane centre. The plan that has been submitted to the Regional District of Central Okanagan does include provision for this float plane centre. Obviously there is a fairly significant discrepancy in terms of the plans that have been submitted to the different offices.

The minister preempted me on a point that I was going to make: the fact that the number of commercial applications presently coming up with regard to recreational activity on the lake are obviously having a major impact in terms of the quality of life in the area. The minister has said previously that he listens to the people. Will the minister recognize the requests for a public inquiry or a process of public hearing before proceeding any further with those applications?

[12:45]

HON. MR. KEMPF: Well, I will first have to see those applications before making such an undertaking. But I can assure you once again, Mr. Member for Okanagan North, that there is concern in the ministry as well for this very fast developing industry in our province. It is being very closely looked at.

MR. D'ARCY: Fairly quickly, I too want to stress a point made by the member for Okanagan North, and that is the condition of some of the roads leading to parks and right in the parks. In my constituency, where the road has been black topped or paved at some point, it's in pretty good shape. But where the roads have not been black topped or paved, they are in very poor condition. Even the word pot-hole is unreasonably bland. I would say some of the roads in campsites, such as at Syringa Creek Provincial Park, are filled with — they are more like chasms than potholes. There are other areas where in rainstorms you certainly wouldn't want to drive too fast through some of those — I won't say sinkholes — large ponds in case you damp down the distributor. That's if your vehicle's of an age to have a distributor.

So anyway, I would hope that there would be some maintenance. What I would like to see is single-lane black topping. I think that would be permanent, because where that has been done it has been permanent. You don't get heavy traffic in parks. When I say heavy, I mean you don't get logging and gravel trucks; you have campers and passenger vehicles. So black topping lasts almost indefinitely, if the roadbed has been done properly.

A second accessed area is Kokanee Glacier Park, the principal road being from the west arm of Kootenay Lake, with other access roads up Lemon Creek and South Fork Creek. All are in very poor condition. These roads were not built by Parks or by Highways. In most cases — I think you would relate to this — they were built by mining companies. They have reasonably good grades, but because it's mountainous country they're subject to sudden runoff. The culverting and the ditches are not, say, up to highway standards, because they were built for industrial purposes. Certainly these roads need to be improved. They give ordinary vehicles, including some four-wheel drive vehicles at times, a very rough time in getting into these parks, which are very popular, from a hiking and mountain-climbing point of view, especially the west arm road into Kokanee Glacier Park.

Believe me, when you do get up on top there, the glacier does look just like the label on the beer bottle. You have to be right up there to see it, but the person who did that graphic did capture it.

I want to reiterate what the member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam) said regarding the hot-water facilities for showering in parks. This is something that both the public sector and the private sector in this province have really fallen down on. I get complaints from boaters that there is no place to tie up. They're not looking for something free, by the way; they don't mind sticking in quarters to get a shower — a lot of quarters in some cases. The fact is that these facilities simply are not available to people who travel by boat or people who travel by vehicle.

In some areas, I think the minister would find that the private sector has looked after this to some degree. In other areas it hasn't, and especially if the park is far removed from a commercial core. I would like to see, as we have on the Prairies and in the states to the south of us, facilities where needed where hot water is available, primarily for showers

[ Page 8252 ]

and also as a secondary consideration for doing laundry. I agree totally with the member for Okanagan North that if we want people to come and stay here and come back, we're going to have to allow them the normal requirements of personal hygiene and laundry hygiene.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. REYNOLDS: Up behind me in the gallery, I think just filing in, are a group of grade 11 students from the Pemberton Secondary School and their teacher Dan Williams, and I hope the House will make them welcome.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Just briefly to the member for Rossland-Trail — and I take his comments in regard to roads to heart — there seems to be a bit of a grey area in some areas in regard to the roads to parks, as to their maintenance. I'm beginning to find that out more and more. Certainly, as I said to the member for North Okanagan, if you have some particular road that is really bad and that needs immediate maintenance, please make that available to me in writing so I've got something in my hand that I can go to others with and find out what can be done.

As far as Glacier Park is concerned, Mr. Member, if that's where the Kokanee is, certainly we've got to build a good road to it. But just generally on roads in the Kootenays, I have undertaken as soon as is humanly possible — hopefully soon when the House rises — to do a tour of parks in your area and other areas in the Kootenays to find out for myself. Certainly I will find out for myself what the roads are like. I, too, have a concern for the building and upgrading of roads to our parks system, because I feel that — and as I said earlier — it's a forgotten resource, and we've got to make people aware of it. We've got to make people want to visit our parks system. As far as the upgrading of facilities, yes, where they aren't a threat to a private operator in an area, certainly upgrading of facilities will be considered.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, just in summing up, I think what has made my job as debate leader in Parks easy is the neglect that has taken place in the last five years. I sincerely hope that I do get some assurance from the minister that there is going to be some upgrading, that there is going to be some forward programs for the development of parks.

If he is reviewing some of the past history of the parks branch, one I would ask him to really look at, and again it helps youth and it creates jobs, is the revitalization of the youth program where students were hired through the summer to do trail building and to give a presence in the park doing some of the jobs. Maybe they are saying they're saving money by contracting out, but it is important to protect the parks, to stop the vandalism, the terror that takes place in some parks in some of the out-of-the-way places, by having a presence there. The youth group gave a lot of people jobs. It was good. Granted it was part of the NDP policy of the conservation corps concept, but it's still a good idea, and I hope that the minister does realize we have an asset there with which we can build jobs, we can build progress, and we can look at other future growth in our parks system.

I have a couple of local programs that I would like to bring to the minister's attention; I won't demand an answer right now, but I will send it in letter form. One is the CN right-of-way as a recreation corridor from Saanich right through Victoria right through my riding. And also I hope again, Mr. Chairman, that he will look at the botanical gardens in Port Renfrew. They have been a park or part of the ecological reserve of B.C. since the sixties. It is a destination point that is advertised all over, but in the last mile to get in there there is no road to speak of. There was a logging road, but it has deteriorated. When I went in there last, in a four-wheel-drive, we had a great problem.

You are not competing with any other parks in that area. To develop that would bring people to Port Renfrew. It would create jobs with people staying there at bed-and-breakfasts, such industries.

I feel that there is a great potential in parks. I welcome the new minister. I hope that he continues with a positive stand to develop our parks, create the jobs and develop B.C., so instead of 16 million people going to the parks, we'll have 32 million in the next few years.

Vote 56 approved.

Vote 57: ministry operations, $76,394,060 — approved.

Vote 58: British Columbia home program, $10 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Ree in the chair.

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

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I call second reading of Bill 16, Mr. Speaker

INSURANCE FOR CROPS AMENDMENT ACT, 1986

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, we're dealing with this in committee stage, and we'll have comments there on the provisions of the bill.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, it is a one-section bill and would probably most appropriately be dealt with in committee, so I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 16, Insurance for Crops Amendment Act, 1986, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 2 p.m. Tuesday.

[ Page 8253 ]

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Neilsen moved adjournment of the House. Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:57 p.m.

ERRATUM:

Page 8226; col. 2; May 14, 1986:

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That period of 1972-75 proves that you can't be trusted. Broadbent says one thing, Skelly says another, and there you go.

The above interjection was made by the Hon. Mr. Ritchie and wrongly attributed to the Hon. Mr. Heinrich.