[ Page 7771 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Motor Vehicle Amendments Act, 1989 (Bill 52). Hon. Mr. Ree

Introduction and first reading –– 7771

Mines Act, 1989 (Bill 54). Hon. Mr. Davis

Vancouver Island Natural Gas Pipeline Act (Bill 55). Hon. Mr. Davis

Natural Gas Price Act (Bill 56). Hon. Mr. Davis

Mining Right of Way Act (Bill 57). Hon. Mr. Davis

Introduction and first reading –– 7771

Committee of Supply: Ministry of State for Vancouver Island-Coast and

North Coast, Responsible for Parks estimates. Hon. Mr. Huberts

On vote 61: minister's office –– 7771

Mr. Perry

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Davidson

Mr. Barlee

Mr. Williams

Hon. Mr. Savage

Mr. Kempf

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENTS ACT, 1989

Hon. Mr. Ree presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendments Act, 1989.

HON. MR. REE: This bill has some housekeeping amendments in it, to start with, which allow for some renumbering of certain sections to conform with the Criminal Code. In addition to that, it has one of the promises of the throne speech, which will allow the imposition of fines in addition to penalty points for those people who abuse our highways in cars — for moving traffic offences. It is hoped that with this deterrent, we might improve the traffic safety on our highways, which today is most unacceptable in that we are killing one person out on our highways every 13 hours, and we're injuring somebody every 12 minutes. The cost to the people of this province is over $2 billion a year.

Bill 52 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.

MINES ACT

VANCOUVER ISLAND NATURAL GAS

PIPELINE ACT

NATURAL GAS PRICE ACT

MINING RIGHT OF WAY ACT

Hon. Mr. Davis presented messages from His Honour the Administrator: bills intituled: Mines Act; Vancouver Island Natural Gas Pipeline Act; Natural Gas Price Act; Mining Right of Way Act.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Davis, I'll briefly describe the four bills, and then move that the bills be introduced and read a first time now.

The first bill is a rewrite of the Mines Act. The Mines Act and the code, which it will introduce, have been fully discussed with the mining industry and the mining unions. It essentially covers safety in the workplace and reclamation. It's concerned primarily with environmental protection.

The Vancouver Island pipeline legislation gives authority for the Crown to enter into a tripartite agreement with the federal government and the pipeline company to build a pipeline from the vicinity of Vancouver up the Sunshine Coast and down Vancouver Island. It makes provision for gas supply and arrangements for major industries to purchase natural gas from the line under certain conditions.

The Natural Gas Price Act changes the nature of natural gas pricing in British Columbia to one dictated by the market rather than by the minister. And it reorganizes the B.C. Petroleum Corporation into essentially a natural gas marketing organization.

Finally, the Mining Right of Way Act is amended in such fashion as to permit third parties to have access to mining roads which have been built and financed by others.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bills be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bills 54, 55, 56 and 57 be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask leave for the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services to sit this morning while the House is sitting.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF STATE FOR
VANCOUVER ISLAND–COAST AND
NORTH COAST, RESPONSIBLE FOR PARKS

On vote 61: minister's office, $290,010 (continued).

MR. PERRY: It's a pleasure to rise in this debate. I feel a bit like the minister. This is his first estimates in Parks; this is the first chance I've had to participate in the Legislature in the Parks debate, although I see sitting in front of the minister another minister who had worked for a long time on an issue in which I share an interest — the Skagit Valley controversy — and who at one time even hired me to work on the Skagit Valley.

I am not sure if I have ever had the chance to express my appreciation to the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis), but I will do so now while I see him there. He has the distinction, maybe, of being the only member of the cabinet who actually hired me at one point in my career. I'd just like to express again my appreciation.

I want to begin by asking the minister some philosophical questions about the parks system in British Columbia and the role of his ministry. I have had an interest since about 1969 — maybe even a little bit earlier, back to the days of the Hon. Ken

[ Page 7772 ]

Kiernan — in the parks system in B.C. I have had a long, sometimes frustrating, relationship with the provincial parks branch in my role in the ROSS committee, which I am sure members will know is the coalition of environmental groups. ROSS stood for Run Out Skagit Spoilers. It was the coalition of environmental groups that worked from 1969 to preserve the Skagit Valley from flooding by High Ross Dam. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources had a significant role as one of the leading federal politicians supporting preservation of the Skagit Valley back in the first days when he was the first Minister of the Environment for Canada.

In those days — in fact, right through the 1970s — the provincial parks branch in British Columbia opposed preservation of the Skagit Valley. I say that advisedly. The provincial parks branch deliberately declined to participate in any hearing or to offer any support for the conservationists fighting for that valley. The former federal Minister of the Environment will know that even before the International Joint Commission hearings in 1971, which were achieved largely, I think, through the intervention of the former federal Minister of Environment, the British Columbia government effectively boycotted that process. It refused to allow its civil servants to participate in the hearings, and their words could only be cited indirectly by conservationists and members of the public.

[10:15]

I know from my personal involvement in that issue that officials of the provincial parks branch destroyed signs put up by conservationists indicating the extent of the flooding. In the book, A Citizen's Guide to the Skagit Valley, published by the ROSS committee, is a photograph of a sign reading: "Elevation 1,725 — High Ross Dam would flood to here." The sign was erected along the Silver Skagit Road at the edge of the proposed flood basin of High Ross reservoir to alert the public to the extent of flooding — that was in 1981. The sign was finally put up after 12 years of controversy. Within hours, or a day or two, it was removed by officials of the provincial parks branch, who were very embarrassed.

I personally made that sign. The father of the Member of Parliament for Skeena painted the sign by hand. It was put up by volunteer labour and paid for out of donations to the ROSS committee from individual citizens, some of whom gave money to the ROSS committee from all over the country. The sign had a little tag on the left-hand lower comer saying, in type: "This sign was erected with money from public donations and by volunteer labour. It is here to inform the public what would be lost if the Skagit Valley were flooded. It is purely informational and has no political connotation of any kind. Please don't tear it down or hurt it."

The parks branch officials came and tore it down. They didn't destroy it. I found that sign in their compound at the original campground built in 1971, I guess, and I asked them: "Why did you do this? Do you not see it as your mandate, as civil servants paid out of taxpayers' funds, working for the provincial parks branch, to help protect the environment? Do you not see it as the public's right to know what would be lost by High Ross Dam? Do you not see it as inconsistent, when the provincial government" — at that time a Social Credit government — "has a legal case before the International Joint Commission attempting to stop the flooding of the valley? Do you not see it as inconsistent that you would be interfering with the public's right to know what will be flooded?"

Believe me, they were very embarrassed, those officials. They said: "We did this on orders. Nobody is allowed to erect a sign on a public right-of-way in B.C." I challenged them on that. I said: "You know as well as I do that there are signs all along that road — 'Sandy and Willie were camping here' or 'Norma and Gene this way' — which you never remove."

At that time there were no public toilets in the Skagit Valley. There was toilet paper and human excrement strewn throughout the woods around the campgrounds in those days, and no effort by the government to clean that up or to enforce the cleanup when volunteers cleaned up the mess. "Why do you discriminate against a sign like that?" Of course they had no answer, Mr. Chairman.

I am telling this story as sort of an allegory, because I think it represents something which has tremendously disappointed me as a citizen and a conservationist — maybe I'll even use that vile word that was used on "The Journal" last night, "preservationist" — and as a taxpayer that our Ministry of Parks never has functioned as an advocate for parks in British Columbia. It has done a wonderful job of running the parks we have. It's recognized worldwide, and it's recognized by all British Columbians for the quality of the parks we have, for the cleanliness in park campgrounds and for the dedication of the government employees who work in parks. There is no question about that. I've said it often to Parks staff when I've had the chance, and I'm glad to say it again today. It's a wonderful service, but it has never, in my view, seen as its mandate the advocacy of parks in British Columbia or the expansion of the park system. Therefore I found the words of the minister somewhat hollow when he talked yesterday about his desire to improve and expand the parks system, without any commitment from government.

I'd really like to ask him what he sees, philosophically, as the role of Parks. Should it be an advocate for conservation and preservation of wilderness and recreational areas in British Columbia, or should it simply serve as a tool of overall government policy?

To heighten the point, I emphasize that when the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources served as Environment minister for Canada, he had an important advocacy role at the public level. He was one of the first federal politicians, if not the first, to speak out forcefully in terms of preservation of the Skagit Valley and on many other environmental issues, even when he had no power ultimately to enforce his will. I remember very distinctly how, although he lacked the statutory authority to protect

[ Page 7773 ]

the Skagit Valley at the time, he frequently stated in public that he would not allow the valley to be flooded, and he played a very important role, as did politicians from all parties at various levels, in leading public opinion and reinforcing it.

I personally would like to see that kind of leadership from our own Parks ministry, and I'm just interested to learn from the minister whether we can ever look forward to that in British Columbia.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Let me thank the hon. member for the history on the Skagit Valley. As a matter of fact, recognizing his commitment to that project, I'd be very happy to give him a written summation of what has happened since those early days, where we are and what we propose to do in the future. I also want to mention that now, with the Skagit Valley commission, we're equal partners and playing a major role.

In my initial statement when I talked about my philosophy — if that's what he's asking — it's very much a stewardship philosophy. I think that's pretty clear in some of the initiatives we've brought forward. We've talked continually about securing the present and building the future. If he looks at the last 11 months, that's precisely what we've done. We've secured the present, and we're building and strengthening the base that we have.

I indicated in my speech that we have 38 landscapes that we've protected; there are 52 that we want to protect. If that doesn't indicate that we are looking positively forward and building a parks system that we can continue to be proud of, I'm not sure what he would be asking. I've also indicated in the past that we would be looking at some form of a systems plan, so that there's some method to the growth in our parks. I've also indicated that there would be no further mineral exploration in parks.

I believe that we have been a very strong advocate of our parks. I believe that the people of British Columbia recognize that we are securing the present, building the future, and we are an advocate for the parks system. We're going to be very protective We're going to be looking into the future by asking all the people of British Columbia — groups of all sorts of people — for input, and we will listen to them and make intelligent decisions regarding our parks system in the future.

MR. CASHORE: I'm going to change now to a different topic. I want to hear the minister's comments on some correspondence that he has been involved in with regard to the Spetifore lands. Any way we look at this, we're dealing with an about-face. I want to hear the minister's comments, and I'm going to read his letters into the record. The first letter is dated March 14. It's to Mr. Ineke E. Hardy of the Tsawwassen Nature Park Society:

"Dear Mr. Hardy:

"Thank you for your recent letter regarding the former Spetifore lands located within the municipality of Delta. I am indeed very gratified that the Tsawwassen Nature Park Society agrees with and supports my approach to the preservation of land for provincial park purposes. I certainly intend to continue to pursue my mandate with vigour and with a vision that will make the B.C. parks system the pride not only of British Columbians but of all who visit, regardless of their origin.

"With respect to the former Spetifore lands, I can assure you that I am aware of the natural and heritage values of Boundary Bay and the role which the property plays in that natural system. I certainly agree that Boundary Bay is a feature of provincial, if not national, importance. I am keen to work with both the federal and local authorities on options for managing the feature as part of a growing metropolitan area. For example, if the municipality of Delta approached the province and wished to pursue some form of park status, I would certainly be pleased to meet and discuss the issues.

"Your interest in and support of our provincial parks is appreciated.

                                    "Yours sincerely, 
                                           "The minister."

A full-page ad was then taken out in the local newspapers featuring copies of some letters in support of the position they were advocating, and central to those letters was a copy of this letter. So it was widely circulated, because, as you can appreciate, the members of the Tsawwassen Nature Park Society and those many people in Delta who are very concerned about this issue were delighted with the minister's approach.

Following that is a letter dated May 9 to His Worship Mayor Doug Husband and members of council, municipality of Delta, written by the minister. A copy of this letter went to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Savage), the first member for Delta. A copy also went to the second member for Delta (Mr. Davidson). I find it very interesting that he was copied on this letter. I think it could be assumed that he had a role in bringing pressure to bear upon the minister, resulting in this letter where we start to see an about-face.

"Dear Mayor Husband and members of council:

"I understand that my letter of March 14, 1989, to the Tsawwassen Nature Park Society regarding the former Spetifore lands in Delta was published in a local newspaper. In it I acknowledged the society's agreement and support for 'my approach to the preservation of land for provincial park purposes.'

"Since my letter (copy attached) was published by the society in relation to the land use debate over the former Spetifore lands, it may well have been misinterpreted by many people that that statement was specific to those lands. It should be noted that it was a general acknowledgment of the society's 'delight' over my comments in an interview with the Vancouver Sun, in which I stated my general intention to expand B.C.'s park system.

"As stated in the last paragraph of my letter to the society, in the event you, as a council, wish to pursue some form of park status of these lands within your municipality, then I would certainly be pleased to meet and discuss the issue with you. However, I am not making a commitment as to the provincial position at this time. The council may also wish to approach the GVRD regarding these lands.

                                    "Yours sincerely,
                                            "The minister."

As I said, it was copied to two MLAs.

[ Page 7774 ]

The reversal continues with a May 17 letter to His Worship Mayor Doug Husband and members of council. Perhaps this letter was an indication that what the minister had produced in his previous letter just didn't go far enough; so we have this letter, with copies to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the first member for Delta — but, interestingly, not to the second member for Delta.

"Dear Mayor Husband and members of council:

"Further to my letter of May 9, 1989, 1 wish to emphasize to you that while government intends to continue to expand our B.C. parks system in a timely and orderly fashion, the Ministry of Parks does not intend to purchase any part of the Spetifore lands in question. I trust that this will clearly outline to you and your council the position of the B.C. Ministry of Parks with respect to this issue.

                            "Yours sincerely,
                                   "The minister."

[10:30]

Mr. Chairman, what we have here is a clear reversal brought about by pressure, obviously pressure from people with vested interests in seeing that a certain type of development goes on in the Delta area without the appropriate kind of land use planning and study that is so necessary when an ecologically sensitive area is to be considered for development. It's a situation where there appears to be the influence of others who have greater power within cabinet than this minister, because he clearly stated in his initial letter that he seeks to pursue an approach that will add appropriate lands to the parks system. He makes it very clear in his letter that he would be excited and enthusiastic about considering those lands for inclusion in the park systems, and that he would eagerly work with those who seek to bring this about. In that letter, he actually encourages council to get in touch with him to move toward that type of arrangement.

What we have here is a flip-flop on the part of the minister, and it is not to his credit. Even more than that, it is to the discredit of this Premier and this cabinet that they will not allow the minister, who really does want to make some improvements in the park system, to make some improvements in the way in which this cabinet approaches public policy issues.

MR. WILLIAMS: You're disturbing their board meeting.

MR. CASHORE: That's right. The board of trade is meeting over there.

What we have here is a situation where a minister starts off by agreeing with and supporting the intention of people who seek to have some kind of sanity applied to the disposition of those lands. Then in the second letter he says that what he said was misinterpreted. They misinterpreted him when he said: "I am indeed very gratified that the Tsawwassen Nature Park Society agrees with and supports my approach to the preservation of land for provincial park purposes." How in the name of truth could that be called a misinterpretation?

What we're dealing with here is a situation where this minister has had to knuckle under to the true powers of greed that exist within that cabinet. He's had to go along with it. He's had to eat crow. He has had to take a position that does not come from the very root of his being. He's been forced to take a position that has put him into a very awkward spot. That has resulted in the kind of dissension and conflict taking place within Delta as this issue plays itself out, with people divided against people.

This issue could have been dealt with appropriately if there had been a proper environmental assessment, as we called for, as the people of the area have requested for a very long time. That has not been forthcoming. It's a bit ironic that after there was approval of two golf courses, they started talking about having some kind of assessment. That is a piecemeal approach to planning, and now we have this latest fiasco where the minister has been required to reverse his position. He's been required to eat crow.

This is much more of a discredit to the cabinet than it is to the minister, but all of them have to take responsibility for this very inappropriate and very.... Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm having difficulty finding language that is parliamentary. Let's just say that this act lacks the kind of courage that is necessary for a government to be able to function usefully. I would like to hear the minister's response to this correspondence and an explanation to this House and to the people of Boundary Bay of why he knuckled under and reversed his position on this, and has decided to give in to the principalities and powers of this world.

MR. DAVIDSON: I was doing other work in the office when I happened to hear the remarks of the member. I take very strong exception to the inference — I'll speak for myself, and I'm sure my colleague from Delta can speak for himself — that there was any kind of influence whatsoever brought to bear by this member on that minister. I was copied the first letter. I made no submission to the minister, either written or verbal. Neither now nor at any time have I discussed that property with the minister or any of his staff — not for eight or nine long years. I take very strong exception to the inference that member made that there was undue pressure placed by me on another member of the government. I hope that that will set the record straight and that the member will accept those remarks for the truth that they are.

MR. BARLEE: I also perused the three letters, and I perused them very carefully. I must confess that I have seldom witnessed such a turnabout in such a short time. It was a 60-day turnabout. The initial letter indicates very strong support from the minister. Amazingly, the second letter shifts dramatically from the first letter. The third letter indicates a total and almost abject surrender to the pro-development forces as far as the Spetifore lands are concerned. I want to know why the minister made such an abrupt

[ Page 7775 ]

turnabout in a matter of 60 days over such an important question.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I think those members should read that letter one more time. First of all, at the beginning of that letter I said: "I am indeed very gratified that the Tsawwassen Nature Park Society agrees with and supports my approach to the preservation of land for provincial park purposes." That was in reference to all the nice things they were saying to me about the things that I had done as a minister in the provincial parks. That's what it's in reference to, and that's only what it's referring to.

The other part of that letter speaks very clearly as well: "I am keen to work with both the federal and the local authorities on options" — options is the key word — "for managing the feature as part of a growing metropolitan area." Options is the key word.

I have invited them. You who are in my regional district will all know that you are always invited, because I have a very open-door policy. I am still willing to sit down with Delta council or whoever, and I will invite them to discuss the issue. Never once did I say it would be a provincial park; never once did I say that I was going to buy that property. I said I was willing to sit, discuss, facilitate and coordinate with the different levels of government if they so wished.

MR. BARLEE: I read this letter signed by you a little bit differently. I read support of their original position. You say: "I am very gratified that the Tsawwassen Nature Park Society agrees with and supports my approach to the preservation of land for provincial park services. I certainly intend to continue to pursue my mandate." Then you go on to say: "With respect to the former Spetifore lands," — you are referring to the Spetifore lands — "I can assure you that I am aware of the natural and heritage values of Boundary Bay and the role which the property plays in that natural system. I certainly agree that Boundary Bay is a feature of provincial, if not national, importance."

This certainly doesn't explain your shift. That indicates to me and anyone else who read that letter... That's why they published it in the paper; they assumed you were going to support them. Your next two letters indicate an abject surrender to the pro-development forces. I don't think your explanation is good enough.

MR. WILLIAMS: Welcome back, Mr. Premier. I hope you're here in question period today.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Where's your leader?

MR. WILLIAMS: He'll be here. He's doing his work, and all too well, as the Premier knows.

To the Minister of Parks, the question of the Boundary Bay lands — the so-called Spetifore lands — is important to the people in that community. There have been unprecedented hearings now. I used to work in Delta as a planner, and I can understand their feelings about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Unbiased.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I think so, as a matter of fact. I can understand the minister taking his original position and then, I think, being subjected to pressures from others in cabinet. Can we have some assurance from the minister that he was not contacted by the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage) regarding this question?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I can say categorically that I was not pressured by any cabinet minister.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister was contacted by the member for Delta, the Minister of Agriculture. We've not had an answer here, Mr. Chairman. Now he's getting advice from the grand Pooh-Bah of the lower mainland, the minister of regional everything and from the Premier. That's interesting.

The Minister of Agriculture is in a situation where those holdings are significant, and he is in an area of potential conflict. We need assurance that there was no contact whatsoever from the Minster of Agriculture regarding these lands.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I'll share the letter that triggered my first comment on my approach of preservation and their comments to me. As I indicated, I have no pressure from any cabinet minister.

MR. WILLIAMS: We've now had an unequivocal statement from the second member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) indicating that he, at no time over the last eight or nine years, contacted the minister in any regard — or former Parks ministers with respect to these questions at Boundary Bay. We have not had the same assurances from the Minister of Parks today regarding the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture was involved in the Boundary Bay water scam down to Point Roberts.

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, no, he was the informed one. He was the person on the municipal council in Delta who shepherded it through at the municipal level. He was shepherding it through at the provincial level in terms of benefiting the landowners in Point Roberts. Those landowners include his brother-in-law, the biggest real estate developer in South Delta–Tsawwassen. That same person, his brother-in-law, holds the paper on the Spetifore lands, so the question of contact is important here. We have had a complete about-turn by the Minister of Parks, as we have seen through the letters. We have had a categorical denial by the second member from Delta with respect to these lands and park use of these lands, but we have not had full assurance from the minister in terms of contact from the Minister of Agriculture. That raises the questions about the turnaround in those letters,

[ Page 7776 ]

in that correspondence, and we are not reassured by what the minister has said.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you did use the word "scam" in an unparliamentary way. I ask the member to withdraw.

MR. WILLIAMS: The Point Roberts water deal was an unconscionable scam that was of....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you alleged that the minister was involved in a scam, and the way the Chair has interpreted that....

[10:45]

MR. WILLIAMS: I did not say the minister was directly involved in the scam. I said he supported it and shepherded it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I have to ask the member to withdraw the word "scam."

MR. WILLIAMS: An arrangement that was highly beneficial to his brother-in-law, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have to insist that the member withdraw the word.

MR. WILLIAMS: I withdraw the word "scam," if you insist, but it was a setup that benefited his brother-in-law immensely.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. PERRY: I think an important issue is at stake here. It relates to the remarks I began about the mandate of this ministry and the mandate of the minister. Does it or does it not have a conservation mandate?

I don't think, personally — I think this was recognized in debate yesterday — that there's too much question this minister wants to do the right job. I think what this exchange of letters has shown us is that he recognized the principle at stake — the reason why 500 or 800 individuals had been willing to turn up in the middle of the night for 100 hours of testimony, why the citizens can muster hundreds of people in the middle of the night to prolong those hearings. They know they are right. They know that municipal council is doing the wrong thing. It is selling B.C.'s future down the drain in that agricultural land which the Land Commission tried to protect, in that land which is invaluable for wildlife during migratory bird movements and for resident birds.

Those people in Tsawwassen know what's right. Their council is a body that has trouble recognizing what any sane person in the world would recognize: that this is an absolutely essential conservation issue and the minister recognized it in his letter to those residents. He should know better than I — I being a medical doctor, he being a veterinarian — what has happened to him during this process. I won't use the exact word, but it's a process which is used to prevent animals from expressing their natural tendencies fully and completely. He tried to express what he knew was right, and he's been prevented from doing it now, and that's the issue.

I think we would like to hear an explanation from him. We are still waiting to hear why he reversed himself when he tried to do the right thing in that letter to the residents. Where is the leadership from his ministry to protect the most valuable recreational and ecological lands in the province when they need protection? What are we paying his ministerial salary and his ministerial staff for if they are not going to stand up for the environment when it's necessary?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: As I indicated, I was under no pressure from any of my colleagues, and the door is still open to sit down and talk to the people who wrote me the letter. Nothing has changed.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I have two questions at this time. I'm going to ask them one at a time.

The first member from Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) pointed out that we have not received a complete assurance that there was no representation to this minister by the Minister of Agriculture. Will the minister stand now and tell us whether he can give us complete assurance that at no time there was ever any representation from the Minister of Agriculture to the Minister of Parks that had anything whatsoever to do with the correspondence that was read into the record this morning?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: What's the second question?

MR. CASHORE: I said that I would ask the second question after I got an answer to my first question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair would like to point out that the first question has been asked by the previous member, and the minister has answered it. Whether or not you like the answer is another matter.

MR. CASHORE: Then the record will show that we have not received the complete assurance that is being requested.

I would like to ask the minister if, once he had embarked on the enthusiastic correspondence that gave great hope to the people of the Boundary Bay area.... After he wrote that first letter, was this discussed in cabinet?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I obviously can't discuss what we discuss in cabinet. As I indicated, I had no pressure from any of my cabinet colleagues, including the Minister of Agriculture. My letter, as I saw it, was misinterpreted, and I was just clarifying that. I said: "The door is open. We'll discuss it." Never once did I indicate, as the Spetifore people suggested the letter suggests, that I was going to make it a provincial park. I wanted to clarify that. But the door is still

[ Page 7777 ]

open to sit down with me and discuss the options for the Spetifore land.

MR. CASHORE: You gave the people of Boundary Bay every reason to believe that you were going to use your heart and soul to help them to achieve park status for that land. I believe that when you wrote that letter, you believed that in your heart of hearts.

We have a situation here where something happened between the writing of that letter and the two subsequent letters. It appears that the second of the two subsequent letters proves that even the second letter wasn't good enough, and that there was still pressure being brought to bear on this minister to make it very clear that this government, because of its mean-spirited attitude on this type of issue, had no intention whatsoever of even considering the possibility that this might become parkland.

We are not getting the kinds of answers at this time that give any assurance at all to this House and to the people who are going to be gathering there this evening to look very closely at what this minister and this government are doing with regard to their heritage and to a very sensitive area, a very special ecological area, the type of area this Parks ministry should be dealing with extremely effectively. Here we have a reversal.

MR. WILLIAMS: What I find interesting in these letters is that the initial letter goes out to the Nature Park Society; then the second letter goes out, where we're managing the turnaround and retreat; and then the final capitulation letter arrives. There appear to be no copies sent to the MLAs for Delta in the first instance. When the second letter is issued, a letter is sent to both the first member and the second member. Then when there's a complete capitulation in terms of the park question with respect to the Boundary Bay lands, there's only a copy to the Minister of Agriculture. Doesn't that tell us that there's a pattern here, and that the pressure is coming from over there in the corner, from the Minister of Agriculture?

It appears that you don't bother sending copies to either MLA for Delta in the beginning. Then you get some complaints from the ministers or the minister, or a member for Delta, and then both MLAs get copies of the correspondence. Then, by the time you've completely capitulated on the parks question, there's only a copy to the other member for Delta, the Minister of Agriculture. That would suggest that that's where the pressure was coming from, and there was a reversal on your part.

Maybe the minister can explain why copies of his correspondence were handled that way. The capitulation letter, when you said, "It's all over. I've done a 180-degree turn here...." That was presumably good news to the Minister of Agriculture. Why would it be good news to the Minister of Agriculture? The people in Tsawwassen would dearly like to know and the people in Delta would dearly like to know that that was indeed good news for the Minister of Agriculture, because most people in Delta don't feel that it is good news.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: The first letter still stands. The door is open at any time for discussion of options. I have not reversed my position.

MR. WILLIAMS: But it was a revolving door for the Minister of Agriculture all the time, wasn't it, Mr. Minister?

MR. PERRY: I'm still just a naive young politician here, and I'd like to ask a simple, naive question. I think it's patently obvious that the provincial government's role in the issue of the Spetifore lands has been to do what was wrong. From an environmental perspective, it was wrong. From an agricultural perspective, it was wrong: the Land Commission told it that land should stay in the reserve; the government took it out. From a political perspective, it was wrong: the public, the community involved, clearly thinks what is going on is wrong. Beyond any shadow of a doubt, the public thinks it's wrong. At the provincial level, it's wrong. At the national level, it's wrong, because it's interfering with some of the most precious wildlife lands in the world, lands which should be under the Ramsar convention. For those who don't know what Ramsar is, it refers to that city in Iran where an international wildlife protection convention was adopted.

We all know that what the government is doing is wrong and what the Delta council is trying to ram through against the wishes of the public in Delta is wrong. My naive question is this. I would like to know what the Minister of Parks actually does think should happen to those lands.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The government House Leader on an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In the gallery today visiting with us are about 40 grade 7 students, and some of their parents, from Kay Bingham Elementary School in Kamloops. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. J. deBruijn. I would like this House to make them very welcome.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I hear a lot of accusations from the opposition in here, which, quite frankly, I very much resent. I don't know where they are finding their information. The letters that were referred to were requested by Delta council as to the position of this government — whether sufficient funding was available to purchase said lands for park purposes. They wanted clarification.

On the other issue that the hon. second member for Vancouver–Point Grey brought up, about a decision on the Spetifore lands, that decision was made by a unanimous vote of the Greater Vancouver Regional District in, I believe, 1979. Regional government made that decision, not Delta. I can tell you, for one thing, that in that decision there was an agreement to set aside, I believe, 220 acres of parkland east

[ Page 7778 ]

of Boundary Bay Road which would be dedicated to the GVRD for future park use.

MR. PERRY: Who took it out of the ALR?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: At whose request? The GVRD in total supported the exclusion from the ALR.

[11:00]

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, the minister says that the Delta council needed these letters for clarification, but I submit that what the Delta council wanted was interference, because they were getting too much pressure from the citizens of the area. They wanted this government to interfere in a process in which the people of this area were stating their mind and stating their belief on this issue. The Delta council was asking — and they got what they requested — for interference from this government, once this minister had embarked on a reasonable path. And he was drawn into line.

It's quite interesting, Mr. Chairman. They're quite willing to answer a question about what went on in cabinet if they feel it suits their purposes, but when it doesn't suit their purposes, when they're asked that specific question, they say: "Well, cabinet confidentiality. We can't talk about that." They can't talk about it because if the answers were to come out, they would be an embarrassment; they would confirm the kinds of points that are being made.

A few moments ago, when the minister was again trying to find some way to respond to these questions, which he is not answering with the kind of candour that we would like to expect of him, he said: "I refer you again to my first letter. In that letter I indicated my willingness to work with...." Anybody reading that first letter, Mr. Chairman, would see in it that this minister was moving towards doing everything he could to support their wish for a park. So he would say — and he refers to his first letter — that that still holds. He's saying the first letter still holds, if I understand his last answer correctly.

But then in his last letter, he says: "The Ministry of Parks does not intend to purchase any part of the Spetifore lands in question" — period. That's what he said. Now what is to be believed, Mr. Minister? Your first letter, which you keep using as an answer to the questions that we are putting to you, or your last letter — the one that says: "The Ministry of Parks does not intend to purchase any part of the Spetifore lands in question." What are we to believe? Can we reverse time? Can we take a Pollyanna view and believe that you wrote the last letter first and the second letter second and the first letter last, and that's the one that really pertains? Is the minister now on record saying: "We can cancel the second two letters and it's the first letter that's now back in effect." May we take that interpretation?

MR. WILLIAMS: What's interesting is that we've had no denial from the minister in terms of contact from the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage) in this regard. We've had the Minister of Agriculture waltz in here and talk about the Delta water system, the GVRD in Point Roberts and talk about the municipal council, but he never addressed the same question in terms of his contact of the minister himself regarding this very question.

There are carbon copies of the letters: the pattern seems abundantly clear. The Minister of Agriculture didn't like the first letter. He got a copy of the second letter, and then he got an even better letter from his point of view.

Oh, here's the Minister of Agriculture again. Welcome. I presume that the minister is familiar with revolving doors. So that's the question in terms of the contact here. Did the Minister of Agriculture contact the Minister Responsible for Parks regarding this question and his original letter?

MR. DAVIDSON: It seems that a great deal of discussion has gone on about the Spetifore lands. I think it's important that the record be set straight, as the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries has tried to do in a little bit of background. He referred to the decision taken by the GVRD on March 26, 1980. It's interesting that after this decision was made — and it was a unanimous decision.... I'd like to just tell you who all was at this meeting chaired by Mr. Emmott: Barrett, Bellamy, Blair, Burnett, Evers, Franklin, Gerard, Helenius, Humphreys, Hunter, Jacobs, Kennedy, Kirkwood, Kirstein, Laking, Loucks, Mann, Mercier, Powell, Rankin — Harry Rankin.

Interjection.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. DAVIDSON: No, it says "Harry Rankin" right here.

It then goes on: Mr. Ross, Mr. Tonn, Mr. Volrich, Mr. Weinberg and Mr. Young. Do you know what? They all signed this unanimously, and you know what it says? I'll table this after the committee rises because it's important. It says in part:

"The committee formed the opinion, following a bus tour, that the subject property is marginal farmland and recommended approval of the ALR exclusion and ORP amendment in view of the unique qualities of the Boundary Bay foreshore as a park and wildlife area. In discussion of the foregoing recommendation, the board was formally apprised of Richmond council's opposition to the proposal."

"It was moved and seconded the application be approved – carried unanimously.

"It was moved and seconded that leave be given to introduce the bylaw...to amend the official regional plan in the Greater Vancouver Regional District and that it be read a first time – carried unanimously.

"It was moved and seconded that the bylaw be read a second time."

It was carried unanimously, and it was finally moved and seconded that the bylaw "be read a third time and forwarded to Victoria for approval." It was carried unanimously, and it says right there that Harry Rankin, among others who are....

Interjection.

[ Page 7779 ]

MR. DAVIDSON: Let's just take a moment to review what happened from that point on. It came to the cabinet for decision at ELUC. Now can you imagine a paper like this, signed unanimously by every director of the regional district of the city of Vancouver that the land be excluded and that this parkland — which was private property — be kept in perpetuity as part of this agreement. It was also, by the way, unanimously endorsed by the parks board of the GVRD. What happened? Cabinet said, "Carrying this much weight, it has to be a good deal. We'll go along and support it." Even Harry Rankin said: "Let's go along with it and support it." They did, and the land was excluded.

Do you know what happened? The same day the hostages in Iran were set free — which was the day before, I believe, the presidential inauguration in 1981 — every paper in the free world carried a headline, "Hostages Released," except the Vancouver Sun. The Vancouver Sun ran as its headline, "Socred Supporter to Reap Millions." Then somewhere down on the bottom of the page was something about the hostages in Iran being released.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many millions anyway?

MR. DAVIDSON: So far, a loss of about 11 or 12.

Anyway, let's stick with the facts. What happened from that point on? My gosh, people started to get political. They said: "Look at the headlines in the paper. Why, there's an opportunity here to make some political points." Harry Rankin said: "I didn't know what I was signing. No, they led me. It was a joke." It was a joke to everybody in this province except the Vancouver Sun and the media, who thought: "What a great opportunity!" And the opposition, not being totally ignorant, said: "What an opportunity to get on board! Let's have a ball." They've been having a ball for eight or nine years at the expense of what was a reasoned, careful decision that was going to give hundreds of acres of parkland to the people of the regional district, in perpetuity.

MR. PERRY: Blame it all on those preservationist vultures from the Sun.

MR. DAVIDSON: Good start.

The fact of the matter is that this decision was made based on a great deal of information that was presented to a group of people who sat around a table and didn't put the politics into it. It was a reasonable decision. It was private land. They were going to exchange certain land for parkland in perpetuity. It was a good deal for everyone. But then it got political, and here we are today.

I understand that there are differences of opinion, and there always will be. All I ask from the opposition is, don't blame the government for excluding this land from the ALR, because that's not fair. We're all entitled to our own opinions, but we're not entitled to our own facts. Please, give some thought to the actual background of this proposal before we go leaping off into political gyrations that have no substance in fact.

This was a good deal for the people at that time, and I believe it still has merit. But the decision now rests with Delta council and has for several years. That decision should not be coloured by an attempt in this chamber to make something political that was very carefully thought out at the time. Unfortunately, it became political. The people in the community of Delta deserve better.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we proceed, hon. members, the Chair has listened to both sides of the argument that's been going on here for the past little while, and I must say that it's very close to being not relevant. I would just caution members about the requirements for relevancy in debate.

MR. BARLEE: I think that most of us on this side of the House believe the minister has ethics and is an honourable man. All we want is one response: what does the minister think should be done with the former Spetifore lands?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: As I indicated before, my door is open to look at the options.

MR. WILLIAMS: With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, in view of the point just made.

It's now clear that there's been no denial from either minister in terms of contact here. I think the lack of denial makes it clear: the contact was made, the pressure came, indeed, from the Minister of Agriculture. The minister says it isn't pressure. Call it what you will, but the contact was made.

MR. KEMPF: I've sat patiently listening to the very interesting debate with respect to the Spetifore lands, but I would like a change of pace. I don't want to take a great deal of the minister's time this morning, but I want to canvass his responsibility vis-à-vis the Ministry of State for Vancouver Island Coast and North Coast. I want to ask the minister some questions with respect to the structure where it pertains to his particular development region within that state.

I fully understand that there are.... I wouldn't call them inconsistencies; I would call them differences between one state and another, but I just want to hear from this minister with respect to who does or does not take part, or who is or is not included within the structure that he has laid down.

I want first to ask the minister: does he have an advisory board for his particular state or development region? If so, who sits on that board? I want to ask the minister as well: does he have an economic development committee and, if so, who sits on it? Who is included? I want to ask the minister as well: does he have a human resources committee, and who has been asked to sit on it?

[11:15]

While I am at it — again, I say that there are differences, and I am not fully aware of them — if I

[ Page 7780 ]

haven't named all the committees that exist within this minister's development region or state, what other committees does he have, who sit on those committees and how do they become members of them?

That's quite a few questions, and I see that the minister hasn't been writing them down, so I don't want to overload him. Perhaps I would give him an opportunity to answer.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I am not sure of the detail that the member wants me to go to, but we have 14 task force committees on the Island, six of them in North Coast. The makeup of these task force committees are municipal members, regional district members, school trustee members, native members. How we put some of these people on these committees — for example, on transportation — was ask the chairman of the regional district for a couple of names of people who would represent the area well. In essence, that's what we have done.

We have tried to be very cognizant of the fact that it was the people's point of view that we wanted, so we didn't ask questions about their political motivations. If they were good members for the committee, then we were eager to have them on there representing the community.

MR. KEMPF: I certainly wasn't asking the minister this morning whether the people were placed on those committees because of their political stripe or not. It's information I'm looking for, Mr. Chairman. I'm curious about what goes on in development regions or states other than what exists in my particular jurisdiction.

I knew the minister would forget some of the questions because he wasn't writing them down, so I will ask my first question of the minister again. Does the minister have an advisory board in his development region? Does he have an economic development committee? Does he have a human resources committee? And if he does have these three committees, who sit on them, and how did they attain that status? Were they appointed? Did they ask to be placed on these committees? Did they make out application forms? How did they obtain membership on those committees? How is it that they now sit around those tables when meetings are called?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Let me first of all go through all the committees, since the member is asking.

North Coast committees: Indian land claims task force, health task force, transportation task force, forestry task force, adult education task force, funding and inequities task force, regional advisory council, regional transportation planning committee, alcohol and drug review committee.

Vancouver Island: transportation task force, forest and value-added industry task force, aquaculture task force, tourism task force, business development task force, technology and innovation task force, agricultural task force, waste management task force, health-hospital task force, social services task force, education task force and justice task force.

When I became the minister of state, we inherited these committees. In a few of them, as in the case of transportation, we added three people. In a few others we may have added one or two but we, in essence — as I indicated — asked for requests from either regional districts or from the municipal governments who they would like to see on that task force, as in the case of the regional advisory council in the north. Yes, we have task forces. Yes, we have a regional development group, which responds to the regional advisory council that makes recommendations to me. A good example is Prince Rupert. On the regional advisory council was their mayor, and he decided to step down. I asked him to give me a couple who he'd be happy to have on that task force. He put a name forward, and that's the one we accepted.

MR. KEMPF: I certainly appreciate the responses I am getting from this minister. Let's get a little more specific. The minister says that on the north coast he does in fact have a regional advisory committee. On Vancouver Island he has a social services committee and an economic development committee. Could the minister be a little more specific and give me the names of the people on those three committees?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I've got a number of names. Do you want me to send you a copy, or do you want me to read them all into the minutes?

MR. KEMPF: So that we have a record for eternity, I would appreciate that the names be read into Hansard, please.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Regional advisory council in the north: Gordon Feyer, Garry Hubbard, David Lane; Rod Robinson, Nisga'a Tribal Council; Don Simmons, village of Port Edwards; Jack Talstra, city of Terrace; Hans Wagner, Northwest Community College; Peter Eieber, Westar Timber; Richard Wozney, district of Kitimat, now the mayor of Kitimat; Paul Kennedy, alderman, city of Prince Rupert.

MR. KEMPF: That's the regional advisory committee for the north coast. I asked also about the economic development committee of Vancouver Island and the social services committee of Vancouver Island. I'll spare the boredom to the rest of the members of having those names read into the minutes.

I want to get really specific now and ask the minister of this development region — the Ministry of State for Vancouver Island-Coast and North Coast — whether he has invited MLAs for those regions to be represented on the committees; and if he hasn't done that, if from time to time MLAs of their own volition have attended such meetings.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: The MLAs in region 1 and region 6 have been encouraged to participate in some

[ Page 7781 ]

of the meetings that we've had in regard to.... A good example: I remember inviting one of the members that I met when the transportation committee was meeting in the north. I was there as the minister of state, and there was an opposition member there. I invited him to join us, and he turned it down.

MR. KEMPF: I think that's very nice and very good of the minister.

Maybe we have to get a little political here. We really don't want to, but perhaps we have to. When MLAs don't attend, particularly government MLAs, are they sent copies of the minutes of those meetings so that they know what is transpiring in the state of Vancouver Island–Coast and North Coast?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I don't recall sending out copies of any minutes of the meetings. They come to me. Any MLA who wishes to sit down and have a look at them is free to come into my office.

MR. KEMPF: We're really getting down to the meat of this issue now. As I understand it, Mr. Minister, for one of those areas within your state you wouldn't deny a sitting MLA access to the meetings, if he or she wished to attend, and copies of the minutes of those particular meetings. Do I read you correctly, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: As I indicated, any MLA is invited to sit down and talk to me and to participate.

MR. KEMPF: You then wouldn't write a letter in which you'd find a paragraph that reads as follows:

"The Nechako advisory board meeting was held in Atlin on June 17. This board, as you will recall from the Nechako regional development meeting on February 18 in Fort St. James, is made up of mayors, regional district chairmen and representatives from northern unincorporated communities. As you are not a member of this group, I did not feel any obligation to advise you of that meeting, nor do I intend to advise you of future advisory board meetings."

I just want to know from this minister, who holds a position similar to that of his colleague down the way, the Minister of State for Nechako and Northeast (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber), whether he would write his colleague the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce), for example, such a letter. Would he deny what I believe is the right of a duly elected representative, such as his colleague from Cowichan-Malahat, to attend not just this advisory meeting but any meeting that took place, given that he has seen fit to opt into the system, within that particular development region or state?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Well, after what we've just gone through for the last half hour, I'm a little nervous about writing any letters anymore, in case they're misinterpreted. All I can say is that if this particular member has some difficulty with the letter he received, then he'd be wise to sit down and talk to his minister of state.

MR. KEMPF: There's really no way that I can misinterpret this letter, and I'm sure you'll agree with me on that, Mr. Minister. There's absolutely no way that such a letter can be misinterpreted.

[11:30]

The reason I got up this morning — and I'll be getting up in the estimates of the Minister of State for Nechako and Northeast — was to canvass this subject to a greater degree. There's no way that you can misinterpret this letter. And I can read further, with respect to why the minister doesn't want the sitting MLA on the committees. I have to wonder, Mr. Chairman, about the total intent of the government's action with respect to regionalization and the ministers of state in British Columbia, when they invite.... I heard the Premier himself, in this House, earlier in this session and in the last session as well, invite the opposition — sitting where I am, I guess I fall into that category — to join with him in a cooperative effort with this new ministry-of-state scheme. But I have to doubt whether that invitation was given in good faith by the government.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Read the rest of it.

MR. KEMPF: You want me to read the rest of the letter into the record? I would be very happy to, Mr. Member. The Minister of State for Nechako and Northeast, Mr. Chairman — and he asked me to — wants me to read the rest of the letter. I hope he'll do me the courtesy, in his estimates, of reading my reply into the records of the House. I'd be happy to take the time of the House to read the rest of the letter. It goes on to say:

"Mr. Kempf, I was encouraged when you decided to participate in the regional development process..."

MR. LOVICK: You're not supposed to name names here, Jack.

MR. KEMPF: I'm reading a letter into the record.

"...and your stated intentions to do so in a spirit of cooperation.

"Having read with care your letter to me and the copy of your June 15 letter to Mr. Hennessy, I am now very much concerned with the statement that your real motive was, and I quote, 'primarily to report to the citizens of the region what takes place.'

"I wonder how comfortable your constituents and other members of the committee will feel about participating fully at meetings with you in attendance."

I'll go on to read the final paragraph, because I think it's very important to open government. It's very important to the democratic process of which we speak so highly in this chamber. It reads: "Economic development, as even you must realize, often depends on a degree of confidentiality to protect the interests of potential investors and entrepreneurs." I guess they're going to be at these regional advisory committee meetings as well. "For that reason the media" — and although there are none in the gallery, I'm sure they're listening very intently to their monitors — "is not invited to committee meetings,

[ Page 7782 ]

and news releases and interviews are given as is appropriate."

Mr. Chairman, talk about freedom of the press, talk about freedom of information, talk about freedom of speech Where have they gone? Where have they flown to in the province of British Columbia today? When a duly elected representative — one, I might tell the minister, who is not merely a rookie, but has been re-elected consecutively four times — is not allowed to report to his constituents what he hears in meetings.... What kind of democratic process is that?

It's very scary that I received this letter yesterday. The minister doesn't intend — even though I've opted into, in a cooperative way, a system that I do not believe in or agree with.... Neither do my constituents, and I'm talking about the majority of them. Where, I have to ask — and that's the reason I got up this morning in this debate — has the democratic process gone? It's not a funny matter, Mr. Minister for Nechako and Northeast (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber); you smile about it.

Democracy is very fragile. We walk a very fine line between that and what we have in other jurisdictions of the world, and it is for that reason, and for the reason that I'm told I cannot report what the government is doing to those who put their faith in me and sent me here.... We have a very sorry state of affairs in the states of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman.

I don't believe the government when they say they want opposition members to take part. I can't believe the government when they say the media is not allowed at these meetings. Mr. Chairman, as you very well know — having been a mayor of a municipality — municipal meetings are open to the public, regional district meetings are open to the public, the Legislature is open to the public. If there are certain things....

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: I would advise the Minister of State for Nechako and Northeast to read Robert's Rules of Order.

There is an opportunity in any meeting, should confidentiality be necessary, for that meeting to go in camera. But to suggest that this member, a duly elected representative in this province for almost 14 years, is denied the right to attend these meetings, on behalf not of the member himself but of those many citizens that I represent in my constituency of Omineca, is absolutely impossible.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: They are well represented, are they? You bet they are, and they will be well represented after the next election as well, Mr. Member. They don't consider themselves represented by some minister of state that's been foisted upon them against their democratic will.

Mr. Chairman, what kind of situation do we have in British Columbia today? I can't believe it, as one who believes very seriously in the democratic process. I'll leave it at that, and I won't embarrass the minister of state whose estimates are before the House today by asking him to respond to the questions I have asked. I don't think that's fair. Certainly I'll be asking those questions of the minister concerned in his estimates.

MR. PERRY: Let me just go back to a few issues that I began with this morning. Let's start with the Skagit Valley again. The minister has indicated he will send me some documentation on what is happening. I look forward to that.

The Ministry of Parks has for a long time been promising a master plan for the Skagit Valley recreation area. The present minister may or may not be aware that this history becomes extremely complicated as one goes back into the mists of time, but in my view the main reason the Skagit Valley is not a class A provincial park is the fear, way back in the 1970s, that it would be flooded, and the reluctance by government of both parties to humiliate themselves by witnessing the flooding of a class A park by another country. I always thought that was misguided. It would have been better to have made it a class A park and drawn the line. But so be it. That's what happened in history. We now have an anomalous situation where, after a 14-year campaign by the public — at one time it was one of the most significant conservation issues in the country and ultimately persuaded governments of all political stripes to support the conservation side — we have an area which is not a class A park but a recreation area.

The parks branch, or at least one faction within the parks branch, has historically chosen to seek a mandate for multiple use within the Skagit Valley recreation area. Multiple use, in various draft Parks plans tabled in 1975 and again, I think, in the early 1980s, has meant logging in some of the genuine wilderness that is totally untracted and untrammelled, tributary valleys of the Skagit River on the west side of the drainage and below elevation 1,800 in terms of the valley floor. Those areas are some of the rare absolute wilderness in the lower mainland. Various draft Parks plans have called for logging in those drainages, specifically McNaught and St. Alice Creeks. More recent plans have suggested logging higher in the drainage of the Skagit River, below its confluence with the Sumallo River.

Interjection.

MR. PERRY: Well, we thought we did. The first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) asks whether it has been saved. I think it's still an open question.

What I'd like is some indication from the minister of where these park plans stand. They've been long delayed. Does he favour multiple use within the Skagit Valley recreation area? Or will he take a stand

[ Page 7783 ]

for complete conservation, which, in my view, is what the public clearly fought for and what the public expects?

[11:45]

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I want to thank the member for his comments. The master plan on the Skagit Valley is just about ready to commence. All those questions will be addressed through that master plan, at the same time. That's part of the brief, and I'd be happy to send it to you so that you know exactly what's happening and where we're going.

MR. PERRY: I'd just like to also emphasize to the minister that I see no particular hurry in this plan, and I never have seen it prior to my election. And I don't wish to put pressure on the ministry to rush. As long as there are no other commitments of those lands, there is no rush to compile the final plan.

Let me ask, then, one more specific question on that issue. I thought of it yesterday, during the minister's remarks about the ecological reserves. Again, there is a historical accident of an ecological reserve within the same Skagit Valley recreation area for rhododendron macrophylum, or California rhododendron, which occurs in that valley; it is its only occurrence on the lower mainland. One of the reserves on the west side of the Skagit River is split by access requested by the Ministry of Forests in the 1970s for logging in the McNaught and St. Alice Creek drainages. Given, in my view, that most of the parks branch has recognized those drainages will never be logged, that the public would create an absolute firestorm of outrage if there were an attempt to log those two drainages, would the minister be prepared to support a movement to expand that ecological reserve to the limited extent that it was infringed upon by the potential road access? I think that would have important symbolic value.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: That issue is being worked on, and we're resolving it.

MR. PERRY: A few other specific questions about parks issues in B.C. I'd like to know whether the parks branch has done any in-house or published study of the recreation and conservation values of the Carmanah drainage.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: We have done nothing specifically on the Carmanah drainage, except a report on the growth in that area.

MR. PERRY: I'm sorry. I wasn't clear how to interpret "a report on the growth" in the Carmanah drainage. Could the minister explain what he means by that?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Basically, my staff have written articles on old growth generally, and Carmanah was part of that.

MR. PERRY: Does the Ministry of Parks have any other studies of old growth on the west coast of Vancouver Island — or the west coast of British Columbia, for that matter? Are there any planning or even survey studies, or any kind of study on conservation needs from the perspective of the parks branch for old growth forest in British Columbia, and where Carmanah or the adjacent controversial drainages — such as the Megin River, the Moyeha River or the Sulphur Passage area — fit into the overall strategy of protecting landscapes in British Columbia?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Yes, we do have some other studies. I don't have the details with me, but again, we're happy to send a copy of that to you in writing as well.

MR. PERRY: I'm delighted to hear that. It comes back to the point I made in my opening remarks. I think that would be a very encouraging development in B.C. history if I can see those reports, or if they can be tabled in the Legislature.

One other specific question relates to the south Chilcotin area, which is another area that has a surprisingly low public profile. It's an area I know slightly from having hiked there. Having hiked in South America and Nepal, I personally consider the south Chilcotins one of the most beautiful landscapes in the world and not sufficiently recognized by the public. Even within the conservation movement, it has enjoyed relatively little discussion. This relates to the south Chilco Lake park proposal as well. What, if any, studies is the ministry involved in or has it completed in those areas? Would the minister be prepared to make those available?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I'd just like to comment that I've met with a number of delegations who feel that we should protect that area. I've actually made it part of my one-week — or two-week, if I'm lucky — summer vacation to actually go through that area myself.

MR. PERRY: I wish I could say the same for myself. I was last in the southern Chilcotins in about 1980 on a week's hike, and I would like nothing more than to have a holiday there this summer as well. All things may be possible at some point, but I'm encouraged to hear that.

I'm not sure if the minister answered whether there are planning studies which could be made available now. Again, the overall point I was trying to make earlier was that studies that are publicly funded by the parks branch should be in the public domain. Part of the mandate I see for the parks branch is to promote conservation. Would the minister be prepared to make any studies public now?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: We could probably give a summary of what we have been doing in that particular area.

[ Page 7784 ]

MR. PERRY: I thank the minister again for that engagement. Another broader issue I want to discuss is the protection of wild rivers and recreational corridors.

I want to again briefly set the stage for some questions by reviewing some history. In 1968 the United States Congress passed a wild and scenic rivers protection act, which attracted worldwide attention to the need for conservation of rivers as specific geographic features, as corridors for recreation and transportation and as critical environments, because of the unique features of rivers and riparian environments around the world. In 1970 that led, if memory serves me, to a proposal from the B.C. Wildlife Federation for a system of wild-river protection in British Columbia. In 1971 the national parks branch of the federal government began a wild-river survey in the Yukon Territory, which was later extended to all provinces and territories.

As a student, I was lucky enough to work in the wild-river survey in Labrador, Quebec, Newfoundland and Alberta in 1972 and 1973. The interest spawned by those surveys, which identified a network of proposed national wild rivers, spawned many conferences during the 1970s of federal and provincial parks ministers. There were various proposals. I think one of them was called ARC, or agreements for recreation and conservation. Another during the Trudeau era was called "Byways and Special Places."

In the late seventies and early eighties, British Columbia decided not to participate in this federal-provincial program. If memory serves me, only the province of Ontario and maybe one maritime province agreed to participate, and the province of Ontario took the lead in establishing some wild-river parks.

During the early eighties British Columbia developed a recreational corridors program, but to the best of my knowledge, no really meaningful conservation steps have been taken to protect rivers in British Columbia. I cite a number of examples of rivers that were considered by the federal survey to be of national significance: the Stikine, from its headwaters right to the Pacific Ocean; the Chilcotin River, from the Chilco headwaters down to the Fraser River; the Blackwater River, the route Alexander Mackenzie took to the coast. I believe there may have been another northern river that I forget right now.

In a number of these drainages we've seen some fairly major developments. I can think of a few others that have never been mentioned — small rivers like the Kettle River in southern British Columbia, which has very high recreational values but, to my knowledge, enjoys no recreational protection. Within the last ten years, developments such as a private house have been built, and the fill material was bulldozed into the river; that one development has needlessly ruined what was otherwise an essentially pristine river.

As a veteran of the wild rivers survey for Parks Canada, I have always been very disappointed that our provincial government did not agree to participate in the national scheme, and I wonder whether the minister is reconsidering this and what concrete protection of river corridors we can look forward to in the next few years.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Let me just say that we are reviewing it. I do have some concern, and basically that is not to lose B.C. jurisdictional power over these rivers. I recognize what the member is saying. At the same time, I want to make sure that B.C. interests are well protected.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report progress.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. DAVIDSON: During committee I undertook to table a document that contains several names relative to the debate this morning, and I so request to table.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.