[ Page 7865 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 7865

School Act (Bill 67). Hon. Mr. Brummet

Introduction and first reading –– 7865

Independent School Act (Bill 68). Hon. Mr. Brummet

Introduction and first reading –– 7866

Litter Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 60). Hon. Mr. Strachan

Introduction and first reading –– 7866

Waste Management Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 58). Hon. Mr. Strachan

Introduction and first reading –– 7866

Oral Questions

AIDS prevention video. Mr. Harcourt –– 7866

Fatt's Island Poultry Farms. Mr. Sihota –– 7868

Committee of Supply: Ministry of State for Thompson-Okanagan and Kootenay, Responsible for Crown Lands estimates. (Hon. Mr. Dirks)

On vote 52: minister's office –– 7868

Hon. Mr. Dirks

Mr. Williams

Mr. Clark

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Kempf

Hon. S.D. Smith

Farming and Fishing Industries Development Act (Bill 44). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Savage –– 7894

Mr. Lovick –– 7894

Mr. Clark –– 7894

Hon. Mr. Savage –– 7895

Agriculture Protection Act (Bill 30). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Savage) –– 7895

Mr. Clark

Mr. Lovick

Mr. G. Janssen

Mr. Loenen

Third reading

Financial Institutions Act (Bill 51). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 7899

Mr. Clark –– 7901

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 7903

Committee of Supply: Ministry of State for Thompson-Okanagan and Kootenay, Responsible for Crown Lands estimates. (Hon. Mr. Dirks)

On vote 52: minister's office –– 7903

Mr. Williams

Hon. S.D. Smith

Mr. Darcy

Mr. Rose

Mr. Clark

Mr. Serwa

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. REID: In the House today are some very distinguished visitors. Mr. F.I. Chang is the president of the Formosan Aboriginal Culture Village of Taiwan. Mr. Chang and his group are touring British Columbia for the purpose of viewing mutually beneficial joint tourism ventures within our province. Attending the House today with Mr. Chang are: Mr. Ed Kisling, president of Asia House Financial Group; his son, Mr. H.S. Chang; Mr. Jack Lee and his daughter Jean; Peter Yuen of Vancouver; Yuen Mow of Vancouver; Ms. Lee Chan of Vancouver; Mr. CX Chang and his son from Vancouver; Mr. Tony Hu of Taiwan; Mr. Frank Sze of Vancouver. Would the House give all these people a special welcome.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, seated on the floor of the House today is a very old friend of many of us here. He is a man who served this House and served his community for a long time — he's the miracle Whip, the ageless George Mussallem. Would you please welcome him.

While I am on my feet I would like to introduce to the members of the House a lady of whom the second member and I are very proud indeed. Some years ago, Cheryle Macdonald started a dance school in Dewdney and called it the Stave Falls Scottish Dancers. Through her leadership the school became world-class. In addition to entertaining audiences throughout British Columbia, her students have danced in competitions and major events all over the world. This year the school is celebrating its thirtieth anniversary and has about 150 students. Today Mrs. Macdonald and a few hosts from the riding have brought to the Legislature 19 British adults from the Doncaster district's Royal Scottish Dancers. Would the House please make them all very welcome.

MR. PERRY: I'd like to welcome to the House today an esteemed colleague and friend, Dr. Steven Lippman, from the great city of Little Rock, Arkansas, who is visiting today along with his wife Heidi. Could the House please make them welcome.

MR. ROGERS: I have a guest today: Ghislain Eschasseriaux, from the House of Hennessy in Cognac, France. I know each and every member will want to make him welcome, having in their own small way contributed to the cost of his coming here.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In the gallery today are representatives of the senior staff of my ministry, the B.C. Teachers' Federation, the B.C. School Trustees' Association and the Independent School Associations. Perhaps some others have come here in great anticipation, and I would like the House to make them welcome.

MR. PERRY: We also have in the precincts today Dr. Paul Cappon, who is the leader of the federal wing of the Quebec NDP. I'd like to make him welcome. C'est pas souvent qu'on a l'occasion de parler français dans I'assemblée, mais on lui souhait une bienvenue très chaleureuse.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I have some reports to present. I have the honour to present a report of the Crown Proceeding Act for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1988; the financial statements and auditor's report for the B.C. Housing and Employment Development Financing Authority for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1989; and the report of guarantees and indemnities for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1989, in concordance with section 56 of the Financial Administration Act.

Hon. S.D. Smith tabled the annual report of the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia for the year 1988-89.

Introduction of Bills

SCHOOL ACT

Hon. Mr. Brummet presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled School Act.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'd like to just comment briefly on this bill. I think all members are aware that the education system faces significant challenges and opportunities as we move towards the twenty-first century. This government initiated the Royal Commission on Education to recommend how to best meet these challenges and to take advantage of the opportunities.

In January, after an extensive consultation process, the government announced major new policy directions in response to the royal commission's recommendations. Virtually all of the commission's recommendations have been acted upon.

This bill will provide the necessary legislative foundation for these new policy directions to enable our education system to move forward towards "A Legacy for Learners" as proposed by the Sullivan report. I have made no secret of my own view that our education system should first and foremost serve the best interests of the students.

The new School Act is the first major redraft of the School Act in 31 years, and brings into one document the previous amendments to the act and legislation related to education. The finance section is brought forward from the existing act to this act with only minor changes, as there is a firm commitment to a review by next year of the entire process of funding and taxation. Work has begun on this, and we expect to involve the major stakeholders in a consultative role before any policy is finalized.

The bill has been developed with the complete involvement of all the major stakeholders. Their input and advice has been much appreciated, and I

[ Page 7866 ]

certainly thank all those involved for their significant contributions, commitment and assistance.

In its preparation, this legislation has undergone the widest possible range of input, discussion and revision through EPAC and other representations. I expect it will receive general support, if not total support, from particular interests. I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 67 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.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL ACT

Hon. Mr. Brummet presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Independent School Act.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, much of what I have said in conjunction with the School Act is applicable in this case: the consultation, the input from all of the major stakeholders, is also applicable to this bill. In addition, I think it's important to indicate that the Independent School Act will require the registration with my ministry of all independent schools operating in the province. This will ensure that the operations of all independent schools will be in the best interest of students, parents and the public of our province. This act also incorporates recommendations from the royal commission report. Again, it has been developed through a consultative process and has undergone the widest range of input, and I expect that it too will receive general support.

[2:15]

Bill 68, 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.

LITTER AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Hon. Mr. Strachan presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill Intituled Litter Amendment Act, 1989.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, speaking briefly to this bill, the intent was mentioned in the throne speech, where we said that we would increase fines for littering and also extend the jurisdiction where we would fine. The fines will be going from $500 to $2,000. They will include littering offences that occur in the marine environment. That is the intent of the bill.

Bill 60 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.

WASTE MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Hon. Mr. Strachan presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Waste Management Amendment Act, 1989.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In a brief statement with respect to this bill, Mr. Speaker, I indicated last spring that in conjunction with CEPA, the federal Canadian Environmental Protection Act, we would be making moves in British Columbia to significantly increase the fines we would levy on polluters. This bill will increase the fine to $3 million for serious damage done to the environment, plus an additional fine if the person polluting has made any profit out of that pollution. So it's $3 million plus if the court so finds. These amendments also deal with the management of biomedical wastes in British Columbia and indicate to municipalities that they must have waste management plans in place by a certain date. So it's significant legislation. It's been expected for some time.

Bill 58, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

AIDS PREVENTION VIDEO

MR. HARCOURT: I have a question to the Minister of Health. Can the minister explain on what basis he and the Premier have personally decided to block the government's AIDS prevention video?

HON. MR DUECK: The Provincial Advisory Committee on AIDS reports to the Minister of Health, and the advice provided to the committee makes a very important contribution to my ministry. An upgrading in educational material on sexually transmitted diseases is an ongoing part of my ministry. When this film was presented to me, I believe I was convinced that neither the medium nor the message in that particular film was appropriate and properly balanced. We felt that while encouraging the use of condoms is certainly a way of reducing AIDS in our population, especially in the teenage group that this was zeroing in on, it was not considered a balanced or a proper film at this time, comparing it with other programs that we have in progress now.

I must also say that the knowledge of teenagers in our province.... A Canada-wide study was done by Queen's University on youths and AIDS in Canada, and we rank number one in Canada. By and large, our communication has not been bad.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry if I have to take a little more time, but I must do this. It's been indicated that just because we don't do exactly what someone else has an idea we should, somehow we're not doing anything in the area of AIDS. Just to go over some of the things that we have done in this area — and it's a serious matter....

[ Page 7867 ]

Interjections,

HON. MR. DUECK: You guys asked the question; you listen.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. DUECK: I don't think it can be laughed at or talked back to. If you want to listen to what we've done this far, then please listen. If not, then just don't ask the question.

AIDS virus antibody testing has been going on in this province for some time. It's done free of charge. Physicians and health units are involved, as well as a clinic in Vancouver. Since October 7, 1985, 70,000 tests had been done to the end of 1988. Of those, 2,600 were proven positive.

AIDS pamphlet series: seven information pamphlets were produced and sent out. Six of these are still used on a regular basis and are being upgraded all the time. In household mailings in September 1987, we sent out

MR. PERRY: You admit there's an epidemic, but you won't do anything about it.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, would you ask the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey to please listen, because it's directly involving him as critic.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The minister will finish the answer,

HON. MR. DUECK: Over 1.2 million copies were sent to every household in British Columbia. In that material, there was information about the disease itself, its spread, what precautions to take, how to talk to your children about the disease and also the myth that it can be contracted by kissing, touching or that type of thing. It was a very explicit, all-encompassing package.

The B.C. AIDS line was established to answer calls around the clock from people with questions in that particular area. We've had many calls on this particular line.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the minister is extending the answer a little further than the question asked. I would ask him to allow the next question. I'm sure he'll have more of an opportunity to get more of his answer out.

MR. HARCOURT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. This video was viewed at an international conference that had over 10,000 participants, and it was praised very widely. It was viewed by a large number of young people and others in British Columbia and praised very widely. Would the minister not agree that by opposing this he is simply imposing his own narrow moral standards?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, to continue what I was saying, we have a video production that was done in 1987. General information on this particular video," The New Epidemic," which described in detail the AIDS virus which is now infecting so many people.... This film was also done in Cantonese, Hindi and Punjabi, and we were praised for it. As a matter of fact, we sent it to many other provinces in Canada, and they said: "You're far ahead of what we're doing here."

Family life education in the schools in the fall of 1987: the Ministry of Education introduced a mandated curriculum for grades 7 to 12, and we were instrumental in helping make that particular program. "AIDS in the Workplace," a package produced on how to deal with the AIDS epidemic in the workplace, was sent out to about 200 or 300 large corporations.

We have a dental clinic at VGH that deals with people with AIDS. We have street nurses in the city of Vancouver. We have six nurses who provide outreach information for people on the street, and they are highly successful.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The opposition House Leader rises on a point of order.

MR. ROSE: I hate to do this during question period, but I just can't stand here and allow the minister to smuggle in a ministerial statement, which he's permitted to do at any time, and answer every question except the one he has been asked.

The question is, basically: can the minister distinguish between medical and moral issues?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, we're not doing all of these things because of a moral attitude. We're doing these things, and we've produced these programs, because of the AIDS epidemic that is now going on throughout the world. We have professional education, including a symposium for physicians, a physician's manual, a hospital manual, a bimonthly B.C. Medical journal column, and testing and counselling in the workplace. We have a hospice in St. Paul's Hospital and VGH. As a matter of fact, St. Paul's Hospital currently is recognized as the center of excellence for AIDS.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I remind the minister that our standing orders ask for not only questions to be brief but also answers.

MR. HARCOURT: If the minister won't admit that he's imposing his own moral standards, then I'm sure he'll admit he's imposing the Premier's and his own moral standards.

As the minister reads out the prepared ministerial statement, I'd like him to ponder.... Surely the

[ Page 7868 ]

minister is aware that over half of grade 11 students are sexually active. What advice is he prepared to give these young people who are now running the risk of AIDS infection?

HON. MR. DUECK: That's why we have these programs in place. I was trying to explain to the member. But if they don't want to listen, then I have no more to say.

I was just getting into the native area, where we're now assisting the federal government to bring this program also to the natives of our provinces; we find that the AIDS virus is also in that particular population.

We have done many things. This is all related to the AIDS problem. This is all related to what we're doing. If that member, the Leader of the Opposition, can stand up and say that it's my moral conviction or attitude.... We wouldn't be doing these programs. We're doing them because it's a health issue; it's a medical issue; that's why we're doing them.

Mr. Speaker, we would not be recognized throughout Canada if we had not done some of the things that we ought to do, that are our responsibility. Right across Canada, when I meet with the other health ministers, they're saying," What are you doing in this particular area?" and they're following our example.

I would like those members to know that we've never finished. We're never at the end of doing what we can. We are constantly looking at new ways of educating the population, but we are doing it in a way that is acceptable to the majority, and we are hitting every segment of the population.

MR. HARCOURT: He is basically saying what the Premier said earlier: young people want to have sex, but they don't want to die. That's their attitude towards young people. What an insult!

This minister has spoken out against making condoms available in schools. He has stubbornly refused to make available the recommendations of his AIDS advisory committee. He clearly has joined the Premier in his sexual fantasyland.

Does the minister not agree that he is pursuing an anti-prevention policy on AIDS, by putting his own narrow personal views ahead of the health of our young people?

[2:30]

HON. MR. DUECK: I certainly don't want to bore these people with the information I have of what we are doing in the province against this dreadful disease. Again I must tell the opposition that we have done more per capita in this province than any other province in Canada. If you ask me if we have done enough, I'll say no, we could do more, and we are still exploring other areas.

But you know very well that when that question was asked about the dispensing of condoms in the schools, I said it was up to the school board to make that decision. They kept badgering me about my personal opinion, and I did say that personally I think it's ridiculous. I still stand on that.

That has nothing to do with the decisions we make in regard to medical outreach on this particular disease. Mr. Speaker, they know very well that the AIDS program in British Columbia is doing well. We are reaching out and doing everything we can. I can start again at the beginning of the list of things we are doing.

FATT'S ISLAND POULTRY FARMS

MR. SIHOTA: I don't know why the Minister of Health just can't admit that he is imposing his moral values on the people of British Columbia.

My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and deals with the government guarantee to Fatt's Island Poultry. Fatt's, under the precondition, has to produce 50,000 birds per week. For the last three weeks I've got information on, the production levels have been 6,000, 6,000 and 20,000 birds, well below the rate that the company has committed itself to. What steps is the minister prepared to take, in light of the fact that Fatt's is not meeting its conditions? Secondly, will he now admit that his department did not approve the granting of that loan when it went to Treasury Board?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I would take solace if I had those figures in front of me to quote what the hon. member is quoting. I will not respond until such time as I have them confirmed.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF STATE
FOR THOMPSON-OKANAGAN AND KOOTENAY,
RESPONSIBLE FOR CROWN LANDS

On vote 52: minister's office, $298,377.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I'm pleased to present to the House the estimates of the Minister of State for Thompson-Okanagan and Kootenay and the Ministry of Crown Lands for the 1989-90 fiscal year.

In the coming year the Minister of State for Thompson-Okanagan and Kootenay and the Ministry of Crown Lands will continue to vigorously fulfil their respective mandates. For the development regions, this is to continue to take an active role in ensuring that there is a regional mechanism for input to government decision-making and increased support for economic diversification. For the Ministry of Crown Lands it is to continue to provide Crown land management for the people of British Columbia, to encourage appropriate and orderly development while ensuring a fair return to the province, while making Crown lands available for a variety of purposes, and to support the activities of government

[ Page 7869 ]

and industry by providing comprehensive base mapping and land information services.

In support of this mandate, we are requesting a total voted expenditure of $37.9 million for fiscal '89-90. Of this, $298,000 is for the operation of the minister's office, $1.47 million for the two development regions and $36.1 million for the Ministry of Crown Lands. My ministry has specific responsibility for two dynamic development regions: the Thompson-Okanagan and Kootenay. We will continue to work within these regions to aid in the development of their regional economies in a manner sensitive to their unique strengths.

In the Kootenay region we have established task forces to examine various key economic and social factors within the region. Their recommendations have laid the groundwork for the year to come. They have greatly assisted in identifying priorities and short- and long-term objectives. Members are to be commended for their diligence and reasoned recommendations. Their input has been of substantial value in determining government-wide decisions which are sensitive to regional impacts.

The Thompson-Okanagan region has recently established six task forces in key economic development and infrastructure areas in order to bring forward regional priorities in a more integrated manner. We expect this process to bring about significant activity in the coming year,

Over the past year we have started to see the results of the regionalization process through programs such as regional seed capital. We have also seen the regional structure as a major component in key government-wide initiatives such as the provincial transportation planning process," Freedom to Move," and the community alcohol and drug abuse prevention community programs of the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services.

In the coming year, both tourism development and mining will be the focus of regionally based studies initiatives and programs such as these are raising regional awareness and increasing the demand for our services and assistance.

The coming year will be a very active one for the minister of state. To continue our activities in regional development through the minister of state's offices, we are requesting a 1989-90 budget of $1.47 million. This budget represents a very modest increase from '88-89.

The Ministry of Crown Lands represents the major component of our budget. Over 90 percent of the land in our province is publicly owned Crown lands Crown lands is the central responsibility for this very essential resource. The land base is a very important component in the development plans for our province.

We must continue to use this resource wisely and effectively to stimulate industry and commerce while ensuring that development is sensitive to long-range environmental and multi-use concerns. Since the creation of the Ministry of Crown Lands in July 1988, much work has been done to reorganize the components within a single management structure. This has entailed separating the Lands portfolio from the Ministry of Forests and Lands and integrating the surveys and resource mapping branch from the former Ministry of Environment and Parks.

Last year Crown Lands was given the lead role in the disposition of the BCEC lands portfolio. This will mean continued involvement in the management of certain properties in the coming year. Crown Lands was also charged with managing the consolidation of mapping and land information systems within government. The ministry has developed a corporate strategy for land information that will rationalize existing systems within government and provide better information exchange between government agencies and industry in future.

The demand for Crown lands is increasing. As we move into our first year of full operation as a ministry, we are excited and optimistic about the opportunities and challenges we face. We are equally aware that we must have adequate budgetary resources if we are to achieve our goals. Crown Lands employs 467 people in eight regional offices and four Victoria branches.

Crown land programs are a profit centre in government. For every dollar we spend in this area, we generate approximately $2 in revenue. Crown Lands is proud of its service orientation and of having positioned itself in a manner that is both efficient and entrepreneurial. It is an organization that is client-centred and market-oriented.

The ministry works with all sectors of the province to allocate land for industry, commerce, settlement and conservation. We operate a registry of legal interests in public land and support rational use and management of public resources through the production of topographical base maps and geographic information. The development of Crown land by the private sector will continue to contribute significantly to the long-term economic health of this great province.

Marketing our Crown land complements rather than competes with the activities of the private sector. It also contributes to our ability to fund conservation efforts in the province. The Ministry of Crown Lands has committed additional funds this year in support of two key initiatives. The first is to increase our marketing initiative in support of regional development. We are increasing funding of identification studies in two vital areas for future development: coastal resources and back-country recreation. These studies provide a blueprint for land use by determining potential conflicts before allocating land for specific use. To support these initiatives, which will be undertaken in many areas of the province, we have committed $250,000 in the coming year. Ultimately this planning process will contribute new jobs and infrastructure improvements while being sensitive to the region's environmental and conservation needs.

Crown Lands will also be enhancing accounting and management systems for the Crown land special account. These enhancements will preserve existing accountabilities and make the system more respon

[ Page 7870 ]

sive to our decentralized operations. In support of this initiative for systems enhancement, Crown Lands is committing $250,000 this fiscal year. This expenditure, in conjunction with an accelerated marketing initiative, will produce significant revenue benefits.

The second key strategy is to enhance the ministry's ability to make resource information available to government and industry. We will be increasing our expenditures for the development of a geographic information system for Crown Lands and the Ministry of Environment. Such a system will simplify the dealings the public has with our regional offices and enable staff to provide more timely and effective service in the management of natural resources. A total of $500,000 will be expended on this GIS development in '89-90.

The budget before you represents a modest increase which will pay dividends in the years to come by increasing revenue and stimulating the economy through the marketing of Crown land, and also by providing more comprehensive and effective systems for natural resource management.

On the floor today to help me with information that may be requested, I have my associate deputy, Ed Macgregor; the assistant deputy, Frank Edgell; and Jim Switzer, vice-president of lands in BCEC.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, he tells us in terms of his regional stuff that there are six task forces, that they'll be attacking regional priorities in a more integrated manner — harrumph, harrumph! — and that they are developing a "corporate strategy" with respect to Crown Lands. Poor old Johnny Johnson, Larry Bell and all of those predecessors, who thought they were the corporate whiz kids, are going to be hurt.

Then he sums up by telling us how entrepreneurial he is by saying that for every dollar they spend in Crown Lands, they get back $2. Well, what kind of businessman is that? You're given the Crown lands as a gift, you spend $1 managing them, and when you do sell, you make $2 back. That's probably the worst business operation in the history of Canada. But be that as it may, that's the way this minister operates.

[2:45]

I wonder if the minister could advise us how it works at Blackcomb. Maybe the minister could provide the House with information about the arrangements with respect to Blackcomb.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Would the member like to be a little more specific, please?

MR. WILLIAMS: How does the ministry sell lands to Blackcomb Ski Enterprises?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Basically, in a few words, there is an agreement. The benchlands, I believe, are what you're referring to. In '79-80 Blackcomb opened phase 1 of the development plan. Simply by putting lifts, or investments, on the hills, they earn the right to draw down land for development purposes.

MR. WILLIAMS: I want to thank the minister for his frankness and detailed accounting of this arrangement. I wonder why he's so reluctant to give us more details. Or is he just not aware, and he has to be briefed?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Chairman, I'm being very brief about this because the agreements were in place prior to my assuming the office. I'm sure this has been canvassed many times before.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister is wrong; it has never been canvassed. The minister is wrong; it has never been public. Can the minister tell us when the documents were given to the people of British Columbia in a public information program? Isn't it true that the agreement was amended many times and the last amendment to the agreement was in 1988, when you were the minister? It may have been just prior to the minister's appointment, actually.

HON. MR. DIRKS: If I had been sitting over on the other side of the table and this agreement was in place for that length of time, I don't think I'd admit that I had let the government go that long, as you suggest, without revealing the details of it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, then, there's every opportunity for the minister to enlighten us.

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, is the prompter, the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith), not willing to stand up and do some more public prompting of the minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 52 pass?

MR. WILLIAMS: The Attorney-General is here as the minister of defence for the Minister of Crown Lands. Well, so be it.

I'd just like to make the point that the question of Blackcomb and the development of Blackcomb is something that deserves full public discussion, and reasonably so.

AN HON. MEMBER: The minister agrees.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister has agreed, but he hasn't really provided us with the background. So I guess I'm going to have to begin with a general discussion of what the administration in '72 inherited at Whistler and how we evolved a plan to establish Whistler as the resort it is today to a very great extent.

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, no. Most of you people simply either don't know history or rewrite it. You people are reluctant to provide to the public the kinds of details about the contracts you have made

[ Page 7871 ]

that should have been made public throughout the years and have not been.

Just to set the background straight, when the administration changed in 1972, the Whistler region was a scattered mess of speculative subdivisions. There was no public water system in that valley, no public sewer system, no plan whatsoever. That was the inheritance of the early Social Credit years at Whistler. It was the classic botch-up — impossible management or non-management of the public lands. There was pollution in Green Lake and Alta Lake. It was the end product of non-planning through the W.A.C. Bennett years. It needed major government intervention to begin the cleanup.

There were problems in terms of not understanding or analyzing the ski potential of that and other regions of British Columbia. The full potential of that region was being missed. It needed a water system, a sewer system and a community plan; it needed all of that.

HON. S.D. SMITH: On a point of order, I'm sure that what occurred in 1969, '70 and '71 is interesting to historians and sundry socialists, but I'm wondering if we might get a little closer to 1989, the current estimates which are before us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are discussing Crown lands, and I believe the member opposite has been discussing Crown lands. That's what we're dealing with in vote 52,

MR. WILLIAMS: There was no analysis in those days of the ski-potential regions in British Columbia, and there was a real need for applying human capital in terms of understanding this great potential we have. There was a need to front-end and spend public money to deal with the lack of work by the previous administration. The Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet began that work. That became activated in those days, and a team of some 70 interdisciplinary people were applied to a range of problems in British Columbia.

One of those problems was the Whistler region. We intervened and stopped devastating logging that was taking place on Blackcomb, Mr. Attorney-General, because we recognized the significant ski potential there. That was stopped in order to protect the tourism and recreational potential of the valley.

In addition, we didn't really understand snow, the weather and conditions, and the whole matter of an international resort and how it could be really developed from scratch — or at least a little bit beyond scratch, because we had to clean up some of the mess that was already there. That meant that we had to hire people we deemed to be the best ski-engineering people in North America, so we hired Snow Engineering out of Colorado to analyze that whole snow basin around the Whistler valley. Out of that work developed the plans for the Whistler region and for Blackcomb, and out of that came an understanding that the Fitzsimmons Creek area was the natural town centre for the Whistler valley.

So this area — Crown land — which had in fact been a garbage dump near Fitzsimmons Creek, was clearly the area where the values in terms of future ski development could be focused. We had a unique opportunity to link Whistler from the town centre, the Whistler ski development and Whistler Mountain, and then have another lift to Blackcomb and tie it all together in the old garbage site at Fitzsimmons Creek. It was, in fact, an extremely good planning exercise involving some talented people who were this significant team in ELUC: British Columbians who had left, British Columbians who had stayed. Out of that came the proposal for the development of the resort municipality of Whistler.

It seems to me that all this upfront money at Whistler — public money in terms of infrastructure and the like — is somewhat similar to the New Westminster situation, where another public corporation, the First Capital City Development Co., which was a sub of BCDC and BCEC, established the infrastructure and the basis for rehabilitating the waterfront in New Westminster. There was a lot of money to be spent in terms of a sewer system and a water system in the valley and to develop the town centre, and a lot of human capital and new institutions to clean up the mess that had been inherited.

Part of that worthwhile exercise was establishing the job of ski coordinator in the province, and Mr. Al Raine was hired in the Department of Lands. For the first time ever in British Columbia there was a ski coordinator, somebody with a terrific background in terms of the practical sense of the ski world and competition skiing, and an understanding and knowledge as good as anybody's in the world of the ski resorts of western Europe and North America. So it was a unique blend of human capital that started to work on Whistler. I want to put that on the record, Mr. Chairman, because these birds don't understand how you establish a significant planning exercise and achieve something worthwhile over the long haul. All of that was done in those few short years.

Raine had this superb background, and he also, as part of that initial legislation, became an alderman in the resort municipality of Whistler. So he was the liaison for the provincial government in those early years, right on the council at Whistler. The province was spending a lot of money in the valley on cleanup. He did an admirable job and well beyond what one might have expected from what might nominally be called a layman in terms of planning and architecture. Raine actually got them to redesign the town centre and orient it in a more effective way toward the sun and the lifts and so on. Because of his early input and his reanalysis of those problems, the modern townsite of Whistler is far better than it would otherwise have been.

We then, of course, had a period of recession and a downturn in the market some time later, and the province ended up taking over the Whistler land company, which had been an operation of the community and was part of the package. Out of that exercise, the government, instead of being Keynesian — as one would hope governments might be — put

[ Page 7872 ]

the clamps on. At a time when there should have been more provincial spending and keeping up in terms of the infrastructure and recreational facilities that were planned, there was a clamping down. That was unfortunate, but that kind of insensitivity is something we get accustomed to out of Social Credit. So we got a classic conservative anti-Keynesian approach at a time when we should have gotten exactly the opposite.

We also had a deputy minister fired. Mr. Johnson, an extremely capable person, was fired directly by the Premier of the province, Mr. Bennett — we read about him in the papers these days — and the minister didn't even know. He was replaced by Mr. Flitton. Mr. Flitton, of course, had impeccable credentials as a civil servant: he'd been in the Premier's election campaign plane the previous general election. That's who moved into the Ministry of Lands.

MR. MESSMER: What's that got to do with it?

MR. WILLIAMS: It's just an interesting aside.

We haven't really had a balanced community built there in Whistler. There are significant problems in terms of housing for workers in that community.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I don't mean to interfere, but I should possibly remind hon. members that the minister's responsibilities date from the day that he was appointed. I have let the hon. member continue in this manner, thinking he was going to come up to date.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm actually right there, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the point.

We then had a pattern of more short-term thinking with respect to Whistler. I think that pattern has continued, and, like New Westminster, it carries with it some costs. I think that's the reality.

At this point I think the minister should continue the story. The minister should tell us what the arrangements are with respect to Blackcomb.

[3:00]

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I want it to be clear that the minister had an opportunity to provide more information regarding the Blackcomb land arrangements, and he chose not to take the opportunity — not once, not twice, but thrice, okay? He just shook his head negatively.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I can repeat what I said earlier if the member didn't hear me before. The arrangement was made prior to my assuming this role and would have been canvassed at that time.

MR. WILLIAMS: The arrangements, Mr. Chairman, were amended on four or five occasions post-'79, and the most recent was in 1988, I believe. Is the minister unwilling to provide the House with any information?

HON. MR. DIRKS: If there were any changes, they were before July '88.

MR. WILLIAMS: It was in July 1988. But anyway, the minister and previous Social Credit administrations have not made this material public. Let's get that straight.

Prior to the estimates being considered for the Minister of Government Management Services (Hon. Mr. Michael) responsible for the Enterprise Corporation, I asked for a list of all the lands sold by the Enterprise Corporation over the last few years and received it. On that list was a list of properties sold at Blackcomb — sold pursuant to the agreement that I've been asking the minister to provide us with.

Let's see what kind of arrangements that has represented over the last 18 months. First let's make it clear: the Blackcomb property was acquired — I think it was originally Fortress Mountain — there were various amendments in the contract and subsequently it was owned by Intrawest or its subsidiary, Blackcomb Ski Enterprises. Those are the people that have been dealing directly with the Crown in recent times — since mid-'86.

This is the arrangement with respect to the benchlands at Blackcomb, which the minister does not want to make public. Let's make it clear here and now what the deal is at Blackcomb, because the minister has made it abundantly clear that he does not want to tell the people of British Columbia what the deal is on the benchlands at Blackcomb.

Here is what it is: 255 acres at the foot of the lifts, or its equivalent, available at $10,000 per acre net developer acre plus 5 percent of the market value of the land up until December '87; after December '87, $10,000 an acre net acre and then 10 percent of the real value of the land. After '92 it moves up to 15 percent of the selling price. After '97 it moves up to 20 percent of the selling price.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Let's make it clear. Your Minister of Crown Lands sure did not want to talk about this deal in public. He made it clear over the last half-hour that he did not want to discuss it. Is lack of comment an embarrassment? He does not want to get into those details? Hopefully the opposition would not have the information? Hopefully we would not know the kind of deals that were indeed made at Blackcomb? I guess!

Let's look at the parcels of land sold in the last 18 months under the Ministry of Crown Lands at Blackcomb. Let's see the kind of money that has been made by Blackcomb Ski Enterprises just in the last 18 months alone. Here it is: one project, the Gables — sold July 2, 1987 — 2.26 acres, payment to the Crown, $82,637; price when sold or flipped through BSE as part of the profit à prendre agreement that you have.... That's what they actually call it: profits à prendre.

MR. LOVICK: Somebody got taken.

[ Page 7873 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: Exactly. Profit for the taking — $1.2 million. I am talking about same-day sales, essentially; that was the arrangement made with respect to the lift. That's the Gables.

There was workers' housing, and that ended up going up from $64,000 to $640,000. Snowcrest, another condo project, was sold by the Crown for $34,820 — 1.5 acres — and was resold for $256,000. Pinnacle Ridge: sold by the Crown to BSE, October 12, 1987, for $209,000; subsequently sold, same day, $2.5 million.

Canadian Pacific Hotels, Chateau Whistler: 10.08 acres, $275,000 for ten acres at Whistler — anybody who knows you pay that for a condo at Whistler these days. It was $275,791 to be precise, and subsequently sold for $3.5 million on the same day.

The Chamois development: July 14, 1988, sold by the Crown for $122,253; flipped for $1,125,000. Glacier Lodge: sold December 16, 1987, for $175,000; flipped at the $2 million level. Cedar Ridge: December 18, 1987, 4.14 acres sold for $119,573 by the Crown, and flipped at the $800,000 level. Stoneridge: 1.82 acres, sold by the Crown on July 14, 1988, for $133,481; flipped for $1,080,000. Wildwood, another condo development, sold July 14, 1988 — just last year — for $125,761 by the Crown; flipped for $1,103,500 on the same day. Powderhorn: October 31, 1988, $114,661; flipped for $1,024,000. Forest Trail development: sold July 29, 1988, for $114,299; flipped for $936,000. Foxglove: 1.9 acres sold by the Crown July 14, 1988, for $109,133; flipped for $900,000. Snowberry: 2.06 acres sold by the Crown July 14, 1988, for $110,628; flipped for $900,000. Wintergreen development: 1.9 acres sold by the Crown July 14, 1988, for $109,051; flipped for $900,000.

Total up just that group — and that's not all in the last 18 months. Just add them up. Payments to the Crown: $1,925,401; flipped at $19,434,288. Not a bad deal.

We might ask ourselves: how long will it go on, and how much land, when we know what condo prices are in Whistler now? You're locked into this deal. How long, Mr. Minister? How long are we locked in? Is it to the year 2000? Is it to the year 2010? Is it to the year 2020? Is it to the year 2030? He has to check.

Two hundred and fifty-five acres, downtown Whistler: that's the deal, and they're basically getting it at a tenth of what it's worth. That's in the last 18 months.

There are others where we had to interpolate the information: Snowy Creek development, Cedar Hollow development, Greystone development, Whiski Jack development and another unnamed one. In those cases, the payments to the Crown were an additional $470,940. We estimate the price they were sold at to be $3.8 million. That would then make another profit a prendre of $3,375,000 to be added to the $17,500,000 profit. That makes a profit of over $20 million in 18 months, and all of this on land that they can continue to slice off on demand. That is the arrangement at Blackcomb. So they don't even pay taxes in the interim. Most other land developers have to pay taxes on the remaining land, but no, these folks can slice it off when they want it so they avoid any property tax. They make the immediate flip — the profit à prendre, as the agreement refers to it — and that's it.

It's just another example of very typical business approaches by Social Credit. This deal was revisited again and again, and in '88 it was visited again. This is still the deal for 255 acres in downtown Whistler Blackcomb. It's an extraordinary deal. Let's get it straight: this minister did not want to discuss this deal. He did not want to discuss it at all. That's an indication of the continuing attitude in Social Credit, in terms of not wanting to be open and aboveboard about the arrangements they make with respect to the public lands in British Columbia. We're talking about the public lands of British Columbia.

This minister got up and bragged in his opening statements that they make $2 for every $1 they spend. Well, what do you think Interwest and Blackcomb Ski Enterprises make for every dollar they spend? Under this deal, for every dollar they spend, they make $10. A minor lesson for the minister — someone is a little more entrepreneurial, Mr. Minister.

They didn't even own the land in the first place. You owned it in the first place, and you can still make only $2 for every $1 you spend. They just cut such a sweet deal with the Crown that they make $10 every time they spend $1, and they make it overnight. There's no way. They've got their buyer right there. That's the arrangement. They've got you on a contract until the year — what was it again? — 2034. Is that It? That's the deal, and they've got you where they want you until 2034. As the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) says: "Could anybody have been that stupid?" The answer is: "Yup." Only Social Credit could have been that stupid.

[3:15]

HON. MR. DIRKS: This is getting interesting. The member over there said he didn't understand snow. Obviously, from the little tirade that he just gave us, he believes the public won't understand a snow job when they hear one. He fails to recognize two very fundamental things. First of all, they had to earn the right to draw down that 254 acres. They had to earn the right by investing in those hills. They have invested approximately $54 million in order to get the right to draw down that land. It's no longer that they are getting ten times what they invested. The other thing that good member doesn't mention is that they are getting raw, unserviced land.

As a planner, he knows the difference between raw, unserviced land and developed land. They've spent somewhere close to $8 million to put in services. They have an investment there of somewhere around $62 million. For that investment, they have the right to draw down land.

MR. WILLIAMS: Let's at least clarify it. Intrawest ended up picking up this package in 1986. The numbers the minister is talking about are total expenditures throughout this exercise. Is that correct?

[ Page 7874 ]

MR. LOVICK: The Attorney-General was in court that day.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Would you mind repeating the question, Mr. Member?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, if you'll tell me what the Attorney-General said, I'll repeat it. The minister said that some $50 million was spent. He's talking about the whole arrangement right from the beginning with Fortress Mountain. Is that correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: What year was that?

MR. WILLIAMS: It was 1979.

HON. MR. DIRKS: That's all part and parcel of the deal. Their total investment is $54 million in order to earn the draw-down of the 254 acres.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, but the point is that Intrawest.... There's been operating revenue from the lift system. Right? They will have the lift system well into the next century. There's all the operating revenue from the system. In addition, there's the land deal that you people have never been willing to make public — including today. Let's reinforce that.

What we had here is another company coming along — Intrawest-Blackcomb Ski Enterprises — picking up the deal from Fortress and the Federal Business Development Bank. They paid something to the Americans who were Fortress, and they made a deal with the Federal Business Development Bank. Let's talk about the real dollars they've got in there, Mr. Minister. What are the real dollars they've got in, in terms of acquisition price from Fortress Mountain and FBDB?

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm getting tired of this interlocutor down in the back ranks and the Attorney-General feeding words into the mouth of the minister.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I am rather amused by this. He says that this wasn't public knowledge, and yet he has got all the information there. I'm just not sure. I think he's off on one of these little witch-hunts and I don't want to be part of it. That happened before my time, and I think we really should discuss the estimates for '89-90 rather than discuss what has gone on in the past. That's the purpose of this exercise, if I understand it correctly, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WILLIAMS: Let's get it clear, Mr. Chairman. It's only the result of a great deal of work that we pulled together this information. It Is a great deal of work on the part of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to, indeed, find out the kind of arrangement that exists there.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: You bet. You and your friends with their $10 million flips. You bet.

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We are used to the outbreaks by the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith), but perhaps you could call him to order and ask him to sit in his own seat.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken.

MR. WILLIAMS: Okay, the minister confirms the numbers.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's what he's just said: the minister confirms the numbers that are the result of our investigative work.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I would confirm that $54 million was spent on the lifts and the day lodge, mountaintop restaurant, parking-lots and so on, to earn them the right of a 254-acre drawdown of unserviced raw land.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister is not challenging the numbers. And let's get it straight in term of servicing. The earlier administration, '72 to '75, undertook the infrastructure in that resort municipality. As a result, there are sewage systems, sewage treatment plants, water systems and all of that, anted up for by the province, right to the base of the bench lands we are talking about. So all of those utilities are right there.

You are simply pushing up another few hundred feet into the bench lands, and all you are doing is talking about servicing a small bench land area for these kinds of millions of dollars, so that these developers are able to pick up ten acres from the Crown for under $300,000 and flog it to the CPR for the $3 million number or its equivalent that I mentioned earlier. That's the kind of deal you've given them. They buy at $1 and they sell at $10. That's the clever deal you made. It can carry on to the year 2034.

My God, when it costs a quarter of a million to buy a condominium in Whistler today, and you've got another couple of hundred acres in downtown Whistler available to you, Mr. Minister, have you ever had your staff try and estimate what kind of king's ransom is involved here as they slice off a couple of acres, step by step? Have you tried to make any estimate of the kind of returns, $50 million or no, they are going to get out of this project?

HON. MR. DIRKS: There are two points here, really. If they hadn't spent that $54 million on developing those hills, we'd still have moose pasture up there. That land wouldn't be worth what it is today. They had to make that investment for that land to be worth something today.

[ Page 7875 ]

The other thing is: he keeps talking about how they spend $1 and get $10. He says it's insignificant, the servicing. I don't think $8 million on a sale of $19 million is insignificant whatsoever.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's not sales of $19 million; it's sales of more like about $24 million, and there's still land to be developed from that servicing. So let's get that straight.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I am just quoting the figures that the hon. member gave me. If his figures are incorrect, why is he giving them to this House?

AN HON. MEMBER: You weren't listening.

MR. WILLIAMS: The situation is very clear. We are talking about just a little pocket of the bench lands, right above the town centre. There is still land to be developed there, to carry on. It's fascinating.

The reality is that it's part of a pattern. It's part of a pattern of the earlier Social Credit administration; it's part of a pattern with this Social Credit administration. It's a pattern of selling off public assets for far, far less than they are worth. You did that in the New Westminster waterfront; indeed you did. You did that on the New....

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. You want to talk about the New Westminster waterfront? Do you want to talk about it more, Mr. Attorney-General?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Tell us about it.

MR. WILLIAMS: You think that's okay?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Through the Chair, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: Do you think a $10 million flip is okay? That's okay in your business, is it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, order, please. If the Attorney-General wishes to speak and he rises, he will be recognized.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's part of a very clear pattern. You undersold land in New Westminster in terms of its value.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: That's absolute rubbish.

MR. WILLIAMS: And you, my dear, know about as much of it as the man in the moon.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think the Attorney-General should withdraw the kind of comments he has been making, Mr. Chairman. It's not in keeping.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Attorney-General please withdraw.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I don't know which remark he wants me to withdraw. If it was when I said that he attempted a sexist put-down of the member, I think he should reflect on that. I think sexism is out of place in this society, and it's something that he ought to be cognizant of, particularly on that side.

MR. WILLIAMS: The man who aspires for the Premier's position has made it clear what his qualifications are.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. It's normal practice in this House for one person at a time to stand and speak. The Chair recognizes the opposition House Leader.

MR. ROSE: I'm quite sure that my colleague doesn't need any help from me. But it seemed to me that there was a request by the Chair for a withdrawal; I didn't hear the withdrawal.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, as you well know, my respect for this House means that at any time I would withdraw — if I knew what to withdraw. If someone could tell me what I am to withdraw, I'd be more than happy to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we continue with the first member for Vancouver East, the Chair can tell the hon. Attorney-General what the words were that he should withdraw, and I think the Attorney probably knows those words. Could we have a withdrawal, please.

HON. S.D. SMITH: At the request of the Chair, Mr. Chairman, of course I would withdraw whatever it is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.

MR. SIHOTA: What's the matter, are you afraid to say it on the record now?

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the debate has proceeded to the point where it has lost all significance due to the catcalling coming from both sides of the House, and I would like to bring members back to order. This is a serious question we're discussing, and the people of British Columbia deserve better than what we've been going through for the last 15 or 20 minutes.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate your concern. The Attorney-General, who does aspire for the highest office in the province, has

[ Page 7876 ]

clearly established his qualifications today. I agree that these are serious matters, and they should be canvassed in a serious manner.

I gave some of the background with respect to Whistler during the period that there was a different administration. I gave an indication of the kind of work that went into it. This administration has been given this incredible opportunity and has certainly proceeded. But the question is what the public received in terms of value for what it sold. That applies across the board, in terms of various dealings of this administration especially. It applies with respect to the selling of the New Westminster courthouse and those lands for $400,000. It applies to the selling of the waterfront lands for $2 million and then having them flipped virtually the same day at the $10 million level. It applies with respect to other sales of BCEC properties.

I suggest it applies with respect to Blackcomb. We're talking about 250 acres here. We're talking about a string of sales over the last 18 months basically for $1 and traded subsequently for $10 dollars. If you want to project those numbers up until the year 2034 and the remainder of the 250 acres, it's very clear indeed that Interwest and Blackcomb Ski Enterprises are going to do extremely well. I ask the minister if he's given any thought to exactly how well they will do, in terms of projecting some of these numbers into the future.

HON. MR. DIRKS: The member keeps wanting to talk about New Westminster, and actually that was canvassed very well with the Minister of Government Management Services (Hon. Mr. Michael).

[3:30]

He knows full well, from the discussion and from looking at the paper that was served to him that day or was given to him during those discussions or that debate, that that was not an external flip; that was an internal or between directors type of transaction. It was not based on the marketplace whatsoever. It was done, and there is a court case proceeding at the present time on that issue. Unless he's referring to the other New Westminster land deal, where I believe the taxpayers have already paid $20,000 to straighten the member out.

MR. CLARK: We'll deal with some other aspects in New Westminster some other day; I'm sure the minister's prepared for that. But today I thought I'd like to canvass a little more some of the questions around the Blackcomb deal. I'm not as familiar with it as the first member for Vancouver East, so I would like to ask a few questions.

I understand that the total deal with Blackcomb is 250 acres. I wonder if the minister could confirm that, and second, tell me how much has been drawn down — to use the minister's term — to date and how much remains.

HON. MR. DIRKS: If the member wants to enter the debate, it would be better if he was in the House and listening to these proceedings. It would save a lot of time and repetitiveness.

The answer is that there are 254 acres, and approximately one half of that has been drawn down now.

MR. CLARK: I know that 254 acres was in the debate earlier, but that one-half, I believe, is new information. I wonder if the minister could tell me what the Crown received for that one-half and if he knows what the developer received for that half. I guess we can work it out. It's ten times.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I would simply repeat: if the member opposite was in the House during the debate, he would have heard those figures from his colleague the first member for Vancouver East, who said it was $19 million and the Crown got somewhere around $1.9 million.

MR. WILLIAMS: Just to help the minister out, the numbers I provided him with were for the last 18 months, not for the term of the agreement, which was ten years.

HON. MR. DIRKS: There wasn't any drawdown of land until 1986.

MR. WILLIAMS: Then I think the minister's probably mistaken in terms of the total amount of drawdown.

MR. CLARK: I just noted that the minister is getting some staff help. The first member suggested that one half might be a bit high. Maybe he can confirm precisely how many acres have been drawn down as part of this arrangement, if that's possible.

HON. MR. DIRKS: We don't have that here, but we can certainly get it for you.

MR. CLARK: I wonder if the minister could explain on what basis he made the assertion that half of it was drawn down, if the information isn't available.

HON. MR. DIRKS: The term was "about half."

MR. CLARK: Did that information come from your staff or is it that you just know intuitively that it's roughly half?

Interjections.

MR. CLARK: With all due respect, I'm not trying to be facetious. We're trying to get some answers. I appreciate that the minister said he'd come back. I just wondered whether he's of the view, through his staff, that generally speaking, half — "about half" is the minister's term — has been drawn down, so to speak, and that we can get the precise number from the minister at a future date. The minister is nodding his head, so I assume his staff has informed him that

[ Page 7877 ]

about half has been drawn down to date. The minister has given that assertion.

I wonder if the minister could tell me whether his staff have conducted any analysis to determine what the present net value of the deal would be in total. Presumably, when the deal was struck by the Crown at an earlier date, there was some estimate of the value of the contract. Has the current ministry, under his auspices, attempted to review the contract — which seems to be reviewed regularly — to bring it up to date and see what the estimated value of the deal is, or the likely future value?

HON. MR. DIRKS: That's a very difficult thing to answer, for two reasons. First of all, they've had this arrangement — the right to draw down — since 1980, so it's at their discretion when they draw down. And second, with a very changing market, it would be very difficult to evaluate the precise value of that.

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe the minister could advise us, with the help of his staff, how the contract evolved over the years and how it changed, and how the basic original element of the contract was relative to the movement of skiers up the mountain. As I recall, the number of townhouse sites, for example, relative to the number of people being yanked up the mountain on the lift was the original arrangement. It subsequently got changed over the years, and then we ended up with a solid block of some 255 acres as the deal. That strikes me as a significant change or evolution of the contract. Maybe the minister could confirm that.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

HON. MR. DIRKS: The contract has been really the same right from the beginning; it hasn't undergone any changes. That was back in 1979-80, well before my time.

MR. WILLIAMS: The contract said in 1988: "...upon acquiring title to certain additional lands" — additional to the lands described in the original agreement. Does the minister want to reconsider what he just told the Legislature?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I don't think that is different at all. Basically, some development has occurred on Whistler — I am sure you are aware of it — since '79-80. In '82, lift 6 was constructed. That created 900 more bed-units. In 1985 Seventh Heaven T-bar was installed, for a further 400 bed-units. Finally in 1986 they proceeded with the installation of the three quad detachable chairs, the second T-bar, a second mountaintop restaurant, a new day lodge and extensive trail development, at a cost of approximately $23 million. This development brought Blackcomb up to Its maximum 7,500 bedroom-unit entitlement for the bench lands, which translates to 254 acres.

MR. WILLIAMS: Then the minister is confirming that they are now at maximum — that this is the maximum, and regardless of changing capacity, this arrangement with respect to these specific lands, these 255 acres, will not be expanded. Is that so?

HON. MR. DIRKS: That is true.

MR. CLARK: I appreciate that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) wants to get in. I assume it is on a different topic, so I'll just pursue....

It seems to me — and I am gleaning this from the debate — that the government entered into an arrangement to induce the development of capital investment in a ski hill. I might well criticize the government for doing that; I might well criticize the arrangements. But it seems to me that the principle might be that there is risk associated with this development. Therefore the government is going to underwrite some of that risk by giving them access to lands at certain prices.

This is the interesting question. When the capital development is in place and a dramatic number of skiers use the lifts.... And there is a dramatic number at Whistler. Anybody who skis there, as I do — and as do, I am sure, other members of the House — knows how successful that operation is. One could say, as a government, that we want to try and underwrite some of that risk to make the development. It would seem logical to link the development to the number of skiers using the mountain.

As I heard the first member for Vancouver East.... I can understand the logic that there would be certain things based on the number of skiers. The reason you would do that is that it would give an operating return, presumably. Given the fees at that mountain and the number of people using it, the operating revenue would be quite dramatic. That would be, I would think, taken into consideration by the ministry. In other words, to put it a different way, if lots of people use it at fairly hefty fees, then the amount of Crown land required to induce the activity might be zero, might be very small or might be debated. That is the kind of thing I would assume the government would do.

Given that this was amended in 1988 and appears to add more land to the development, I wonder if we could have some discussion or explanation of my general thoughts and how that evolved, and whether the minister could explain why more land would seem to be added to the development, given the phenomenal success of the mountain.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Actually, if you go back to the '79-80 agreement, the value of the improvements entitled Blackcomb to acquire 3,000 bed-units in the bench lands, and those 3,000 bed-units were calculated based on 50 percent of the uphill capacity of the ski lifts.

MR. CLARK: The notion is that they would get access to Crown land to build units or to sell it to build units, in order to increase the number of skiers on the mountain.

[ Page 7878 ]

HON. MR. DIRKS: Just the reverse of that.

MR. CLARK: Those 3,000 bed-units — is it worked out on a per-acre basis?

HON. MR. DIRKS: It depends on municipal zoning.

MR. CLARK: So the municipality could dramatically affect the number of acres required, depending on the density. Is that correct?

HON. MR. DIRKS: It was virtually the municipality of Whistler that insisted on that cap of 7,500 bed-units, to conform with their official community plan.

MR. CLARK: Are you saying that the 100 bed units — whatever it is — is a cap per acre? As I said, it seems to me that the amount of acreage required to accommodate 3,000 bed-units could be dramatically different depending on the zoning.

Let me ask a different question. Was the zoning in place prior to the deal, or is the zoning evolving? Has the zoning for the entire bench lands already been arrived at by the municipality?

HON. MR. DIRKS: The municipality virtually said that they would only allow 7,500 bed-units on the bench lands, and those 7,500 translate to 254 acres.

MR. CLARK: Earlier you said 3,000 bed-units.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Three thousand bed-units was '79-80. There have been developments since then that the member from Vancouver was referring to as changes in the agreement, but virtually they were only additions to the bed-units allotted to them by making additional investments on the hill.

[3:45]

MR. CLARK: I see. It was originally 3,000 bed units, and that would have translated into a smaller number of acres, but it.... I was just assuming that the acreage would expand with the municipal zoning changes and therefore we've reached the maximum now.

Let me put it a different way. Is the minister saying that for each additional branch run, so to speak, they come to the Crown or to your ministry and say: "We've got a plan to build another ski run; please give us" — to put it crudely — "more land to underwrite that investment"?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Again, Mr. Chairman, if this member had been in for the total debate, I think he'd understand a little better where we are right now. He would understand that it is capped at 7,500 bed-units, and the cap is 254 acres — that's it, period, finito — that will draw down on that.

MR. CLARK: I appreciate that. Now on the basis of the 254 acres or 7,500 bed-units, on what basis can they draw it down? The original capital plan presumably didn't include all of the runs and all of the chairlifts, did it? Do they have to come and ask to draw down a certain amount of that land or number of bed-units on the basis of capital investment in particular ski lifts?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Again, in '79-80, with the investments that they made on the hill, they earned 3,000 bed-units. In '82, lift 6 was constructed and this created another 900 bed-units. In '85, some more bed-units; in '86, some more bed-units; to where they are at a cap now of 7,500 bed-units, which translates to 254 acres total.

MR. CLARK: I understand that. I'm trying to determine each interval: '82, 900; '85; '86. How can they draw it down? Is there a formula in place whereby if they invest X amount of money in 1979 dollars or something.... Or each time they want to invest, do they have to negotiate how many bed-units they get for the investment they make?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I'm not exactly sure how to answer the member so that he understands what we're talking about. He seems to have a problem in getting it through his mind that basically the agreement was put in place in '79-80. In '79-80 they had 3,000 bed units. They've been increasing it by investments on the hill. They've been increasing what they can draw down. In other words, they've got a credit there for X number of acres of land. That credit translated to 254 acres, and they had the right to draw that down as they were making investments. They virtually had the right to draw down as they saw fit, when they saw fit. Okay?

MR. CLARK: It's at the discretion of the developer when to draw down, so it had nothing to do with incremental capital investments. Is that part of the initial agreement? I'm just curious: why would they have 900 bed-units in '82 and not 1,000? They could have had 1,000 if they had chosen to develop 1,000 bed-units, because it was within the cap. Is that fair to say?

HON. MR. DIRKS: One more time around the block. I'm not exactly sure how I can say this so you will understand. The whole purpose of the policy was to encourage ski hill development. As they developed the hills, as they made investments, they earned the right to draw down land. They have earned the right, from their investments from '79 through to the present, to draw down 254 acres, which equates to or is tied to 7,500 bed-units on the bench lands. In 1986 they actually started their drawdown. Up until then, all they'd been doing was investing on the hills without any drawdown. They earned the right to draw down 254 acres; they started that in 1986. I've said that they've drawn down approximately one-half of that at this time.

[ Page 7879 ]

MR. SIHOTA: I just want to pursue something here with the minister. In his so-called defence, I guess, against what the member for Vancouver East was saying earlier.... The member for Vancouver East, of course, pointed out how this land had been flipped, and that for every dollar it cost them to buy it, they've made $10 in the flip. In response, the minister said that the $54 million put in by the company to justify that arrangement.... It seems to me, as I think about this, that that's really kind of a false argument.

I take it that the $54 million relates to ski hills, restaurants, and so on. I think that's what the minister was saying, if I'm not mistaken. Am I correct on that, first of all? I see the minister nod. If I'm correct on that, surely they're getting a return on that investment. Am I correct on that? If they're getting a return on that investment, surely they've amortized over time the pay-down of that $54 million. I don't understand why it was vital for the government, in assessing the risk, to provide as much land as they did, given the fact that they're getting a return on that $54 million. Certainly the minister's argument on that $54 million is somewhat weak, when you realize the return they're getting when they run skiers up there at 30 or 35 bucks a head for a full day, feed them and run them back down again.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Well, I can see why the member is the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew and doesn't know much about ski hills. I think if he looked at the books of a lot of ski hills.... Until they are well established, they are on very shaky ground. Certainly there is no given that a ski hill will make money. We've been very fortunate that Whistler has been able to become a world centre for skiing and to attract skiers from around the world. But that certainly wasn't the case back in 1979-80, when this agreement was put in place.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll ignore the facetious comment from the minister and just ask him this question. Surely you must agree now that in order to comfort them into putting up this development, there was a rather generous allotment of land provided to the company.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I certainly would not agree with that assumption, Mr. Member. I think that when you invest $62 million for the right to draw down 254 acres, that's not a given.

MR. SIHOTA: That's crazy. We're talking about 254 acres of prime land in Whistler....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister on a point of order.

HON. MR. DIRKS: That was prime moose pasture until that $54 million was invested in the ski hills.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member please proceed.

MR. SIHOTA: I thought the minister was rising on a point of order.

That wasn't moose pasture; that was Whistler. You didn't need a degree in economics or to be a rocket scientist to know what was going to happen up there. I can remember being involved in a student society when we were buying land up there in the mid-seventies, fully aware of what was going to happen. It didn't take a lot.... Maybe the minister can explain why he doesn't agree that there was a rather generous allotment of land. We're talking about 254 acres in Whistler. That's a hell of a lot of acreage. It's a significant investment at Blackcomb.

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm sorry. I withdraw the word "hell." I didn't mean it that way.

You'll have to agree that's a tremendous amount of land in terms of comfort. I don't know how much comfort you've got to give a developer, but to turn around and say....

Interjection,

MR. SIHOTA: The member says it's free enterprise; I say it's Socred enterprise to give away that type of land under those conditions in that portion of the province, so as to get somebody to put a ski hill up there. I take it that this is at Blackcomb and not at Whistler.

HON. MR. REID: You'd close it down if you had your way. You never saw anything positive in your life. You don't know what positive things are.

MR. SIHOTA: I thought I had the floor, Mr. Chairman, but the Minister of Tourism is....

HON. MR. REID: I get upset when you pick on Whistler. It's the best facility in the world. Think positive for a change.

MR. SIHOTA: The Minister of Tourism just confirmed my point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Provincial Secretary take his turn in debate, but at present endure the comments being made by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA: To give out 254 acres.... It was a tremendous amount of land. I am sure they are making a $54 million return. Surely you could calculate it out in the course of that agreement that they were going to make a return on that $54 million that they invested, not on the acreage but just in running the ski hill. You don't need to be a genius to figure out that it's a good place to develop a ski hill. Even the Minister of Tourism understands that. I know well enough that there are portions of the province where you are somewhat isolated, so if you try to put up a ski hill it's not necessarily a go. But when you've

[ Page 7880 ]

got a population base the size of Vancouver, and you are an hour and a half away, it seems to me a different thing altogether.

Would the minister now not agree that, in retrospect, there was just too much of a land giveaway? If not, could he explain why not?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before the minister answers, I'd like to remind the members that we are discussing the estimates of the minister of state under vote 52 at the present time, and we are not discussing agreements dating back almost a decade. If we wish to become a little more relevant and tie the question in to the application of today's administration of the document, then we can proceed.

MR. GABELMANN: On a simple point of order, Mr. Chairman, the minister is responsible for Crown lands and the members are discussing Crown lands. What's your problem?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, my understanding as Chairman is that I am only to carry out the rules and standing orders that have been adopted by this House. My understanding is also that we are discussing the votes and proceedings under the Minister of State for Thompson-Okanagan and Kootenay, as well as the Crown Lands responsibility, and that we are supposed to be discussing matters relevant to his ministry within his time of holding that office.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, we are discussing administrative matters that are the responsibility of the Minister of Crown Lands. His responsibilities include the ongoing administration and how we got to that point with regard to Whistler. You cannot talk about today without talking about events that preceded. We do that in every single set of estimates in this Legislature. I know the Chair won't recognize this, but we have done this for many decades in the past.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd like to remind the hon member that I am only following the rules that are set out by the House.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, would you cite the rule?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I shall.

[4:00]

MR. KEMPF: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, far be it from me ever to have professed to be an expert with respect to the rules of this House However, it has been my understanding for going on 14 years now that — in estimates you discuss the administrative responsibilities of the minister in question. Having sat here very quietly all afternoon, I have heard nothing but that kind of debate. Before the Chair makes a ruling, or before the Chairman says any more with respect to this particular point of order, I would ask him to seriously consider that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate the member's point, and I certainly do not wish to be overly strict, but item 61(2) of standing orders does specifically state that the discussion is to be strictly relevant — and I emphasize the word "strictly" — and it has to be an item or clause under consideration. The point I was making is that the member's opinion of some agreement that took place a decade ago is not relevant, in my opinion, and I would ask the member to redirect his question and proceed.

MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, I don't know if the Chairman was listening to the debate, but what we have here is a contract that was originally established in 1979 and amended many times up until 1988, when it was most recently amended. The contract is enforceable until the year 2034, so it's going to be around for quite a while.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes that point and wishes to have the debate relevant to the estimates.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman; we are in agreement. That's excellent.

Just to make the point again so that we understand how these arrangements work, the CPR hotel at Whistler, Chateau Whistler, is on a ten-acre site that was sold by the Crown for $275,791. It was in turn sold by Blackcomb Ski Enterprises Ltd. to the CPR for $3,500,000, a difference of $3,224,209 in that one case alone. That's the kind of pattern we have as a result of the contract.

AN HON. MEMBER: What period of time?

MR. WILLIAMS: The sale date at the $3.5 million level was November 9, 1987; the previous sale was November 5, 1987. But it's the pattern: basically a day or two between sales.

Another one was the Gables development on the Blackcomb bench lands. The transaction took place July 2, 1987. It was sold by the Crown for $82,637 and subsequently sold by Blackcomb Ski Enterprises Ltd. for $1,200,000, a difference in this case of $1,117,363. That was July 10, 1987. Another case in point is a development called Le Chamois. The transaction took place July 14, 1988. It was sold by Blackcomb for $1,125,000. The Crown, which had transferred it at about the same time, got $122,253; so the profit a prendre, to quote the contract, was $1,002,747. If we project that pattern, I don't think there's much doubt, given land values into the next century, that Blackcomb Ski Enterprises and their parent company will be doing very well indeed.

It would be interesting to ask if the same people made other land transactions with other agencies of government in earlier years; the answer is yes, they did. You could ask whether they did well; the answer is yes, they did. Did they maybe do even better than they've done in Blackcomb, and the answer is yes, they did. But I'm answering for the minister. He should really look at all of these arrangements that

[ Page 7881 ]

he's inherited. They're worthy of some study, because they're a textbook case in how not to manage the public lands. It's true at Lonsdale, it's true at New Westminster, it's true in Tilbury in Delta; it's true across the board. Only now are you starting to get a handle on it — some of your staff, that is — and doing proper appraisals prior to the sale. That has not been the pattern at all through recent years.

Now that it is finally moved from the Enterprise Corporation, there are the beginnings of professionalism in this exercise, but it has taken a long, long time. The former minister responsible for the Enterprise Corporation, the senior member from Little Mountain, was the minister responsible in terms of these incredibly bad textbook examples. Unfortunately she is not here to answer for all of that exercise, but she should be, just as the previous administration should be, on a whole string of things. The numbers are significant. Throughout a period of restraint, when everything was being clamped down and so on, we move into this, where we consistently sell below value.

When I go through these documents, there's a name — a vice-president, I think, of land in the Enterprise Corporation by the name of George G. Flanigan. You'll find his name everywhere in some of these interesting sales. Is Mr. Flanigan still advising the ministry?

HON. MR. DIRKS: No.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the minister advise me when the contract arrangements with Mr. Flanigan ended?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Early August to mid-August last year.

MR. WILLIAMS: Was there a period when Mr. Flanigan was working as a private consultant as well as carrying on his activities with respect to some of these public lands?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I really couldn't say, Mr. Member, because that was before my time. I took over in July; he left our advisement in mid-August.

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe the minister could check that out and advise us at a later stage, if it's a matter of checking the information in terms of whether there was a period where Mr. Flanigan was simply operating as a consultant on some of these land arrangements and carrying on his own consulting business as well or whether there was a firm end. He was a vice-president. Was it all over — his being a vice-president of BCEC lands — or was there a transition period? That's the essential question, and I guess that could be checked out.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

There's another area I'd just like to ask a question about. It's not an area I'm familiar with, so the minister is safe. In the East Kootenays, I'm particularly interested in the Panorama Resort. There were sales for a golf course and other uses at Panorama. Maybe the minister's staff is familiar with it; it's in the Invermere area, I guess. Could the minister advise me what arrangements were made with respect to the sale of additional lands to the Panorama Resort? That's a company out of Calgary.

HON. MR. DIRKS: We are negotiating with that company for land for use as a golf course, but arrangements have not been made yet.

MR. WILLIAMS: So arrangements have not been finalized. Has there been no Crown land sale at all to them adjacent to the resort itself in the last couple of years?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I certainly couldn't say about the last couple of years, but I can say that since July '88, no.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think it might be worthwhile just to open up the whole question of the public documentation of sales. It would seem to me that a standard approach would be that when a sale has been completed, it should simply be available on a public file to all and sundry. Is that the kind of arrangement the ministry has when there's been a transfer of any kind of public lands whatsoever?

We might even begin at the very beginning. We do have the catalogue. That's standard, that's understandable, and it's there for everybody. That's an even playing-field; fair enough. If there's a buyer who's interested in one of those parcels at that price, that's that. But there will be other cases where land's not in the catalogue but it is deemed, after investigation, to be fine to sell. In those cases, what kind of public information system do we have in terms of (a) knowing that the site is available; (b) finding out if more than one person can bid on it; and (c) knowing after the fact, at least, that the transaction took place, what the sale price was and who the buyer was? That's the kind of standard public documentation of land sales by the Crown which, it seems to me, should be available in Victoria and in the regional offices. Is that kind of pattern there? I'm simply not up to date. What is the pattern you have?

HON. MR. DIRKS: In relation to that, we generally have a public advertising offering the land, and the method of disposition is widely known. Then we generally make an announcement as to who the successful purchaser was.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's good news. It's just a matter of it being available in some consolidated form. If I requested the information then — or anybody else — it may not be available immediately in tabulated form for the past fiscal year or for your annual reports, but it wouldn't be difficult to do that. Could that be made available, in terms of sales for the

[ Page 7882 ]

last few years, so that it's clearly on the public record in a consolidated manner?

[4:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Omineca.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I guess....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chairman just recognizes members standing. If they're waiting for the minister to respond, then we can just wait; that's fine. The member can take his seat, and I'll wait until the minister is ready.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister indicates the material is available, and it's available after each sale. It's simply a matter of consolidating the information and making it convenient for those who are interested in just the data and information. So I assume that it can be consolidated. It may not be consolidated, but it would be available within a reasonable length of time.

HON. MR. DIRKS: At the present time we do not make out a consolidated list of all land sales in the province.

MR. WILLIAMS: If my memory serves me right, in the last annual report, which I read about a week ago, it's in the 400 to 500 range, in terms of parcels. Am I correct? We've got half a dozen regions or something like that.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Nine regions? Eight regions. So in each region, we're talking about only 50 or so sales; it's not very substantial. Is the minister saying that's available regionally on a consolidated basis?

HON. MR. DIRKS: The total in the region is shown in our annual report, but individual sales in that region are not listed separately. But I could take that under advisement.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I'm asking you here and now, Mr. Minister, if you will make that information available to the public. Why would you not make it available?

HON. MR. DIRKS: My only comment at this point is that I will take that under advisement and see what can be done.

MR. WILLIAMS: We are not asking for anything but the most basic fundamental information about the operation of your ministry. That is: who did you sell to for what and when? I say you have an obligation as Minister of Lands to make that information available to every citizen of British Columbia. Don't you have some understanding of what your obligation is in, terms of prudence and information for the public?

HON. MR. REID: Don't lecture the House.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'll lecture whomever I please, Mr. Minister of Tourism. I'll bet if you were to ask any of our citizens in British Columbia right outside the door — in Cranbrook, Kamloops or Fort St. John — about the Minister of Lands not providing the public with information about land he sells and at what price, he or she would be shocked. That's obviously information that should be readily available. I think the minister should reconsider what he's saying and simply say that it's available. It may take a little time to consolidate the information, but it will be made available.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I really don't know what the member is getting all worked up about. Basically, individual sales are.... The information is available in regional offices. We don't consolidate it and come out with one consolidated list of all the sales in the province, but information is available on request at any lands office.

MR. WILLIAMS: So the minister is saying that if I write to each of the regional managers of the Lands ministry, I can get a list of their land sales, to whom and at what price for the past year. Is that correct?

HON. MR. DIRKS: No, that is not correct. If you want information about a specific sale, that information would be given to you from a regional office. But if you ask for a list of all the sales, that information is not readily available.

MR. WILLIAMS: Why?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Well, there is no reason why we would withhold any information. It is public information, but it hasn't been requested. But at a fee, it certainly would be made available.

MR. WILLIAMS: So the minister is changing his statement from my previous question. He's now telling me that it is available on request. Is that so?

HON. MR. DIRKS: If you request it, we'll make it available to you.

MR. WILLIAMS: I appreciate that; it took a little bit of time. But I would like the public of British Columbia to know that if they're interested, they can write me. I'm going to have to ask it of the minister before they can ask for it and get it, presumably.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: No? Oh, it's available to all and sundry now. Good. That's settled. Is a verbal request satisfactory? I'm making the request right now, and I'll follow it up with a letter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, since the mood of the House has improved somewhat, perhaps I could

[ Page 7883 ]

ask you to address your remarks through the Chair, as we try to accommodate the wishes of all members.

MR. WILLIAMS: Certainly, Mr. Chairman, and through you I should express my appreciation of the minister's newfound cooperative mood.

Maybe we can just slip into the ministry-of-state area, because it's intriguing, and the minister is.... The professionals can go to sleep for the next little while, and we'll deal with the question of the great southeastern regions of British Columbia.

Now, let's get it clear. The Premier established these regions, and they were pretty big to start with. But then he decided that some of them could be consolidated. So in the northeast we have Nechako and the Peace consolidated together, on the coast we have the Island and Coast consolidated together, and in the southeast we have Okanagan and Thompson and the East and West Kootenays consolidated together. So this decentralized mode ended up being enlarged. I really have trouble following some of this, so I have to go through it slowly. Our decentralization program means consolidating the regions, for starters.

Let's think of all the towns, valleys and basins this minister is responsible for. Let's see. There's Ymir in the East Kootenay. Isn't that right? Then there's Cranbrook, Grasmere, Fernie, Elkford, Kimberley, Invermere, Athalmer — those 'meres — Sparwood, Golden, Revelstoke, Nakusp, Nelson, Meadow Creek, Crawford Bay — all of that wonderful area of the Slocan — Winlaw and Slocan City, Rossland, Trail, Greenwood, Grand Forks, the Boundary country, Penticton, Oliver, Osoyoos, Kelowna, Winfield, Summerland, Westbank, Oyama, Vernon, Okanagan Landing, Lumby, Enderby, Salmon Arm, Sicamous and Malakwa. Then there's Pritchard, Kamloops and all of the North Thompson communities: Blue River and Birch Island, where the noted Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) comes from. It's easy to understand where he learned his vocabulary. Then down into, I guess.... Is Merritt part of that, Mr. Minister? Merritt and the Nicola Valley — that gets us to Quilchena. Then it must break around the new mining community to the west. Or does it include the mining community? So it has Hedley, Princeton and so on. Then you go to the headwaters area on the Hope Princeton Highway. It goes even further? Oh, it doesn't go that far; okay. Well, that gives us a bit of an idea — right up to the Yellowhead and the Big Bend of the Columbia River.

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, I see. Somebody suggested that I forgot a few places. Needles? Yes, we forgot Needles. Burton? We forgot Burton too. And Wasa. Now I don't even know Wasa. I hesitate to admit it, but I don't know Wasa. Did we miss Wasa? We did miss Wasa. And it may be appropriate for the summing up: Ta Ta Creek. Well, welcome to the land of decentralization. This is probably the size of New Brunswick, P.E.I. and Nova Scotia. That's a quick guess; I suspect it is.

I did make some notes when you covered that. You said something about six task forces, corporate strategies, regional strategies, etc. But when you think about it, the southeast region of British Columbia is probably the one that suffers the most economically. Isn't that so? The highest unemployment figures are in the Kamloops region and the Kootenays. Isn't that so? Your own home riding has very high unemployment figures, so it requires some special skills if one looks at these things seriously. It's hard to believe that one is, given the budget you've got. I think you said the budget was $1.4 million. You didn't use your budget of last year, because that was an arbitrary $1 million by order-in-council.

It's disturbing, in a sense, because I happen to be very fond of the Kootenay region. For me it's one of the very special parts of British Columbia, and I think the people are very talented in the Kootenay region — despite some of their voting habits. I think of the Slocan Valley, for example: again, very high unemployment levels. These people have talked about genuine decentralization in the Slocan; people like Corky Evans, the man who ran against you and lost by 20 or 30 votes. He was the coordinator of an economic and land management plan for the Slocan in the early seventies.

I used to be a professional in that field of regional planning. I would like the minister to know — after he has received the additional pearls of wisdom from the Attorney-General — that, for my money, the work that the community.... We're talking in the Slocan Valley about some of the people of Doukhobor background and many Americans who were Vietnam protesters who moved to that valley. There's a very interesting mix of modem people from the United States and these people with significant history from Russia living together in that valley. They worked together, and one of the younger Doukhobor men who worked on that project told me that it was almost a spiritual exercise for him. He's three generations of Doukhobor people in that valley, working with those expatriate Americans who have become Canadian citizens.

They talked about genuinely managing the resources of their valley. They talked about multinational companies that controlled the important assets — natural resources — of the valley and generally, unfortunately, didn't manage them very well; interfered with their own water supply areas and watershed areas, with very real problems. They documented what had happened historically, how they had lost in terms of economic development. They charted a way out in terms of more economic control by local people. I think it's the most impressive new idea in local economic development that we've had in a couple of decades in British Columbia, and it's to the credit of those people who worked on that report. That was genuine decentralization they were talking about.

We began that process in 1975, establishing a community council for that sub region, so that the

[ Page 7884 ]

Slocan Valley would have become the first region in British Columbia to manage the public lands and forests that they lived in. It's really quite an exciting idea, and it's an idea whose time has come. We're a province that more and more is a province of Greens, people who care about this place. For those of us who were born here, especially, it has great meaning — those of us with significant social roots in our own communities and who understand generations back, what they fought for in this province.

[4:30]

Some of those people in the Slocan are like that, and they have this input of new people who care equally about their region. They're talking about fundamental change. They are talking about decentralization, but they are talking about an uncorrupted word.

We have a significant problem in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in finding the language that we and the citizens of the province try and espouse getting corrupted by the people currently in power. You people say that you have a decentralization program The people of the Slocan know what they would like and desire as a decentralist program for both themselves and the people of other regions. I think they are right. That's a personal statement. I've come to the conclusion that big government does not work very well. The minister can chuckle away. I am satisfied that big corporations often don't work as well as they should, either. It's a bureaucratization which is maybe unnecessary.

I talked about the greening of British Columbia, which has been happening in recent years. I think people realize that our environment in this province is not being adequately managed. They can visit the constituency of the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) and see what's happening, as he indicates, to the north of Friendly Cove, where there is massive clear cutting and so on, and know...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could I ask the member to relate these matters to the regional....

MR. WILLIAMS: Okay.

...that something is amiss. I'm talking about the minister who's responsible for two major sub regions A chunk of that sub region is the Slocan. I'm saying that there's a kind of dream out there on the part of the average citizens of British Columbia that they want genuine decentralization, genuine regionalization. I'm saying that this administration has corrupted the language by what it has done in the name of decentralization and regionalization.

What irony that in the name of decentralization we have a minister of state who covers all those communities that I mentioned earlier. What kind of decentralization is that? It is no kind of decentralization; it's a corruption of the idea, a corruption of the word. It's the kind of newspeak that comes out of this administration and this Attorney-General. I say to the minister: what can you tell the people of the Slocan in terms of their having some genuine input in their own valley, in terms of managing the forests of the Slocan, in terms of making sure that their watersheds are looked after, and in terms of determining what their employment future would be, rather than have some outsider determine it, which is the pattern of today? The minister has a budget of $1.4 million....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, the time under standing orders for your remarks has expired.

When members stand to be recognized, the Chair would appreciate it if they would remain standing, so that if one member is recognized, then we can proceed.

MR. KEMPF: I was enjoying that dissertation with respect to the present regionalization and real regionalization so much, Mr. Chairman, that I wanted to hear more. I'm sorry that the member who was speaking has left the House.

I don't really want to get into the minister's responsibility as the minister of state, because I've done that once already in this House, and I intend fully to do it again during the estimates of the minister of state in whose jurisdiction my constituency lies. It was interesting as well....

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I sat very quietly and patiently listening to the debate from both sides of the House, when I was waiting to take my turn. I would ask that you direct the Attorney-General to do the same.

It was interesting to listen to the debate with respect to the Whistler lands, for a couple of reasons. One specific reason — I'll get into that a little later — was that I had several questions with respect to the sale of Crown lands and the amount of dollars asked for them. I now have twice as many questions.

One thing interested me a great deal — and I won't go into it in this minister's estimates. Perhaps in some of the things discussed here this afternoon with respect to Crown lands at Whistler lies the key to the political intervention that took place with respect to the Powder Mountain proposal. I wish to get into that in some detail in another minister's estimates, which surely will come before this House in due course — perhaps in August, September or whenever. I won't get into it now, but perhaps in some of the debate, in some of the questions, in some of the circumstances that were canvassed here this afternoon with respect to the Whistler lands, lies the key to what really happened with respect to the political intervention that took place regarding the Powder Mountain Resorts proposal.

I heard the minister suggest at one point this afternoon that it was the object of the ministry to provide Crown land to the public at a fair price. I think that is the key to my questioning and my part of the debate here this afternoon. I have, on behalf of the many people I represent in north-central British Columbia, just the opposite problem to the first member for Vancouver East, with respect to the price of Crown land in British Columbia. I can understand

[ Page 7885 ]

now, listening to the debate, why we have to Reece the ordinary citizens when it comes to the sale of Crown land. We have to make that dollar up somewhere. If we are only making a dollar, and we are giving away the high-priced land, then we have to make that up somewhere. I intend in the...

MR. CLARK: Months ahead.

MR. KEMPF: ...months ahead, if necessary, to show that to this House.

The price charged the ordinary citizen for Crown land and the price charged developers for Crown land are significantly different. I intend this afternoon — and I am not a lawyer, but I don't think it is going to be too difficult — to make a case for the cost of lakeshore leased lands in north-central British Columbia and to show this House how unfair.... The minister is leaving the House. I don't want him to miss any of this, because I think it is very important. I have only written to him on half a dozen occasions pointing out very clearly what the problem is and how it could be rectified, but it seems from the last correspondence — which, incidentally, is dated as late as June 20, 1989 — that he hasn't understood what the problem really is.

MR. WILLIAMS: Surely you jest.

MR. KEMPF: I jest not; I am very serious. As a matter of fact, my constituents, whom this administration is asking to pay double the price, the going rate, for lakeshore leased land.... We talk a lot about appraisals. I see a strange philosophy in that ministry when it comes to appraisals vis-à-vis actual values. They see one philosophy when levying taxes on appraised value and another philosophy when using those appraised values to sell leased lake lots to ordinary citizens.

I was so happy. For ten years I fought in this administration for a policy that would allow the sale of those leased lake lots to the citizens of the province.

MR. WILLIAMS: And then they sock it to them.

MR. KEMPF: Sock it to them! That's an understatement.

I intend to prove that, and to ask the minister why his ministry is asking ordinary citizens, people who have leased land on lakes in the central interior for a number of years.... They have not held them and paid nothing to the government, as we've heard in other situations, but paid not only lease costs but also property taxes on that leased land for a number of years. They took the government in good faith and developed, in many cases, modern homes — perhaps that was a mistake, because they only had a lease — and modern facilities on those lots. Is it that the government now considers they have a captured audience and are holding these people up to ransom for those lots?

[4:45]

I intend to get very local. I really hope that this minister has some answers for me, because, as I see it, there is absolutely no logical response that the minister can give which will inform this House why the ministry is asking more than twice what lake property is selling for in the same area for those leased lots. I get letter after letter from the minister, as I said, the last of which came to my office today, giving absolutely no reason.

Is the minister aware that the area I've been writing him about is a very depressed area? There isn't great economic development going on all over this province; I can assure the minister of that, and I can give example after example as to where it is not happening. I'll name the area; it's the Topley Landing area on Babine Lake. Is the minister aware that three- and four-bedroom homes are selling not five kilometres from there for as little as $15,000, lot included? Is the minister not aware that lakefront land...? We're talking about homes that aren't on the lake, admittedly, but have lake views, a beautiful location overlooking beautiful Babine Lake. Three and four-bedroom homes are selling for $15,000, and the government is asking $10,000-plus for a leased lot. Absolutely no reason; no excuse whatsoever.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The minister writes that there will be a second appraisal by an "independent appraiser." I will tell you about those independent appraisers as well, and I will get into a situation where, had it not been for the ministry getting into a contract, a contract which they fully intended to break, but when they were reminded of the ramifications of breaking that contract, they backed off.... That's fine in the case of one particular piece of agricultural land, but what of those dozens of other north-central British Columbians in the same predicament? Is the ministry going to stand by their "independent appraisal," which in this case would have asked not $65 an acre for agricultural land, but $110 an acre for that same land based on fair appraisals? We in the north are very fair individuals. All we ask for is fair treatment.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

Now, I have go back to the lakefront lots. How can the minister, through his ministry, say that $10,000 is a fair purchase price for a lakeshore lot at Topley Landing, when just down the lake like property has sold — not is selling, not is up for sale, but has sold — for $2,000 an acre? Not five kilometres away, three- and four-bedroom homes complete with lot are selling for as little as $15,000. We can shorten this debate considerably. The minister can simply stand up and say: "I've made a mistake. We have miscalculated. We are going to sell these lots to ordinary British Columbians at a fair price." They're not even asking that the offer be reduced to what it should be; they're simply saying: "We'll pay a fair price. We'll pay $5,000 a lot for that property. It should be $3,000, but we'll pay $5,000."

[ Page 7886 ]

I simply ask the minister: why are they asking $10,000 a lakeshore lot at Topley Landing, given the facts with respect to the sale of other lands in that area? Why do I get letter after letter saying....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I regret to inform the member that his time has expired under standing orders.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I was very interested to learn about the price of land at Topley Landing, among other places, and I would like to hear more about it.

MR. KEMPF: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the Attorney-General. I'm sure he's got some constituents on his back — probably a number of them — for the very same matter, so I just have to pursue it.

We talk a lot about assessments. We talk a lot about actual values. Where does the ministry get this actual value of $10,000 for these lakeshore lots? If the minister can stand up and give me examples this afternoon of where those prices come from, I'll pack up my papers and go to my office and listen on the loudspeaker there.

I just want to know, on behalf of.... These are just ordinary British Columbians, people who work in the mine, in the woods, people from as far away as Burns Lake or Houston who have a summer cabin, which is their only outlet for recreation. Why are we fleecing these ordinary British Columbians? We heard in this very House this very afternoon what we're selling Whistler property to developers for. I would hate to think so, Mr. Chairman — what a horrible thought — but is this the way we're going to make up the losses? By fleecing ordinary British Columbians on lakeshore lots? And not just lakeshore lots. I'll be talking a lot to the minister, in and out of these estimates, with respect to agricultural land. I see that the minister has initiated a probe into agricultural use of Crown lands, and we'll talk about that at length too, because I really fear that there's an ulterior motive here. I saw it once for myself, in person. There's an ulterior motive here.

I guess at this point I've got to make the remark that never, ever was I sorrier to see two ministries split up than I was to see Forests and Lands once again torn apart. It took years for this province to wake up to the fact that forests and lands should be one and the same as far as being in the same ministry is concerned. You can't take the two apart. If you take them apart, you're going to have two different factions fighting over the same Crown land, because there's only so much of it in British Columbia. One of the most ridiculous things done was, after the many years of work that went into putting those two ministries together, to have them torn apart. Now they're just an appendage. Lands is simply an appendage on a state ministry. Ridiculous, absolutely preposterous: after years of hard work, torn apart once again. That's not the fault of the minister, and I'm not faulting him for that.

I am asking the minister why his ministry is asking British Columbians, whether it be for lakeshore lots or whether it be for agricultural land, for clearly twice what it's worth in that particular area based on the sale in the private sector. I was of the opinion that that's what this administration based everything on: what went on in the private sector. That's all I'm asking. Treat them the same as those who buy land in the private sector.

I'm sure the minister's staff is aware of the Wayne Ray situation in Fort Fraser; it has been around for a number of years. If it weren't for a contract that the ministry inadvertently signed and had to be reminded of, they'd have held the Rays up to ransom for $110 versus $65 an acre for this Crown land.

Why is this going on? That's all I ask. A very simple question: why is this going on? I'll sit down now and allow the minister to get some answers from his staff to answer these questions this afternoon.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I want to raise a couple of questions for the minister as well, and I want to make a couple of comments about decentralization generally.

I've listened with enraptured concentration this afternoon to these 1-percent credit-card socialists waxing eloquent about local input, consultation and decentralization and all the wonderful things they did, would do, could do and should do. But when I think about consultation and decentralization in the Thompson-Kootenay region, immediately to mind comes the amalgamation of Kelowna and Kamloops, not exactly a shining light of either consultation or intelligence or anything else that would be referable to good, sound regional development or the practice of good sound regional development, or indeed anything else that could come to mind.

[5:00]

One of the major issues we have had to confront and are confronting today in that region, as the Minister responsible for the Thompson-Okanagan region is well aware, relates to transportation, to sewage disposal and to a number of issues about infrastructure in our communities. It relates as well, in the case of Kamloops particularly, to questions about land and about land within the agricultural land reserve that sits between two nodes of population that must be joined up, which puts a tremendous cost on not only the communities but also the province.

I want to urge the minister responsible for these regions not to take the soft-spoken, pseudo-full-of kindness-and-concern advice that has occasionally come from across the way about how to affect this regional development issue, particularly as it relates to these lands and these communities, and the settlement patterns in those valleys. Better than him listening to these smooth-talking, born-again entrepreneurs, coming across the floor with this stuff at this particular hour in the mandate, he should look at their record. Look at the record in Kamloops of the forced amalgamation of five communities, as well as the Kamloops Indian reserve.

[ Page 7887 ]

One of the most offensive parts of that amalgamation was the forcing of the Kamloops Indian reserve into the city boundaries by fiat of the then minister of everything, as well as his cabinet colleagues; the forcing of Indian lands into the city of Kamloops without any regard for the constitutionality of that — in other words, whether it was lawful — without any regard for the wishes of the Indian people on that particular piece of land, and without any regard for the community and how those communities had successfully related one to the other for many years before. After the government of 1976 came in, its first order-in-council took that land out, and they have been able to relate successfully one to the other since then.

So I would commend to the minister responsible for those regions.... The second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) yawns. He too is insensitive to the needs of Indian people in the Kamloops reserve at that time, as he is insensitive to many other things if they aren't of direct concern to him in Victoria. But I would commend to this minister that he not look to the examples of the past that are coming out of the mouths of the people of the past. He ought to pursue programs that are much more considerate of the situation that he finds, which in no small part is a direct consequence of bad and fundamentally stupid decisions taken between 1972 and 1975.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before the Attorney-General proceeds, I would just like to remind him of standing order 61(2) on relevancy, and ask him to tie his remarks into the minister's estimates.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Yes, absolutely, Mr. Chairman; I agree with you. I'm tying this in directly to the regional development function of the minister's estimates, as well as the business of lands, in terms of those communities that have land contiguous to nodes of population. I'm tying it into a fundamental concern I have, listening to this debate, that he might be swayed by the words that have been coming from a long-sitting member in this chamber. He may be swayed because of the experience that he presumes to bring to this chamber. And I'm just trying to point out to him that the words he hears today about sensitivity to local needs were never reflected in the acts he took when — God forbid! — he had the levers of power in his hands. So they're most relevant, Mr. Chairman, and I absolutely will keep them that way.

We are also concerned — and I think the minister ought to be concerned — about the kinds of things he hears from the other side. When the people of that part of the Thompson-Okanagan region sent the second member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Barlee) to Victoria, in response the Leader of the Opposition sent the people of that region, and other regions in the province, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) as regional development critic — you know, Mister Sensitivity himself. On being interviewed the first time, after taking on that role and thereby giving advice to the Minister of State for Thompson-Okanagan, and to all other ministers of state, he said: "You know, the problem with these people is they're really a bunch of unsophisticated rural rednecks." That was his contribution to the sum total of human thought, a kind of sneering, contemptuous, elitist view of these people.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Vancouver East on a point of order.

MR. WILLIAMS: This minister has chosen to repeat a lie around the province and is repeating it in the House today. The rural redneck point might apply to him and a few of his colleagues, but not to other citizens of British Columbia — and did not.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, to accuse another member of this House of lying is a very serious matter, and I think the member should withdraw.

MR. PERRY: I find the remarks of the Attorney-General regarding my colleague very offensive, and I request that he withdraw them.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The member for Vancouver-Point Grey, if he has a point of order, should refer to a specific comment if he wishes something to be withdrawn. I'm specifically asking the first member for Vancouver East to withdraw the remark in which he called another member of this House a liar. That is unparliamentary, and he should unequivocally withdraw the statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member has been asked to withdraw those specific remarks.

MR. WILLIAMS: The member for Kamloops has consistently not been quoting the member for Vancouver East correctly around the province and in this chamber.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the member withdraw the allegations that the government House Leader has just made?

MR. WILLIAMS: The first member for Kamloops incorrectly misstates. He is misstating what I have said. He has consistently done so around British Columbia and in this chamber, and I would call that a lie, Mr. Chairman. If you don't like it, we'll drop the term "lie." But that's what I'd call it if I wasn't here taking suggestions from you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the member withdraw the word "lie"? The debate has sunk to a very low level today.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! There will be no more debate on this. I'd ask the hon. member to take his chair. I'd like to remind all hon. members that good temper and moderation are the characteristics of

[ Page 7888 ]

parliamentary language. Parliamentary language is never more desirable than when a member is canvassing the opinions and conduct of his opponents in debate. I'd ask both sides of the House to cooperate with the Chair in bringing about this order, because I am only a tool of the assembly. With your cooperation we can progress further in the debate and have some meaningful dialogue.

With that, I ask the minister to proceed.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I would like to carry on discussing the issues that are very real in this province and in this chamber.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, the member for North Island.

MR. GABELMANN: The Attorney-General was asked to withdraw his comments.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: The member for Vancouver-Point, Grey asked him, and if the members didn't hear that, I would ask that the Attorney-General withdraw his comments as well. This House used to work very well until he was appointed to cabinet.

Interjections.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: If the little member from Victoria would come to order, maybe we could press on with this. Mr. Chairman, it was quite clear that the member for Vancouver East was asked to withdraw one specific word, which he still has not done. If the members opposite wish the Attorney to withdraw a specific term or remark, they should say so, and maybe the Attorney could consider it. As yet the member for Vancouver East has not withdrawn the remark in which he called the Attorney-General a liar.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As Chairman, I'm going to ask both the Attorney-General and the first member for Vancouver East to withdraw their respective remarks Then I will ask that the debate proceed.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm prepared to withdraw the remarks in terms of the House, and I'm prepared to repeat them outside of the Legislature again and again, because that's what the Attorney-General has been doing.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, naturally I would withdraw anything that would offend the House. I'm delighted to hear that the first member for Vancouver East will repeat these matters outside the House, because it has been his practice from time to time to say things in here that he hasn't sufficient courage....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Attorney-General. Now we can proceed with the debate.

MR. PERRY: I find the most recent remarks of the Attorney-General objectionable. They are a completely unwarranted description of my colleague.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. We've already dealt with the matter. Shall the vote pass?

MR. KEMPF: No, Mr. Chairman, the vote shall not pass. I asked a series of questions of the minister. I know in the ensuing — I guess you could call it — debate across the floor, he forgot about them. I'm going to give him the opportunity to respond.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I'm glad we're getting back to the Ministry of Crown Lands and the Thompson-Okanagan and Kootenay region. It's amazing, really, how times change and viewpoints change and how much difference there is between a member sitting on this side of the House and a member sitting on the other side of the House. Somehow that little distance in between changes his mind drastically.

[5:15]

What we have done in the Ministry of Crown Lands is nothing different than what we did when the member for Omineca was the minister responsible, and that is to obtain fair market value for lands that we were disposing of. We increased the availability of lands by allowing people who had leased their lakeshore lots. We gave them the opportunity to either continue leasing their property or to purchase it. This was done in June 1988. He was referring to Topley Landing. In any of these cases — and the member always insisted on this before — the marketplace was what should carry the word. He would agree with the real estate market. He certainly would agree with the independent appraisal system. That is certainly the way the price was determined at Topley Landing as on other lakeshore properties that we have made available to the people who were leasing before.

After the local community approached us with the idea that our prices were too high, that the independent appraisal was out of order, we did agree that a second independent appraisal should be commissioned and that it should be completed by June 30 of this year.

MR. KEMPF: For just a moment there was a twinge of hope that I might get some answers from the minister; instead I got some more rhetoric. Mr. Minister, we'll be here for a long time if I continue to get rhetoric, because it is not good enough for the people I represent. You can talk all you like about what I did when I was the minister responsible, but I'm no longer the minister responsible. You are. You will answer to what's going on now regardless of what was done three years in the past.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: When I was the minister, Mr. Member for Kamloops, we did not have a policy. I initiated

[ Page 7889 ]

the policy through cabinet, You should remember that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. members. Would the member please address the Chair.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, Mr. Chairman, definitely. Back to this minister. We fully intend to get the answers to the questions. You can give me all the rhetoric you like about fair market value. I gave you examples of what would be fair; now you give me examples of what you think will be fair. Tell me how you arrive at a fair market value or a fair asking price of $10,000 for a lot in an area where like lakeshore property.... I have the information here and I'll send it across if the minister wishes. Lakeshore property sold — not is selling, as I said before — for $2,000 an acre, and not five kilometres from this very area, three- and four-bedroom homes are selling and have sold and will sell for $15,000 including the lot.

If you can give me firm, actual examples of like property selling in — I'll give you a bit of a radius — even a 100-mile radius for $10,000 a lot, I'll pack my papers and go home. But that's simply is not the case. The case is that the people in that area are being held to ransom. Why? Because the government, through this ministry, this minister, has what they think to be a captured audience. What are the guys going to do, move their homes off these leased lots? No, they're going to pay the price.

The minister is going to get up and say: "Well, some have paid it." Certainly. When you blackmail, somebody is bound to come through. Yes, a few of them have bought it because they can afford it, and because they were afraid that they would no longer have the opportunity to buy this property which for so many years they've wanted to buy.

MR. WILLIAMS: They should hire a good lawyer like Peter Hyndman.

MR. KEMPF: Well, I don't know what they should do, but in these estimates the minister is going to give me solid, basic reasons why we're asking $10,000 for those lake lots when property in that area simply is not selling for anywhere near that. If I used actualities, we should be charging about $3,000 a lot, not $5,000. It's wrong; it's not fair. It's absolutely and totally wrong.

You can talk about appraisals all you like. You can hire the appraisers that give the government the figures they want to hear, and those are the only ones we hire. If the minister is willing to accept an independent appraiser, will he accept an appraiser whose name I will give him? Oh no, that's not the way it works. You accept a government appraiser, one that the government chooses. My way or the highway. We've seen it in other things in this chamber independent appraisers indeed; appraisers who want to do more work for the government, so they're going to give the government — in this case, the Ministry of Crown Lands — the figures they want to hear. I know that game. I've been around here a year or two,

Are you going to accept an independent appraiser, one that you have on the list, not one the citizens of the province of British Columbia would name? Oh no. In this case, with the Crown-lease agricultural land, you'd bring him from as far away as Fort St. John. Do you know how far Fort St. John is from Fort Fraser? No, I guess you wouldn't know. What's wrong with the local appraisers? They don't give you the figure you want? They don't give them the figure they want, so they go far afield.

Then they want to do a probe, and they go farther afield. They bring someone from Kamloops. I wonder why he's from Kamloops? You're not answering my first and second questions, so perhaps we can ask some more. What's the object of the probe? What's the object of hiring Kamloops lawyer David Gillespie as a one-man inquiry to probe agricultural use of Crown lands? Why did we have to probe that use? Was this pressure put on by the Ministry of Forests, or was it something that emanated from the ministry of lands, which is now just an appendage to the ministry of state? Did it really come from the Ministry of Forests? I seem to remember seeing it around someplace before. It sticks in the back of my mind.

One of the nice things about government: ministers change, but bureaucrats don't. What do they do? They just stuff it in a drawer and wait for the next guy. When he comes along, they open the door and say: "Whoop-de-do! We have this big deal. For you, I have such a deal." Is that what happened? Is that why you're going to probe? You said it all when you spoke to the press, and I have it here. I'll read it into the record: "The review will examine whether Crown lands should be used for agricultural purposes or be included in the province's forest inventory." Ah, now we get to the crux of the matter. Now we find out. Have you told the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage) that this is the reason for your probe? Have you told the agriculturalists out there? Perhaps it's the multinationals who feel that if you add hectares of land to the provincial forests, then you can increase the cut.

Perhaps it's the same old story, as I saw once before, when I saw both sides very clearly. Is that the reason, Mr. Minister, that we had this announcement last week? What is the reason? I ask the question again, What is the reason that you wanted to hold Ron and Marilyn and Wayne Ray of Fort Fraser up to ransom for agricultural lease land? You are asking $110 an acre, when like property in that very area is not selling for $65. They agreed to $65 because they wanted to be fair. They said: "$110 an acre is too much, but we will pay you $65, even though it is only worth $50" — even though like property in the private sector in that area is only selling for $50 an acre. "We will give you $15 an acre just for fun, because we are fair." Why?

Mr. Minister, you can give me all the rhetoric you like about what happened when I was a minister, and we are going to talk about that at length in this chamber soon.

Mr. Chairman, now we are on Lands, and we are going to talk about that. I want to know why you are

[ Page 7890 ]

holding my constituents up to ransom. As a democratically elected representative of this chamber, I have a right to know why, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I don't quite believe what I am hearing. As far as Topley Landing is concerned, the member over there doesn't like an appraisal system. He says an independent appraisal isn't the way to go. Obviously, living in Victoria, he is now an appraiser for real estate out in Topley Landing. He doesn't agree with going back out to another independent appraisal. The only stipulation as far as appraisers are concerned is that they belong to the institute, so that we have qualified appraisers.

After saying that appraisals aren't any good, and that is not the way you should go, then he holds up the Ray situation where the sale is now based on an appraisal. You can't have it both ways, Mr. Member That is precisely why we agreed to go with the $65 Ray situation, because it was an appraisal, and we did agree beforehand that we would go with it. We don't agree with that appraisal, but we are going with it. You can't have it both ways.

In one case you don't want to stick by an appraisal; in the other case you want to stick with an appraisal. You can't have it both ways, Mr. Member.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, it gets more hilarious as we go along.

The minister talks about belonging to the institute. A very simple question: will you accept an appraiser who I name and who belongs to the institute to do the appraisals on the lakeshore lots at Topley Landing? It is a simple question — not one who is on the government's list, but one that I name.

[5:30]

Will you accept that same appraiser to go back and appraise this agricultural lease property with respect to the Rays — just to be fair? We talk about independent appraisals. I don't consider an appraisal independent when that particular appraiser is chosen by only one side.

Mr. Minister, before you say anything, be very careful of what you say. Why? We talk a lot about appraisers, appraisals, actual cost, assessments and the price of like properties in the private sector, but we pay no attention to those. We pay attention to them only when it suits the government's purpose.

You talk about having it both ways. It sounds like you are having it both ways when you virtually give away the high-priced lands at Whistler to developers and then want to make that up on the backs of ordinary British Columbians when they want to buy lakeshore lots that they have already built their homes on, or agricultural land which they want to put into production.

What are you going to do, Mr. Minister, with all of that agricultural land that is going to fall back into your lap? Then we find out what the probe is all about. You are going to give all that land back to the Forests ministry — are you? — so they can include it in their inventory and increase the annual allowable cut in the province of British Columbia. The Forests ministry can increase that cut to 100 million, 110 million, 120 million cubic metres a year, which is what the big industry wants.

MR. WILLIAMS: The plot thickens.

MR. KEMPF: The plot thickens indeed, and if we have to go to a half a dozen ministries to really get the truth of what's going on, then perhaps we'll do just that. It's like a jigsaw puzzle, and it's starting to fall into place. The people of British Columbia have to know what's going on, and they're learning very quickly what it is that's going on.

Is that the reason for the probe? Why, when you were going to be so fair, was the ministry going to break the contract, until my constituent said: "Aha, hey, I've got a lawyer here who tells me I have a legal contract, and that legal contract says that, yes, we have to accept the independent appraisal"? I bet that appraiser doesn't get a whole lot more work in the future. "We have to accept that, and rather than take $110 we'll take $65 an acre." I'm not so worried about the raise. I've fought that one for three years now, and certainly I'm happy to see them getting it for $65 an acre, because I'm of the belief that Crown land for agriculture is no good to anyone, particularly the government, until it's into production. I'm not happy about them having to pay $15 more an acre than land in the private sector is worth in that very same area, but it's the other 16 out of 17 appraisals that have been appealed. How are we going to treat them? I'm going to keep a very close eye on it. Are we now going to say to them, on the basis of the Ray experience: "We'll sell it to you at the fair price of $65 an acre"? Is that what we're going to do?

I think it's a fair question. We're here in these estimates to get answers, and I couldn't get answers for the last six months by sitting in the minister's office or writing the minister letters. I couldn't get answers at all. It's unfortunate that we have to bring these things here, but if we don't bring them here, where else do we get answers? Where else do we get justice in the province of British Columbia if we don't get it in the highest court in this land, this particular place.

I want those answers so that I can go back to my constituents and say: "Yes, the government is going to be fair. Yes, they're going to sell that land to you at the price it should sell for." Or: "No, the government's not going to be fair.

MR. WILLIAMS: And you'll have to run as an independent.

MR. KEMPF: It's my way or the highway — and it's got nothing to do, Mr. Member, with how I'm going to run, or if I'm going to run, or for whom; it's got nothing to do with that, but it has everything to do with representation, everything to do with fairness, everything to do with the democratic process. Mr. Chairman, why are you holding my constituents up to ransom for property they were foolhardy

[ Page 7891 ]

enough to invest money in in British Columbia to build their homes and raise their families?

And — I don't know where the Attorney-General is, but surely he's listening on his monitor — I'm not one of these raving socialists, I don't think. Certainly I'm an unsophisticated rural redneck. That I agree to. I have no problem with that whatsoever. None. All I want is answers.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Well, I'm sure you can go back and tell your constituents that, yes, they are going to get fair treatment from this government and, yes, the land will be sold to them at fair market value, because we also have to be fair to the rest of the people of this province.

MR. KEMPF: Ah, such a short response. Can I go back and tell the people that if the so-called independent appraisal that they're going to get from a government-appointed appraiser doesn't come anywhere near what like property is valued at in the private sector in that area I can name an appraiser who belongs to the institute, and who lives and does business in that area, to do yet another appraisal? Is that what the minister is telling me about fairness? All we are asking for is fairness, Mr. Chairman.

I am not asking for an appraisal from a government-appointed appraiser, who, if he does not give the government a proper figure, may not get any business down the road. I don't want that appraisal at all, because that is not a fair appraisal, Mr. Member for Prince George South (Hon. Mr. Strachan). You should know that as a northerner. That's not fair, and all we ask in the north is for fairness. It's all we have ever asked for. As I said in another estimate, we don't need the experts, fresh off the plane with their briefcases, to tell us about fairness. We just want fair treatment.

We know what property costs in that area. If the minister has evidence.... As I said at the outset, I don't want to seem like a trial lawyer, but if he has evidence that will show — and I gave him a bit of latitude — that within a 100-mile radius this kind of property is selling for the price the government is asking, I'll fold my tent. Give me some evidence, Mr. Minister. Show me where agricultural land in the Fort Fraser area is selling for.... I'm not even saying $110; $65 an acre is all I ask, not $45 or $50 or $55, which is where it is.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I am surprised you'd ask that question. The Ray property is selling for $65 an acre.

MR. KEMPF: We're going to be here until Christmas, Mr. Chairman. You know, those kinds of glib answers.... I think the minister has to agree that it wasn't a glib question.

HON. MR. DIRKS: It was a silly question.

MR. KEMPF: I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, I have a number of constituents out there that will just love to read Hansard. Get up and say it into the microphone:

"Silly question." If it's a silly question when a member of this House will not accept, on behalf of his or her constituents, the fact that the government is holding them up to ransom, fleecing them on the price of Crown land.... That's a silly question, is it? Well, I don't think so. I don't take democracy as lightly as you do, Mr. Minister responsible for whatever — not at all. I'm sure in discussing that, my constituents would like to know where you're going to spend $1,475,463 on two political offices. Then they have to pay for Crown land more than twice what it's priced in the private sector in that very same area. I don't think they'll think that's silly, Mr. Minister — not at all.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I think if the member will refer back to Hansard, he will see that he talked at length about the Ray situation, where they were purchasing it for $65 an acre. Then a little later on he said: "Where are they selling it for $65 an acre?" That's why I said that's a silly question, coming from a man who just told me about the Ray situation and their buying it for $65 an acre.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, we're talking about one and the same piece of property. We're selling it to the Rays for $65 because the Rays are buying it for $65.

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF: It doesn't matter what other pieces of property in the same area have sold for and are selling for in the private sector. You guys are all of the same mentality over there. I can't believe what I'm hearing.

What about the lakefront lots? How do you get those prices, if that's how you arrive at this price of $65? Before we get off this, what about the other 16 who have appealed? What price are you going to sell them the land for — $65 an acre, because that's the figure set, that's the precedent set? Do I hear $70, do I hear $60 or do I hear $65? Are you going to sell to the other 16 appellants for $65 an acre, Mr. Minister? That's a logical question if, as the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) said, that's how we arrived at it. Fine. I agree; I accept that. But is that what we're going to sell like property to the other 16 appellants for?

[5:45]

While you're answering that question.... You've conveniently glossed over the lakefront lots. How are we going to arrive at a fair price for them? Not a price based on the so-called independent appraisal of an appraiser the government picks, who's worked for the government and will work for the government again; not at all — a fair, independent appraisal. Is the minister willing to accept the name of an appraiser that I give?

HON. MR. DIRKS: The first question is whether we would sell the other plots of land there for $65 an acre. That depends on the independent appraisal of

[ Page 7892 ]

each individual plot of land. Some of it may be worth more; some of it may be worth less. An independent appraisal will be done on land that we sell there.

Topley Landing — again, that's an independent appraisal.

Whether we would accept the name of your appraiser.... Who does the appraisal is a joint effort between the purchaser and Crown Lands.

MR. KEMPF: I wish to read into the record a letter written to my constituents on May 1 of this year. It reads: "After May 31, 1989, we plan to have a second independent appraisal" — that's the one you were talking about — "completed at our expense, for all properties except those in respect of which we have received written notification from the leaseholders of an intention not to proceed to purchase."

What kind of fairness is that? "Take my appraisal or none." How do you arrive at the idea that it's fair? A government-appointed appraiser — the last word? How do you arrive at the fact that it's fair, given that the whole taxation system in British Columbia is based on actual value? Actual value: what the property can sell for in that area, not what it's appraised at. Are you telling me that the whole tax system in British Columbia is haywire? That's what your people tell me. That's what they tell my constituents.

I read this into the record before, and you made fun of it in question period. I phoned the Assessment Authority but they weren't that amused, Mr. Minister, at all by this statement. The British Columbia Assessment Authority values are at best only a guide as to current market value. While the British Columbia Assessment Authority values provide a convenient basis for calculating rentals, they are generally not suited for establishing market value. But that's what all our taxes are based on. Is our tax system wrong? Are the assessments wrong? Is the actual value wrong? What's wrong here? You can't have it both ways, as you said earlier. You can't charge taxes on assessed value and sell land on an independent appraisal. You can't have it both ways, Mr. Chairman Therein lies the question: which way are you going to do it?

MR. WILLIAMS: Whose side are you on?

MR. KEMPF: We know whose side they're on That's not the question. The question is fairness, and I want an answer on behalf of those whom I represent. Why is this government not being fair with respect to...? They're being fair in Whistler; more than fair, by the sounds of it. Why are they not being fair at Topley Landing, at Fort Fraser, with respect to the value of Crown land? Why is a free enterprise government not willing to base the price of their Crown land on the price that like property is selling for — real value, actual value — in the private sector? That's the question.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think you're secret socialists.

MR. KEMPF: If I keep getting these kinds of answers to what are called silly questions, I will become a raving socialist. You've probably driven him to it.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I don't know if the welcome mat is open there, but whether it is or not is beside the point.

I would like to clarify one thing. The member has made quite a statement, and he wants a reply. There is a little misconception here. I think the member has tried to lead the House that he isn't getting a reply, that he doesn’t get a reply. That's really not so, Mr. Member.

MR. KEMPF: The answer is no. It's right here.

HON. MR. DIRKS: You do get written replies. Obviously you were quoting from one right there.

I was wondering how long it would take you to get back to the assessed value rather than the appraised value. You were saying you can't do it both ways; you can't use appraisals and you can't use assessments. You can't be taxed on assessments that sell on appraisals. I really don't know where you've been, Mr. Member, and I really don't know if you would sell your property for the assessed value. If you were selling your property, I'm sure you would want to get market value. Shouldn't the Crown get market value for what it is selling?

MR. KEMPF: That's exactly what I've been saying. Exactly. We have here lakeshore property selling for what would be the equivalent of $3,000 a lot for the same lots you are asking $10,000 for.

HON. MR. DIRKS: They've moved five kilometres now?

MR. KEMPF: We'll talk about the five kilometres if you want to talk about that as well.

I guess, Mr. Chairman, with this administration there's very little use asking questions in estimates, because on a number of occasions here with a number of estimates very logical questions have been asked, questions that the people of British Columbia are asking, not just this member, such as why they aren't treated fairly by the Crown, such as why some people are treated more fairly than others by the Crown.

The ministers can stonewall if they like — and they seem to like — but there will come a time of reckoning. That 27-vote majority of yours, Mr. Minister, is liable to disappear very quickly when that day of reckoning comes. So I'll leave it at that. I'll tell my constituents, and I'll send them Hansard and show the debate that's gone on in this House. I'll say: "No, the government doesn't want to be fair. They can be fair to the developers in Whistler, but they can't be fair to the ordinary British Columbian in north-central British Columbia."

[ Page 7893 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe the minister could explain how the ministry of state office functions, and what staffing he has. Is it consolidated into both of the regions or is it broken down into two? Do you have separate staffing for each of the designated regions? Maybe you could give us a breakdown of the qualifications of the people that man — or woman — those offices. Also, give us an idea of the major issues that are being addressed. You listed some six task forces, I believe, at the beginning of the debate today.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I would be very pleased to talk about regionalization and certainly the minister-of state function. When you were going through the list of municipalities in those regions, I think you missed quite a few of them. In the Kootenay region there are actually 23 municipalities and three regional districts; in Thompson-Okanagan there are some 50 municipalities and five regional districts.

They function as separate entities. They are not joined together at all. It's simply that I wear two hats. They are two individual regions and they operate as such. What I have for staffing is a regional development liaison officer and a secretary in each of the region's offices. Then I have a regional development officer for each of the regions located here in Victoria.

MR. WILLIAMS: Did the minister cover the six task forces? I missed the last minute.

HON. MR. DIRKS: No, I didn't cover those, Mr. Member. Basically there are six task forces in the Thompson-Okanagan and seven in the Kootenay region. They cover a wide variety. In Thompson-Okanagan they are: agriculture, forestry, manufacturing, mining, tourism and transportation. It's fairly similar in the Kootenay region: agriculture; education; government services; health programs task force; natural resources task force; parks, recreation and tourism; and then transportation — also sewage treatment and water systems. They are different in each region; they cover a wide range of activities.

MR. WILLIAMS: For the benefit of the staff, I would like to advise them that the House Leaders are working on the scheduling of the House. Hopefully they can go for dinner — and some others too. We will know in a few minutes.

While we are waiting and in view of the Attorney General's (Hon. S.D. Smith's) participation in this debate — if we can call it that — it intrigues me that this minister for the two regions is on top of the settlement battle for the southern interior, it seems to me, in terms of regional dominance. For those who went to university and studied settlement — and that may be me, at one stage of the game — there was a German geographer-analyst called Gristaller who looked at questions of town dominance over one another and developed theories about patterns of dominance. They're rather interesting. Those theories were established relative to a fairly flat area without geographical differences; that's not British Columbia.

But in British Columbia, in my view, there's really been an ongoing battle between the city of Kelowna and the city of Kamloops for the last 20 years for regional dominance of the southern interior.

[6:00]

As we all know, we've generally had Premiers from Kelowna. As a result, I think the playing-field has not been level all the time. First we saw the evolution of the dominance of Kelowna with respect to the three major Okanagan cities: Penticton, Vernon and Kelowna. Under W.A.C. Bennett the pre-eminent position of Kelowna was established; there's just no question about that. They were equal communities with equal growth rates and fairly similar economies, but Kelowna won the battle of the Okanagan.

Then the stakes were raised. The battle became the battle for the southern interior, in terms of dominance, between Kamloops and Kelowna. Given the natural transportation system and the geography of British Columbia, Kamloops has the pre-eminent position. Given its location on the two national railways, on the Thompson River and at the junction of the North and South Thompson, it has the natural advantages to be the dominant centre of the southern central interior. But all of that has changed in recent years under the second Bennett and the building of the Coquihalla Highway in two stages.

The highways program throughout the regions you're responsible for, Mr. Minister, has in my view established the pre-eminence of Kelowna again. You start looking at where the double-laning is happening: you'll see it out of Revelstoke and towards Sicamous, but you won't see it past Sicamous, through Salmon Arm and through that part of the Thompson to Kamloops. It ain't there. But you'll see the freeway-building going on in the Okanagan, and now the link is being built between Merritt and Westbank. That will push the pre-eminence of Kelowna as against Kamloops.

I wish the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) were here, because I am of the opinion that there should be a ceremony when that road is opened. I think the road from Merritt to Kelowna should be called the Bud Smith Memorial Freeway, because it's going to strengthen Kelowna as against Kamloops.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, I withdraw the name. We'll use that outside the House, Mr. Chairman. But I'm sure the first member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Richmond) kind of likes the idea of a memorial to the other member for Kamloops, because it's a long walk between his office and the other member's office in Kamloops.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Three blocks.

MR. WILLIAMS: Three blocks. Oh well.

It really has been going on, and I think it has been missed by a lot of people, and especially the people in Kamloops, because they keep voting for those fellows. In Kelowna, my gosh, it's just happening. That

[ Page 7894 ]

freeway is moving closer and closer all the time. We're going to have this bent highway system that relates to Kelowna instead of Kamloops. If the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Hon. Mr. Michael) had been on his toes, he would have wanted a straight highway system right through, and it would have helped Salmon Arm.

MR. SERWA: A point of order. While I'm enjoying the dialogue, I can see no relevance to the minister's estimates. That doesn't deny that the hon. first member for Vancouver East is way off base with his remarks; they're not even relevant to the estimates. That's all history.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. With that in mind, I would ask the first member for Vancouver East to continue.

MR. WILLIAMS: But isn't there a transportation committee? Wasn't that one of the task forces? There are the two regions, there's a transportation task force, and I'm saying they should rethink the highway system.

MR. LOVICK: Come on, that was cruel. You put two concepts together, and that was mean.

MR. WILLIAMS: The member for Nanaimo says it wasn't fair to put two concepts together; it would confuse government members. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that; it's quite unkind.

But I do think that Shuswap hasn't done well, in terms of the region you're responsible for, Mr. Minister. If you were just going to build a direct highway the quickest way from Vancouver to Revelstoke and to the access through the Rockies, you'd have taken a diagonal to Salmon Arm and you would come up through the back door from Falkland and through the Salmon River valley there. That would have taken you directly, and the new town of dominance might be Salmon Arm.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Wait till the people in Silver Creek hear what you said.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's another town I forgot.

At any rate, there is a battle for regional dominance going on — very much so. Kelowna won it in the subregion of the Okanagan, and it looks now that they are winning it in terms of the bigger stakes, which is going to be the major community in the southern interior.

I say there is a case for the freeway standard road from Kamloops to Salmon Arm and to the Rockies, and not in terms of the link to Kelowna. If your task force looked at that, I suspect they might come to the same conclusion.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I appreciate all that good information. I would suggest to the member, though, that he should have made that presentation to the regionally based task force that was going out asking for input from local people. Of course, that would not really apply to him, because they were looking for local input, certainly not from a visiting fireman.

With that said, I would move, Mr. Chairman, that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 44.

FARMING AND FISHING INDUSTRIES
DEVELOPMENT ACT

HON. MR. SAVAGE: To reiterate the purpose of the introduction of this bill, and seeking its passage, it is legislation that will enable producers of commodities of the farming and fishing industries to collect levies approved by the Lieutenant-Governor in-Council and under the supervision of commodity councils, and apply those levy funds to promoting and benefiting their industry. The legislation will apply only to those commodities where the minister is satisfied that a substantial number of the producers wish to have this apply. This legislation will increase industry self-sufficiency and reduce pressure on government to fund industry development.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, what I'm doing now is simply standing here to make sure we are talking about the bill that I think we are and hoping that my colleague the spokesperson for agriculture, who I understand was in the precincts and was aware of this particular measure, will indeed be coming. I recall having a brief discussion with some representatives of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture on this bill — people who visited my constituency — and I suspect that those individuals have done the same with most of the MLAs in this chamber and that this is one of the measures that the body did lobby for. I believe that is the case. If that is true, I know that members on this side of the House are certainly going to support it. We have no difficulty with the principle of the bill, but we may well have some questions to raise about particular clauses in the measure. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will then defer to somebody else.

MR. CLARK: I might speak for three minutes just in case developments progress; otherwise, we'll move on. I haven't got any farms in Vancouver East, but I do have fishermen. I know this is the Farming and Fishing Industries Development Act. It does appear to be a positive move — in looking at the bill — allowing levies to be collected by the different commodity councils and then using those funds to promote and benefit their industry.

We can see that milk, for example, and other agencies have been very successful in marketing on

[ Page 7895 ]

behalf of the industry as a whole. This facilitates that, and it's a positive move. We can see the raisin industry in California and what that commodity group has done. It can be quite dramatic and quite effective.

I guess there may be a few questions in committee stage about how the fund would be determined, what the amount of the fund would be and how the government sees its role and the rationale, as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council essentially approving those commodity prices, and whether there is, in fact, a common set of rules so that commodity groups all have the same kick at the cat, so to speak, to raise funds.

If they do that, it seems to me to be very appropriate. With that, Mr. Speaker, I don't see any speakers on our side of the House. We may have some other speakers, but if we don't, it clearly appears to be a reasonable bill that we will probably have no problems supporting.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, I advise the House that the minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: This is, as the member for Nanaimo and the second member for Vancouver East said, one that the farming community has sought for a number of years and would like to have for the purposes of promoting their respective commodities. The issue of the lobbying effort that has gone on with the government relative to introducing this legislation and having it pass and become an act.... It is something they have supported very strongly. I thank the opposition members for the fact that they recognize that the farming community fully supports this. Hopefully it will pass fairly quickly.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 44, Farming and Fishing Industries Development Act, 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. RICHMOND: Committee on Bill 30, Mr. Speaker,

AGRICULTURE PROTECTION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 30; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, just while we get our breath, I'll ask the minister, if he could, to refer to his notes on section 2 and explain it for us.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The section is intended to provide an option for producers with regard to the dispute, and to try and settle out of court. If a farmer receives notice and it is explained that there are reasonable or generally accepted farm practices involved, then obviously the farmer should not be subject to court action, and hopefully it would not proceed. But if litigation is sought, then after 90 days the plaintiff may ask the court to make that decision. Guidelines will obviously be published and standards would be in place to assist the farmer.

[6:15]

MR. CLARK: This is a bill, I guess, to deal with urban encroachment on pig-farms and other kinds of farms that have different smells than an urban area normally has. I know there have been some complaints by suburban dwellers that inconvenience farmers.

If someone is complaining about smell or noise and it exceeds the bylaw or something like that, is this the section where they can seek relief from any order? Is that how it Works? An action has to be taken against the farmer and then the farmer would seek relief from that order as a result of.... Is that how the bill works?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Under the regulations that would be established, as I said in the earlier explanation, if the farmer was practising normal management procedures, then he should not be subjected to any nuisance claims. But under the municipal authority, there is the opportunity for a municipality or a regional district to put bylaws in place. They are not prevented by this act from exercising local jurisdiction relative to whatever bylaws they may see fit to put in.

MR. CLARK: How would that work? Does that mean that this bill or this attempt to protect farmers from encroaching urban areas does not override the municipality's authority in any way? If the municipality wants to set rules which drive a farmer out of business, so to speak — to exaggerate — this doesn't help the farmer in that specific set of circumstances?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Hopefully we would not see a purposeful intent to put a farm out of business. The wisdom of the people who draft the bylaws would prevail, and the jurisdiction would basically still lie with the municipality, district, region — whatever. Certainly I would think discretion would be used in drafting in regulation what a normal farming practice is, as opposed to what bylaws might be put in place relative to a municipality and encroachment into urban areas. Whoever requested the bylaw, whether it was a homeowners' association or whatever as opposed to a farm organization contesting some point within that bylaw, surely due consideration would be given to the concerns of both sides.

MR. CLARK: I wonder if the minister can give us some sense of how often this bill could be used. I'm sure the minister is in a better position than I am, but most of the complaints I've heard seem to revolve

[ Page 7896 ]

around the breaking of bylaws; they may have always broken them, but now, because of the proximity of houses to a farm, the homeowners complain. You're saying to me that if they do break a bylaw, or if a municipality chooses to draw up a bylaw which impacts on the farm, this doesn't impact at all or help the farmer in those circumstances. This only helps where a farmer is operating in the agricultural land reserve and, in the normal course of business, someone complains about it.

Let me put it another way: if someone complains, it seems to me they don't have any remedy now, do they? Unless a bylaw is being broken, they don't have any remedy, and if they don't have any remedy, then how does this bill help the farmer? That's what I'm trying to get at.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It's clearly to define for the purpose of what actions may proceed. For example, we've had cases where actions have been launched by either an urban person or maybe a group of citizens against a farmer. But if the farmer was practising normal operations — guidelines were laid out for his operations or his particular commodity sector — then what we're saying by laying down this act is that there should not be the launching of that action. If the farmer met all the criteria, then there should not be a necessity for an action by the people in the community.

MR. CLARK: I'm just curious. How would someone be able to commence an action and win an action if the farmer wasn't breaking any bylaws to begin with? I see the former Attorney-General next to you. Maybe he knows more than I do. I just wonder under what legal grounds a homeowner could complain or file some kind of action against a farmer unless the farmer was breaking some bylaw or provincial statute. In the absence of breaking that bylaw, it seems to me that the court action would be unsuccessful.

If this bill does not deal with bylaws or local municipalities or regional districts, then I'm not quite sure how much increased protection exists for the farmer. In all honesty, I'm not trying to criticize the bill; I'm just trying to understand how significant it is, and how many cases might have taken place over the last couple of years which this bill would actually help.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I don't know if I could clearly define how many cases there have been, but there have been cases where actions have been launched. I can think of one in Abbotsford, where a nuisance claim took place as a result of chicken feathers. There are others where there were odours or things like that from normal farm operations, and somebody in the community decided to launch an action against that. This hopefully would protect against that type of nuisance claim. If that operation was in fact under normal operating circumstances, then there should not be an action taken.

That does not prevent the municipality from drafting specific bylaws or, as it may be and still could be, launching an action because they see it as other than a nuisance.

MR. LOVICK: I'm happy to say that I do live in a constituency in which there are a number of farms resident, and therefore I do have some concern about this and a couple of questions to pose to the minister if I might.

I would ask the minister whether part of the motivation for this particular section of the act is to discourage agitation for changes to municipal bylaws. Is that what that 90-day period is, in which some kind of proof of claim — some kind of proof of injury — is requisite? Is the intention to stop neighbours; in a suburban area from gathering together to put pressure on municipalities, which in turn might change bylaws to the injury of the farmer? Is that part of the reason for it?

HON. MIL SAVAGE: That is basically, as the hon. member says, what the intent is. It's a case of there being a time-frame in which things might cool off, hopefully.

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate the answer; I thought I was correct in that. My question, then, is whether the remedy provided here under 2(2)(a), whereby the plaintiff must indeed indicate the grounds for the complaint, in effect, if I read that correctly.... What provision or protection does that provide to the farmer? In other words, if a person says," Here is my complaint against your operation; this is what I intend to do," are we simply saying that implicit in this the individual, if aware of the predicament, will automatically, it is assumed, be able to defend his interest? In other words, if somebody has a complaint, for example, about odour, noise levels or those kinds of things, is the assumption simply that if I have 90 days' notice of that, I can somehow prepare an answer, even if I'm not in a position to change my operation?

I'm sorry this is a convoluted question. In short, is the remedy of 90 days under (a) — simply stating the grounds — really any protection at all? That's what I ask.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I believe that time-frame gives the opportunity to establish whether the farmer is in fact meeting the criteria laid out in the management of his operations, specific to the concern of what the plaintiff may seek as an action against him or in looking for some reprieve against whatever type of operation he is running. I think the time-frame gives that opportunity, plus possibly the opportunity for people who are launching actions to see if they can justify what they're launching. I believe it's clear. We have to define the proper management of a specific type of commodity on a farm. It isn't that the homeowner or whoever it may be who launches the thing is so wrong in looking at whether the farmer is

[ Page 7897 ]

operating properly; it is that the time-frame is provided to see if in fact there is a legitimate claim.

MR. G. JANSSEN: This bill provides some interest to me, as I was attempting to leave my small farm — and I live in a farming area — this morning and was informed by my mother at ten o'clock that the pigs were loose. I had to get them back in the pen and fix the fence before I came here.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many pigs do you have?

MR. G. JANSSEN: I have a quorum of pigs.

This act is welcomed by many farmers that I know where I live in Alberni. I am sure the minister is aware that the Farmers' Institute has been plagued in many parts of British Columbia by areas becoming urbanized. I find it rather ironic that people move into the countryside and establish homes because they like the rural country atmosphere, and the minute they live there, they start complaining about the smell and sometimes the noise and activities of the farming area that they've moved into.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: That's the socialists for you.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I remind the member opposite that the majority of farming areas, particularly as we speak of the lower mainland, are voting Social Credit. Is he now admitting that they are converted? They must be converting; we have the minister's assurance of that.

However, I wonder about the 90 days in this act, under subsection (2)(b) where it says: "the nature and extent of relief that will be claimed." Many times operations modernize and change; whereas a swine operator may have had a 50- or 100-hog operation, he now goes to the modern enclosed facility where he keeps 500 to 5,000 hogs and then has a problem with waste. There will be conditions laid upon the operator — the farmer in this case — which will be rather expensive to him and will incur an expense that he will not be able to bear in the operation he is now managing when he has to dispose of the waste. I am not sure whether in the 90 days here, in which there obviously is going to be a coming together of the two parties to try to solve the problem, there can be some imposition placed upon the farmer and the operator.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Here again the issue is really that the operator — whether it's hogs, chickens, turkeys or whatever type of intensive agriculture, and I think that's the key thing you are referring to here in disposing of wastes — should follow basic management techniques. They are laid out very clearly in management procedures.

In the case of a hog operation or waste storage, there are aeration capabilities that can substantially reduce the odours. If all proper management procedures are followed, the farmer really should not fear that he may have some action taken against him. If he is wilfully not following proper guidelines, I don't think this act would necessarily in any way dissuade some future action by any individual. But under normal operating management procedures, he should not be subjected to any problems from the general public, because they have to understand what normal operations are and it may require that we have to do some explaining to the general public about what farming is in each community.

[6:30]

MR. G. JANSSEN: The question I am asking the minister, I guess, is about these management practices that are laid out. Are they acceptable, or are they actually part of an act somewhere, written down in a statute that can be easily followed by an operator?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Just to show you: here is a waste management guideline that's available to agricultural people. It gives them ideas on how to properly store wastes.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I run a hobby farm. I milked the one cow for eight years, and I have three or four pigs, so I gather that the management practice in the booklet that the minister just explained about will stand up in court, will be available to the court system and will protect — I guess that's the word I'm looking for — the operator from any further action.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: To the hon. member, I am pretty certain that if he follows all the guidelines in here that are acceptable from the management perspective, he should not be subjected to actions.

MR. LOVICK: I don't have much difficulty with the agricultural dimensions as customarily defined and the explanations given by the minister, but I have some concerns about the aquaculture material that's introduced into this, because under the interpretation and application section, it appears that aquaculture activities also are embraced under what happens in section 2. That would be my first question. Am I indeed correct in saying that? I haven't had a chance to look closely at that first section to see what precisely is specified for aquaculture, but is it the case that what happens in section 2 also obtains for aquaculture operations?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, that is correct.

MR. LOVICK: Now I have some concerns. The reason I have some concerns is essentially that the guarantees and the assurances we have received from the Minister of Agriculture about agriculture, as nearly as I can make out, do not obtain for aquaculture. The ombudsman's report recently released on that subject suggested a number of difficulties in terms of regulatory authority, in terms of how those particular establishments were located in the first place.

[ Page 7898 ]

One thing that emerges from this bill is a protection of the right of the facility to exist. In the case of a farm, in the case of agriculture, none of us, I am sure, has any difficulty with that. If, however, we are talking about an aquacultural facility, which in many cases has generated considerable controversy in a community regarding whether the facility has a right to exist, whether the normal zoning notification took place, and whether the facility is compatible with neighbours and neighbouring operations, then I have some concerns about whether this bill will have the effect of grandfathering some mistakes that we perhaps made in the past in the establishment of aquacultural facilities.

I would ask whether the minister could address that concern and give me some sense of what he and his staff have deliberated upon, thought about and resolved in terms of the matter that I raise and that the ombudsman raised in his report.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: As I think the hon. member knows, the vast majority of aquaculture is outside of the ALR and generally would be faced with regulation. But specific to what the guidelines are, they are not too much different from an aquaculture point of view within the AIR. We have very few aquaculture operations that I am aware of that are enclosed within the ALR boundaries. From the point of view of the Fisheries Act and so on, there would be stronger regulation.

MR. LOVICK: I perhaps misunderstood the answer I got to my first question. What we are discussing here is only those aquacultural operations that are located within the boundaries of the ALR. Is that the case?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The act defines those within the ALR. Anything, as I understand it, outside in the way of aquaculture operations would come under some regulation of Fisheries.

MR. LOVICK: What about my concerns not terribly well stated, but stated nonetheless on grandfathering of facilities that perhaps got in there under, dare I say, suspicious circumstances or circumstances that caused considerable controversy and concern in the resident or parent community? What about that part of the problem?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I didn't hear the entire question, but on the earlier question that was asked: in relation to an aquaculture operation, by regulation it can be returned if it's outside the agricultural land reserve.

If the hon. member wouldn't mind resubmitting the other question.

MR. LOVICK: I can understand the minister having some difficulty with the question. Heck, I had difficulty understanding it myself. I apologize for that rather convoluted utterance.

What I was getting at was a problem that was addressed in the ombudsman's report concerning the procedure and process whereby aquacultural facilities were established. I am stretching my memory a bit, Mr. Minister, because I certainly didn't read that document carefully and closely. There appears to have been a pattern of questionable zoning. Facilities were located where, in retrospect, it would seem they ought not to have been, and the residents in surrounding communities were most indignant and most upset.

My question just concerns whether this legislation in effect grandfathers those bad practices that people are still complaining about. That's really what I was getting at.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: No, it does not grandfather those, but if the hon. member's recollection.... Maybe you've had the opportunity to have a look at the Gillespie recommendations. We have followed almost to the sentence what Gillespie has recommended relative to the establishment of new — after that study was done — locations, and in fact we are undertaking a number of coastal resource inventory studies of all our coastal waters, and they're taking each section at a time. Those are recommendations that did come forward, and we're trying to follow those guidelines as closely as we can.

MR. LOENEN: Just a question on section 2. In a general sort of way I know that the farmers have looked for this kind of legislation for a long time, have lobbied for it and are very supportive of it. I don't know if the average citizen has had any kind of input into this.

I know that in our community over the last number of years, and perhaps for many years to come, the conflict between the rural and the urban residents has sometimes been very severe. As a result of that, the municipality has seen fit to pass a number of bylaws, for instance related to noise, and I think that that has stabilized the situation. We've seen less fierce confrontations and battles than we had some six or eight years ago.

My question to the minister relates to what the local council has done in the way of bylaws — for instance, noise bylaws. If a citizen in Richmond were to lay a charge under a local bylaw, say the noise bylaw, would such a charge have to wait 90 days? Would this section take effect in such an instance? If not, why do we have this section? In what instances does this particular section take effect? I just wonder if the minister could tell me that.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The answer is no. This is civil law that we're dealing with here. A good example: when you talk about noise bylaws, I can tell you that just in our own municipality there are bylaws that are structured and exemptions put in place for specific users. An example is agriculture. A noise bylaw in Delta, for instance: agriculture would be exempt if they were harvesting crop in the middle of

[ Page 7899 ]

the night or irrigating to save their crops, or whatever. There is an exemption for specific uses.

MR. CLARK: In Vancouver East we have a reduction plant. I wonder if that qualifies as farm-related. I wouldn't support this bill if it didn't allow me to complain about the reduction plant.

I wonder if the minister could just tell me whether he did consult with municipalities on this bill before he brought it in?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Yes, I can assure the hon. member that we did.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Section 3 deals with an action in nuisance arising from agricultural operations, then approves on a balance of probabilities that the operation complained of was at the material time carried on in a reasonable manner in accordance with generally accepted farming practice and conformity. I guess what I'm doing is getting back to the pamphlet the minister was holding up earlier. What is general practice? He has already explained that in the aquaculture industry: it's only those that fall in the purview of the ALR, if I understand him correctly. What happens with those outside? Does the aquaculture industry fall under his ministry, but not that outside the ALR? Could he explain to me what the difference is and how this act may affect that?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: In the aquaculture side, if it's not within the ALR it has to be added by regulation. It's explained on the explanatory note on Bill 30, right at the bottom of the first page.

MR. G. JANSSEN: So if there are complaints about an aquaculture operation that isn't inside the ALR, this bill doesn't cover it, or it has to be specifically added.

Interjection.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Okay. Who would the aquaculture operation that's not in the ALR come under? Where would somebody make the complaint about whether it's the smell, the type of operation, or the unsightliness of it, and so forth?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It would be under the Waste Management Act. As I understand it, you could file an action through the courts.

Sections 3 through 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

[6:45]

[Mr. Bruce in the chair.]

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 30, Agriculture Protection Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 51.

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ACT

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The Financial Institutions Act brings to British Columbia a blueprint for the efficient and effective regulation of the financial marketplace. The increasing complexity of the financial marketplace at the national and international levels challenged this government to reform the regulation of the financial services sector in the province. This act meets that challenge by providing enhanced public protection while at the same time allowing provincial financial institutions to be more competitive.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is the culmination of a lengthy consultation process which has been ongoing since November 1986, when the Premier announced this government's commitment to reform the regulation of this province's financial services sector. Participation and input has been received from representatives of the insurance, trust, credit union and banking industries, the accounting and legal professions and other interested parties. I would like to sincerely thank all those who have assisted in the development of this legislation.

I would also like to note that during the past year British Columbia has been engaged in ongoing discussions with the other provinces concerning the cross-jurisdictional regulation of financial institutions. As members of the House will appreciate, there is a pressing need for greater compatibility of federal and provincial legislation regulating financial institutions if this country's financial services industry is to continue to evolve and mature. This bill has been carefully drafted to take into account the legitimate suggestions and concerns of other jurisdictions. Taken in its entirety, this act will make it easier for financial institutions, whether incorporated in British Columbia or elsewhere, to operate as national organizations. The legislation also makes a real contribution to Canadian financial institution legislation by pioneering some important new concepts and bringing a balanced and comprehensive perspective to the regulation of financial institutions, which is unique in Canada.

The Financial Institutions Act will ensure that the regulation of financial institutions within British Columbia is uniform and consistent by consolidating a number of similar regulatory provisions from three different acts. This act will replace the Trust Com-

[ Page 7900 ]

pany Act in its entirety and replace provisions of the Insurance Act and the Credit Union Act which regulate insurers and credit unions.

An important provision of this act creates the Financial Institutions Commission. This important new provincial agency will combine the functions of the office of the superintendent of financial institutions and of CUDIC, the Credit Union Deposit Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. It will ensure that the regulation of financial institutions in British Columbia is the responsibility of a single agency possessing a high level of expertise and a strong mandate to take necessary measures to maintain a healthy financial services industry in British Columbia. The position of superintendent of financial institutions reporting to the commission will be maintained. The creation of the Financial Institutions Commission demonstrates this government's commitment to public protection with both effective legislation and a strong regulatory enforcement organization.

Under this act, incorporation provisions for proposed trust and insurance companies are simple and are consistent with provisions contained in the Company Act. At the same time, a requirement to obtain the consent of both the Financial Institutions Commission and the minister will ensure that only those financial institutions with a reasonable chance of success and which will be operated in a prudent manner will be incorporated. This statute will also enable the minister to simply and quickly order the winding up of financial institutions, if necessary, prior to the commencement of business.

Mr. Speaker, consistent with our basic objective of promoting the development of the financial services sector, while providing improved public protection, this act will not impose restrictions on the ownership of trust companies or insurance companies by nonresidents or by those with commercial interests There is also no restriction on closely held trust and insurance companies. In order to protect the integrity and credibility of the provincial financial sector, ministerial approval will be required before any single investor or group or related parties can acquire a major ownership interest in a trust company or insurance company.

This act will rationalize a number of existing licensing and registration requirements for financial institutions which are now contained in various separate enactments. A financial institution will now be required to obtain a business authorization before commencing business and offering financial services to the public. To be granted such a business authorization, an institution must satisfy the Financial Institutions Commission that it meets prudent capital requirements, has a feasible business plan and otherwise satisfies all regulatory requirements.

Capital requirements imposed on a financial institution should not be so onerous as to impede its growth and development; but at the same time capital should be sufficient to reduce the risk of insolvency to an acceptable level. This act will provide the flexibility necessary to achieve a reasonable balance between the dual goal of protection against insolvency and limiting impediments to the development of financial institutions. Provisions will require a financial institution to maintain a capital base adequate to support its business activities, subject to reasonable minimum capital levels.

Under this act, financial institutions will be permitted to market other financial services and products, with the exception of insurance. Consumers of financial services will benefit from increased convenience and greater competition. Disclosure and confidentiality requirements and prohibitions against tied selling, where the purchase of one service is explicitly or implicitly a condition of the purchase of another, are included to protect consumers.

The Financial Institutions Act will increase the responsibilities of directors and officers of financial institutions and the standard of care owed by directors and officers to a level consistent with other jurisdictions. A financial institution will be required to have at least five qualified directors, and at least one-third of the board of a trust or insurance company must be individuals who are not officers or employees and who do not own more than 5 percent of the institution.

This act strengthens the audit and reporting requirements for financial institutions. The role of the external auditor will be enhanced, and increased qualifications prescribed. To ensure that there is no double-counting of capital in determining capital adequacy, financial institutions with subsidiaries will be required to produce annual financial statements on a consolidated basis.

Financial institutions will also be required to establish an audit committee to review prescribed matters such as financial returns and to review the work of the auditor. This act addresses the problem of potential abusive influence, while also recognizing that related-party transactions may occur as part of the everyday business of a financial institution. It will strike a balance between the need to constrain related-party influence and the need to avoid placing unreasonable restrictions on the operations of a financial institution. Related-party transactions other than those specifically prohibited or exempted by the legislation will be subject to the review of a committee of the board, which will be responsible for approving only those transactions which are consistent with usual business practices transacted at market value and in the best interests of the financial institution.

Certain high-risk transactions, such as real estate transactions, will require the approval of the superintendent. Under the Financial Institutions Act, regulatory effort will be focused where it is needed: that is, on indigenous financial institutions and those extra provincial financial institutions which do not have adequate regulatory safeguards in their own jurisdictions. All extra provincial institutions will be required to obtain a business authorization, but in order to avoid duplication of regulation, those from jurisdictions with adequate regulatory procedures will not

[ Page 7901 ]

be required to meet all of the requirements contained in this act.

This act also consolidates and updates provisions previously contained in the Insurance Act regulating the selling of insurance. The Insurance Council of British Columbia will be continued, with statutory authority to issue, cancel, suspend or restrict licences of insurance agents, salespersons and adjusters, and will be given the power to levy fines.

The Financial Institutions Act provides a broad range of regulatory sanctions, from superintendent's orders to the minister revoking a business authorization and imposing a receiver. The broad range of enforcement mechanisms will increase the flexibility of regulators in administering the act. This act recognizes that a balance is required between the need for fairness in the exercise of regulatory powers and the necessity for quick regulatory action to be taken on certain occasions. Every approval, exemption, consent or order made under this act must be in writing and must state reasons. Regulators must give notice in writing of the intention to take regulatory action, and affected parties may request a hearing. Provision is made, however, for the commission or superintendent to act summarily where a delay caused by allowing hearings might harm the public interest.

This legislation also strikes a balance between effective deterrents and the barrier which may be imposed if penalties for minor infractions are too severe. Maximum penalties for individuals range from $2,000 for less serious offences to $2,000 and/or two years' imprisonment for subsequent convictions for potentially serious offences. Maximum penalties for corporations for the same offences range from $5,000 to $200,000. Liability will also be imposed on directors, officers and employees who authorize a corporation to commit an offence.

The act provides for credit union deposit insurance and stabilization in a way that is substantially the same as that now provided by the Credit Union Act. Powers currently exercised by CUDIC are mostly being transferred to the commission.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

The one other innovative provision in this act that I would like to note is one which will enable the credit union system to participate directly in its own stabilization. The act provides for the creation of a credit union stabilization authority with a membership comprising all credit unions in the province operating under the authority delegated to it by the commission, the stabilization authority will be permitted to supervise all credit unions under voluntary supervision. Provision is also made to further expand the supervisory role of the stabilization authority if delegation will not increase the risk of claims on the deposit insurance fund.

I believe the Financial Institutions Act makes British Columbia the first Canadian jurisdiction to implement in such a balanced way the major principles and policies of regulatory reform which been debated throughout this province and this country over the past few years. This act meets the objective of providing additional public protection without imposing unnecessary costs or regulation on financial institutions.

The principles contained in this act have been thoroughly debated during a long and positive consultation process, and many constructive suggestions put forward from individuals and organizations have been incorporated. I am proud to ask the House to support the policies contained in this legislation. I move second reading now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CLARK: Let me begin by saying that I offer qualified support, cautious support — whatever you like — for this bill. I want at the outset to thank the minister for offering a technical briefing, which I didn't really avail myself of, I must confess. I might also say that I think the minister's views on the question of briefing on technical questions and no briefing on political ones is very appropriate. I appreciate that; I think it's worthwhile.

This is a huge technical bill which we laboured through, and it reflects, of course, the trend towards financial deregulation at the federal level. The major thrust of those changes, we all know, is to relax regulatory barriers which have traditionally separated the four pillars of the financial community. I do find it ironic that in some areas like this, where there's a lot of rhetoric about deregulation, there is then a lot of scrambling for what some people call re-regulation, and I see in this bill a little bit of re-regulation, certainly with respect to the insurance sector. But having said that, I do support it. I just think it's ironic that after the deregulation announcement, all the different sectors scramble to promote their own industry. Clearly the thrust of deregulation was to attempt to assist, at least in some respects, not just competition but the consumer. This bill attempts to strike a balance, and I think in general that balance isn't bad.

I do have some concerns. As I said, there is always a tension, it seems to me, between increased flexibility — what one might call the ease of transactions, the ease with which we promote business in the sector — which one might loosely call deregulation, and the protection of the consumer, which one might more aptly categorize as regulation. I think the bill in general is a little bit heavy on the ease of transaction, a little bit lighter on regulation. I say that not really to criticize the regulations that might flow, but I think the bill has less statutory requirements and perhaps more regulatory requirements at least, that's what appears to be contemplated and the regulatory requirements put a lot of onus on the provincial regulators.

[7:00]

Just to be very general for a minute, in these kinds of areas I think the public is well served, the system is well served, and perhaps we as legislators are well served where there's more certainty, because there are a lot of grey areas in this kind of industry. So where one can emphasize statutory responsibilities, I think that's preferable to discretionary regulatory

[ Page 7902 ]

responsibilities, which put a lot of onus on the provincial regulator and make it quite difficult. One little example we can maybe get into in committee stage is that the capitalization levels of some of the financial institutions appear to be quite low in the act, but when you read further it says the regulations may require a higher capitalization level. That puts the onus on the regulator again, and I guess on the government in individual cases. While it's desirable because it increases flexibility and one can design a policy which enhances certain sectors of this industry, I have some concerns about it.

Those are my general comments. I have three specific problems that I will canvass in more detail in committee stage. The first is the ownership restrictions, which I don't think are tough enough. As I read the bill, it says there's a 10 percent limit on ownership except with ministerial approval. I think the principle of deregulation is to ensure that the industry doesn't become concentrated, and of course in Canada we have a long history of a concentrated banking sector. So you want it to be less concentrated, and you want the companies to be widely held; hence this restriction of 10 percent share ownership. But it does give the minister the latitude to allow a greater ownership, and that concerns me. I'm quite sure other provinces have it a bit tougher than that.

So there will be some questions around the kind of criteria that the minister may use in order to loosen those rules. Frankly, I think they should be fairly tough. We want to promote that kind of competition in the banking sector, and overriding the 10 percent rule diminishes that.

The second specific concern that I have — and I think it's my most serious concern — has to do with controlling related party transactions. The minister said in his remarks a minute ago that related party transactions are not prohibited. I think this can cause real problems. As the minister knows, the Principal Trust fiasco had a lot to do with related party transactions — in other words, lending money to yourself or to a company that you have an interest in. It lends itself, it seems to me, to potentially riskier transactions. I know the minister will say to me, and I think with some justification, that there's a lot of regulation now in the bill; it doesn't prohibit it, but the regulations effectively screen those transactions. I agree to a point. There's a kind of self-regulating mechanism, and then the government has to be satisfied as well. In theory it makes sense, but I think it's extremely difficult to do.

I understand that the federal government, Quebec, Ontario and soon Alberta will be prohibiting related party transactions, and I would strongly urge this government to do likewise. Allowing related party transactions under certain circumstances is open to some concern.

As I said, one individual transaction to a related party may be very tiny in terms of the increased risk, and it may go through the screening process. Subsequent transactions may also fit the rules. As a result, it is at least possible that the compounding of a series of what might be relatively inconsequential related party transactions, when added together, could result in some risk to the industry.

My final point on this is if you are going to allow related party transactions under certain circumstances, then you need to increase the regulatory capacity. The government seems to be doing that. The question I have is whether the cost of the increased regulation or the increased mechanisms are worth any possible benefits one might obtain by having the flexibility to allow related party transactions. My sense is that the cost would be more than any possible value you could have by allowing this.

That's the conclusion of the federal government, Quebec, Ontario and Alberta, and I think it's a conclusion that at least intuitively makes a lot of sense. My strong preference would be for legislation which prohibits related party transactions — as those jurisdictions do — and does not allow it even with the kind of qualifications and hoops that this bill forces financial institutions to run through in order to be eligible for it.

This is really quite a grey area, I think. As we've seen with Principal Trust and others, this is an area which less legitimate institutions can use to their advantage and potentially to the consumers' detriment. I have some real concerns about this section of the bill.

The third specific complaint I have is around part 6, which essentially says that a trust and insurance company based outside the province will not be required to meet all the regulatory provisions of the act if adequate regulation exists in the company's home jurisdiction. I also have real concerns about this particular section. I don't mean to suggest that Principal Trust is the only institution that has run into problems, but clearly, we should have learned from Principal Trust.

This says that this particular bill, with all its regulations and statutory responsibilities, can be avoided if a jurisdiction is located in another province with different regulations. I fail to see why we would rely on the home jurisdiction of financial institutions exclusively. Ontario, as I understand it, does not do that. Ontario requires the financial institutions operating there to comply with the regulations in Ontario. I don't think it would have been too difficult to do that.

Clearly the problems we have had with Principal Trust, in my view, admit that if we're bringing in a bill like this, we should have required all financial institutions operating in the province to comply with the act and not simply their home jurisdiction. It's a flaw in the bill, because it increasingly.... If this bill is to be successful in accompanying regulatory legislation which really encourages competition, then presumably many of the institutions operating in British Columbia will be headquartered in other provinces and other countries.

This is a bit of a loophole which causes me some concern. I don't quite see the rationale for it, although that tension between ease of transaction, increasing business opportunities and regulatory consumer protection is one — in all three areas I've

[ Page 7903 ]

mentioned — where the government has chosen the ease of transaction or the business promotion over regulation to protect the consumer. Again, it's a balance.

In general, I support the thrust of the bill. I think in those three areas at least — and in some others — there's a tendency towards increased flexibility and not, at least in these specific instances, regulatory protection for the consumer, which I think is justified, exists in other jurisdictions in Canada and is warranted.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, and if I could just summarize again, I don't have any problem with the direction and thrust of the bill. I think it's basically a good one, and I must commend the minister on the consultation process. It was clearly extensive. It sounds like all the players agree with the bill. I agree with the thrust of it, but I have the general concern about the balance being slightly shifted away from regulation and in favour of flexibility — to use the minister's words. I have those three specific and quite serious concerns where I think we could have learned from the Principal Trust case, in particular — and some others — to toughen it up a little bit; other jurisdictions have done that. I will be concentrating on those areas in committee stage.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The member made three major points. First of all, he wanted to talk about ownership restrictions. As a safeguard against the risks that unrestricted ownership may generate for the stability of the financial sector, the act will require ministerial approval of all share acquisitions or transfers resulting in a person owning more than 10 percent of a trust or insurance company. In our view, this ensures that ownership of a provincial institution is a privilege, not a right.

The member also talked about related-party transactions. To protect the public from non-arm's-length transactions that threaten a financial institution's solvency, this act establishes a comprehensive, regulatory regime for transactions with related parties. These rules apply to parties that are in a position to control or influence the decisions of a financial institution. For the member's information, I don't believe it correct that other jurisdictions prohibit related-party transactions.

The point was made that the increased cost of regulatory tasks would not appear to be worth the effort. It may be useful for the House to realize that to a large extent the regulatory functions to be performed by Ficom will be recovered from the industry that they are regulating and policing. It is not our expectation that there will be an increased public cost as a consequence of this, but it is certainly true that we expect to ensure that the quality of regulation is adequate and in the public interest.

Lastly, the member made a point about the issue of home jurisdictions being responsible. In this respect, I must point out to the House the tremendous progress we have been making across the country in terms of information-sharing agreements. As the House should know, we have been tasked with chairing the national committee, and we have made some significant progress in the interests of protecting the Canadian consumer but at the same time ensuring that the Canadian industry can continue to grow and compete effectively with those from offshore. So it's our view that, by virtue of our now having total agreement among the provinces that we will share regulatory information as it pertains to individual firms, we have adequate safeguards in place to deal with extra provincial companies. Furthermore, I think it's fair to say that there is more activity contemplated in the very near future in that respect, so that it might well be that the issue is much more clear than it is at the moment.

I'm pleased to move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 51, Financial Institutions Act, 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. RICHMOND: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF STATE
FOR THOMPSON-OKANAGAN AND KOOTENAY,
RESPONSIBLE FOR CROWN LANDS

On vote 52: minister's office, $298,377 (continued).

[7:15]

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. WILLIAMS: I wonder if the minister could advise us what the process will be with respect to the remaining lands in the New Westminster harbour area that are still held by the Crown.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Staff is coming in. Perhaps the member would like to give a series of questions, and then I will be able to answer them all when the staff has arrived.

MR. WILLIAMS: I didn't mean it to be a skill-testing question. I thought the minister might actually have an idea in his own head, but there you go.

What happened in New Westminster is that there was a crashing of the First Capital City Co. They folded BCDC and then they folded BCEC, and the alphabet soup all disappeared. The remnants are with the Ministry of Crown Lands. We found that BCEC did not sell those lands for what they were worth, by a long shot. There do remain parcels of land in the Westminster Quay area that now would be the responsibility of the Ministry of Lands. The question is: what would the process be in terms of disposition of those lands that do remain in the hands of the Crown?

[ Page 7904 ]

Maybe while the minister is getting a bit of help in that regard, I'll just carry on a little and give a bit of background.

The Crown disposed of land to cooperatives and to Bosa Bros. and United Properties in the initial stages and subsequently disposed of land to the Westwater Group, which includes the office building and the inn on the New Westminster waterfront. They also disposed, interestingly, of the marina for a modest fee, and they disposed of, on a leasehold basis, if my memory serves me right, the parking area near the public market and the inn and the office building.

The status of the parking area, if my memory serves me right, is for parking purposes only, not for development whatsoever, and the fee they paid was for parking only, not for highrise development, not for offices, not for apartments, not for condominiums. Parking only: that is what they paid the money for, and that is what the contract says.

Can we have assurance that no steps are being taken to give them development privileges beyond parking alone? And can we be assured that the residual public assets, either in terms of remaining development rights or outright fee-simple ownership, will be disposed of on a competitive basis after full, independent appraisals by disinterested parties? Be cause that was not the pattern over the last few years.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I want to address a series of questions to the minister in relation to regional development as it applies in our region to opportunity and settlement patterns as well as to transportation.

I want first of all, Mr. Chairman, to commend the minister for bringing people together in the region and for considerably improving, as he has, the discussion that has gone on, with respect particularly to transportation and with respect to establishing some of the priorities that we should have as a region in relation to that transportation.

I recall, when we were in second reading, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) talking about a number of things: that there were two British Columbia's in relation to regions, and also talking about the Coquihalla Highway stage 3 in relation to dominance. Dominance is a term, of course, which is applied to a number of human activities, and it didn't surprise me to hear it coming from that member.

I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, that the minister would be moved by the words of the first member for Vancouver East, because it really seemed to me that the tone of the discussion evoked a divide-and-conquer technique. That is something that I frankly find repugnant to those of us who want to really improve this province.

Throughout that discussion, Mr. Chairman, the first member for Vancouver East, no doubt contemptuous still of those who have been described from time to time as unsophisticated.... Some of us are even from the rural areas of the province, and some of us have actually been called rednecks. This is considered to be a term of opprobrium. I can tell you, the only people who are concerned about it are those who are concerned that it would issue from those who would presume to want to do things on behalf of he regions of this province.

Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, I think that kind of thing discloses a particularly ugly side of politics. That is the temptation, particularly from the righteous, to speak to regional envy, to always try to divide and exploit communities one against the other and to create jealousy between our towns. That, Mr. Chairman, is something that I urge the minister to reject. I urge you to reject that attitude and instead to embrace the kind of things that you have been doing over the last number of years, to bring people together, to talk about the ways that we can develop the interior, the ways we can develop that region, the ways we can enhance its population base, and the way we can tie together its population nodes.

I also want to address to the minister a couple of questions specifically on transportation, because the first member for Vancouver East talked of no double-laning taking place through Salmon Arm. Well, in addition to disclosing a certain ignorance of what's going on in Salmon Arm, from someone who is allegedly the critic for regional development.... I want the minister to confirm for this House, because I would not want anyone to be misled by those remarks, what specifically is taking place in Salmon Arm in that regard. I would also ask the minister to confirm whether or not there have been any expenditures made for the acquisition of property or commitments to capital projects for this coming fiscal year in relation to construction of a road between Salmon Arm and Sicamous. I heard reference to that in a kind of sneering, exploitative way, which was intended to try to divide one community from another.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Temperance and good language are always the hallmark of great parliamentary debate. Any language that tends to inflame is really out of order and not appropriate for this chamber. Would the member please continue, considering that the Chair tries to keep all members in order.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to confirm — because I would not want those communities to be seen to be exploited by anything that could be said in this chamber, by way of alleged debate or otherwise — that four-laning is in fact committed to and underway east of the city of Kamloops, which four-laning of the Trans-Canada Highway is intended, as it has been and committed to for some time, to join up those communities and those roads.

Fourthly, I would like him to confirm, through the transportation initiative and the studies he is undertaking, that there has been a commitment to an interconnect with Highway 97 at Salmon Arm. I think that the minister of state's regional transportation committee, which the first member for Vancouver East was speaking to this afternoon, is an extremely important one. I think that interconnect is a very important matter, and I think it should be confirmed,

[ Page 7905 ]

because the impression could be left with people, from what was said in this chamber, that something different is going on than what has in fact been committed to.

I'm also concerned, Mr. Chairman, that those statements may very well be reproduced, as frequently they are from this chamber, in columns by the Leader of the Opposition and others, around the province of British Columbia. It is for that reason that I want to stand here today and make certain it is put on the record, so that people know whether it is true or not true; whether it is correct or not correct; whether anyone could be misled or not be misled.

As well, I want to speak not about the SkyTrain to Whalley, because I know that the member for Vancouver East has views on that, but about the issues of transportation in the Thompson-Okanagan region. I want to put to the minister some concerns I have in relationship to the comments that were made here about Coquihalla 3. It was suggested that all of this is in some way an attempt to give some particular advantage to one area of settlement over another area of settlement. It is what I said at the beginning, Mr. Chairman: it's that old business of exploit and divide and conquer, rather than build communities and build regions. I think that there is a great difference, and I think it's one that has to be referred to in this House, so that we do not have the kind of verbal carnage go on that does go on in this place, that rather manipulative kind of process that we heard take place this afternoon.

As the minister is well aware, by producing a regional transportation network we will be able to pull together a population mass of some 250,000 people. That population mass will be about an hour and a half apart, any one area from another. That kind of economic mass, in terms of the local community and the local trading patterns that would take place, will, perhaps for the first time ever, give an opportunity for the region to be able to have economic interchange of some meaningful form within the region, so that it is not always tied to the great magnet of Vancouver. Those areas will be tied together, and together they will form an economic mass that will enable them to be one of the great counterbalances for development in our province over the next long period of time. And that seems to me, Mr. Chairman, the kind of forward-thinking approach that ought to be taken in this province, and ought to be encouraged in this province.

[7:30]

I would commend to that minister that he not be lulled into thinking that to undertake any of those kinds of transportation initiatives is going to in some way lead to the sort of thing that was postulated here this afternoon, because, frankly, it is just flatly illegitimate.

By creating that link, we will also create the opportunity to join Alaska and California through one very new and relatively shorter transportation link, not only in mileage but in time.

MR. ROSE: What a vision.

HON. S.D. SMITH: The opposition House Leader says that it doesn't show any vision, but the truth of the matter is that it does. Alaska is the fastest-growing state in the Union in terms of population and economic activity in the Union, and so too are the opportunities that exist in the state of California. With the free trade agreement — which was opposed by the opposition in this House — we will have in place a transportation linkage from the state of Alaska, down Highway 97 through Prince George, through Kamloops to Merritt, over to Peachland and down to Penticton. For the first time those areas are going to have the opportunity for direct access on quality highways to the markets of the northwestern United States. That, I think, is something. If saying it makes me sound like a rural redneck, so be it. I am very proud of those kinds of initiatives, and I think that all people in the province are.

In addition to that, we are seeing the opportunity of those communities to draw together for the first time in terms of developing a regional approach to tourism attraction. I think that the third stage of the Coquihalla Highway, together with the improvements of Highway 97, are going to be invaluable for regional economic development in that area. Both of those linkages themselves will draw people into the area; and the area, through the aegis of that minister and his committees....

MR. ROSE: A point of order. I've really enjoyed this travelogue and these links to Alaska and California and various other missing links as occupied in the fantasyland of the Attorney-General, but I thought we were debating the estimates of the Minister of State for Kootenay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It may not always appear that the Chair is listening and paying a great deal of attention, but I assure you that, having read the description of vote 52, it seems to me that road improvements in the Atlin area or several other things that might take place in the Peace River block or on southern Vancouver Island would not be in order, but almost everything else would be in order. The Chair is powerless to act. The superminister responsible for all of these has responded during this particular time, but if you read the responsibilities, Thompson-Okanagan, Kootenay and Crown Lands.... I have great difficulty; I'm sure the committee will have even more difficulty. The Attorney-General can continue.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I know that whenever he gets the opportunity, the opposition House Leader likes to harass those of us who try to contribute anything to debate in this House, and that's fine. Apparently that's part of his demeanor. It's always done in good humour to camouflage the real intent, but nevertheless always done.

MR. ROSE: Deep down I've got red underwear.

[ Page 7906 ]

HON. S.D. SMITH: I wouldn't be surprised if deep down you do have red underwear, Mr. Member — not one bit.

In any event, I think that these initiatives being undertaken are worthy and deserve support in this House. They will improve the economy of the area.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Time is up under standing orders for the minister to speak on this section.

MR. WILLIAMS: I've been very interested to hear the Attorney-General talking about his concern about this competition between the settlements, but I'd like to reinforce the arguments that were made. Does the Attorney-General deny that we've had Premiers from Kelowna, yea, decade after decade in this land? Indeed we have had Premiers not from Kamloops. I know there's somebody working away, but he's his own worst enemy in trying to become a Premier from Kamloops. But who knows, there are learning curves. It's hard to say where we are on this one, but it's looking pretty flat at the moment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I ask the member to...?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. On the question of highway construction in this region.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Because the Chair is powerless to know what the committee wishes to discuss and because the cabinet benches expand the scope of the debate, the Chair must therefore restrict the debate only to the magnitude to which it is expanded by the cabinet benches. So if you can keep it in the Thompson-Okanagan and Kootenay areas.... The Chair is a little powerless to know what actually that involves, so I'll try to keep it general.

MR. WILLIAMS: I understand and am reasonably sympathetic to your problem. However, the point is that if you look at the money that's been spent on transportation in this region, you'll find that the focus of it to a great extent, especially with the current program to link Merritt and Westbank, is tipped in favour of the city of Kelowna. And try as they may, the Attorney-General and others who would make those specious arguments have great difficulty when you really look at the situation. We've had a pattern of the regional ascendancy of Kelowna, between Vernon and Penticton, so the game has long been over.

All three Okanagan towns were equals: Vernon, Kelowna and Penticton. Under the Bennett years, Kelowna established its dominance over the Kelowna region, and I suggest to you that the unwritten agenda of the first and second Bennett terms was to establish the dominance of Kelowna in the southern interior. These are the two regions this minister is responsible for.

I can understand the chagrin of the Attorney-General at having this revealed here in the Legislature today. I don't blame him for being concerned that we're speaking out for the interests of the citizens of Kamloops, who have been inadequately represented in this difficult exercise against two Premiers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Even if the Chair interprets what may be the responsibility of this ministry, I am sure it will not choose the Premier, so let's try and keep it within the realm.

MR. WILLIAMS: That is the challenge: which town has had serious unemployment year in and year out which has not been resolved? The town that has had serious unemployment in the central interior is not Kelowna; the town that has had serious unemployment problems is Kamloops. Try as he may to talk away and heckle from the sidelines, where he's going to be staying for many years, the Attorney-General is still not able to deal with that fact that they have not been able to deal with the unemployment problems in Kamloops, but they have in Kelowna.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I really don't believe it's this minister's responsibility to deal with the unemployment variations between these two regions. Just to try and temper the House a little bit, I would ask the member to just bring his remarks into something.... Again, the Chair is a little powerless to know what's relevant, but good temper would be in good order. Would the member continue.

MR. WILLIAMS: All I'm talking about, Mr. Chairman, is economic favouritism, and it's larded in the direction of Kelowna. Economic favouritism out of Social Credit is always larded towards the town of Kelowna, and the other communities take the back seat.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Vancouver East did very well.

MR. WILLIAMS: We don't want highways in Vancouver East, thank you very much.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Not any more than the one you're cleaning up at the moment.

At any rate, that's the reality. The reality is that there's been economic favouritism and bias at the hands of this administration and previous ones that have strengthened Kelowna and hurt Kamloops. For a long time the city of Kamloops has suffered in the settlement battle in the south central interior, and that's why the Attorney-General is hurting so much tonight.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I would like to get back to the estimates, because I think it's very important. So far I'm having a hard time finding what this pertains to. I might have stayed down in the dining room and had some dessert rather than coming back and listening to this. I would like to get back to the estimates if at all possible.

[ Page 7907 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has no idea about the responsibility of these particular ministries, because of their very broad scope and definition. If the issues being discussed are out of order, the Chair can only take the word of the minister responsible for what is in order and what is out of order. Having said that, I recognize the Attorney-General.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I am contributing to this debate tonight in the way I am because of what I heard this afternoon. I want to reiterate the questions that I had for the minister, because there was a suggestion made this afternoon that there were certain patterns of road contracts being let and decisions being taken that were favourable to one area over another. That has been reiterated one way or another tonight in an offhand way, as frequently is the method of choice of that member. I will ask those questions again with respect to the area of Salmon Arm, the area between Salmon Arm and Sicamous — because those were statements made in this House — the area east of Kamloops and the intersection of Highway 97.

I would also like to say that it was said in here today that the Coquihalla 3 should be called the "Bud Smith Memorial Freeway." I want to say that when it's done — because it isn't done, and we should be putting more effort into making sure it is four-laned — I'll be delighted to be there to open it up. If someone could assure me that that is what would actually be up in neon, I would be eternally grateful, I can tell you, Mr. Minister, without hesitation. I want to simply finish by saying this to the minister: please do not indulge yourself by listening to the fatuous business of trying to exploit our communities in the interior by someone from that great area of the lower mainland who has made a career of exploiting one community against another. Be it one resource region against another, one sector of the mining industry against another or one resource company against another, he has made a habit and a career in this House — and during the time he had responsibility to the minister of regional economic development — of doing precisely that.

It was wrong then; it is wrong now. I must say that the people in both the areas he mentioned will reject him out of hand as easily today as they did when they got the opportunity on December 11, 1975 after he personally — because of that exploitative attitude — destroyed the opportunity for his party to get re-elected. He personally did that. Mr. Minister of State for Thompson-Okanagan and Kootenay — including the Thompson-Nicola regional districts — I want to say: do not follow the words and the views of that adviser, because everyone who has been destroyed by him.

[7:45]

HON. MR. DIRKS: Ordinarily I would say that those transportation links you are talking about are really better dealt with by the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant). I would confirm that those projects are all underway. They are being carried on.

HON. S.D. SMITH: What I heard was wrong?

HON. MR. DIRKS: What you heard was wrong. Basically the regionalization is not an effort to divide, but rather to pull together. If you look at the task forces that we have set up, the people on them and the advisory council that comes from the total region, you will see that it is trying to pull the region together into a critical mass that is able to generate activity within itself. Certainly our efforts in the way of import replacement, a list of manufacturers in the area and so on are all geared toward one community helping another community. By helping each other, we are stronger.

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe the minister could simply tell us what critical mass is in this case.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 52 pass?

MR. WILLIAMS: It's a state secret. Is that it? It's a state secret what this critical mass is, in terms of regions working with one another to the point where there is a critical mass. Is it a state secret?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 52?

MR. WILLIAMS: This seems to be interesting. There's a critical mass. At that point, we're at takeoff. Is that it? At a certain level with this regional exercise we will reach critical mass, and these will be sort of self-sufficient regions. Is that the theory, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Our attempt is to make every region reach its economic potential.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's just part of the gobbledegook of these ministers of state. You have trouble knowing what they are, so you have to deal with the parameters that are put on the table today. It varies with each of the ministers of state, and I understand the problem. When you get explanations like that about critical mass, you know that they know little of what they speak in terms of this regional development exercise.

If you're really serious about it, you wouldn't be able to do the job with the kind of budget you've got. You'd need significant staffing. You'd need genuine deputy ministers at the regional level in both of those regions — your own region or the Kootenays. You would need top-level deputy ministers of regional development in this province if you were deadly serious about it. You would be investigating and reinvestigating the things that people have already put on the table, in terms of what they're looking for.

It's quite clear that it's not a serious exercise. That's what we have trouble with, because we agree that the regions need significant development. We, the people of this province, live in two British

[ Page 7908 ]

Columbias. We live in an underdeveloped part in parts of this province, which I would argue the Kootenays are. The very region this member represents is an underdeveloped region with people with immense talents, in my view.

The city of Nelson, which this minister comes from, is a city with tremendous human capital, which has not been harnessed. They've lost the sawmill and the university in Nelson, and still that community carries on. There have not been any exciting initiatives in terms of the very hometown that this minister represents. You have watched the others getting money for universities. There will be more money, you can be sure, in some of these other regional centres, and if you think that's not a competition between those communities.... The Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) can talk all he likes about how it's all cooperation and we're all helping one another. There is a real world out there, and in the real world there are winners and losers, and in the real world the West Kootenays have been a loser for too long. The area you represent directly has been losing too long at the hands of this administration. There are not the jobs being created there that there should be; there are not the initiatives that should be taken.

You threw away the university at Nelson — this administration and its predecessor. There is a case for a university in Nelson. We won't see it; not under this administration; not under this minister. But that is real diversity. If you people in regional economic development were looking at these issues it wouldn't be the exclusive preserve of the Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen) being kowtowed to by the big universities — wined and dined by them. There might be a different kind of initiative in terms of higher education, because that is a significant regional development tool. The citizens of the city of Nelson know that, and they saw it thrown away in terms of creative writing groups and others in the arts faculty at David Thompson University. That was thrown away, and it should not have been if there was any real thinking about regional economic development.

If there was any real thinking about regional economic development, you would pick up that dusty plan that was prepared in the Slocan Valley and start looking seriously at the natural resources and people being able to manage them themselves. But you are not. I talked earlier this afternoon of the people of Doukhobor background and the former Americans in that valley. There is a significant opportunity there in terms of human capital, and much of it is being wasted because of the lack of imagination and the lack of staff and the lack of real ability and the lack of real commitment to decentralization.

That's the heritage we are getting out of you. As I said this afternoon, you have corrupted the words; you have corrupted the language. We don't have regional economic development in this province in a decentralized, serious way. If we did, we would be seeing things happen in Slocan City and New Denver and the other small towns of the Slocan. We are not seeing that, and you are the minister responsible.

They have written you large right across the whole map from the border, from the Crowsnest to the watersheds of the coast, to the top at Blue River and the Thompson — an absolutely impossible task — and thrown in Crown lands for good measure, and with zilch in terms of staff or commitment. What an empty thing for the people of southeastern British Columbia

HON. MR. DIRKS: There is quite a philosophical difference here, obviously, because the member opposite is talking about a large bureaucracy: you need people, people, people. He is talking about a top down, typical NDP-fashion.... Load it up at the top and then impose what you want on the bottom. Regionalization, Mr. Member, and especially in the Thompson-Okanagan and Kootenay region, is from the bottom up. The reason we don't need a large staff out there is that we've got lots of volunteers: community people volunteering their time and their energy to give us ideas, to tell us how government should act in that area. That's regionalization — taking that input from local people.

You tell the mayor of Elkford that regionalization isn't working; that the time he spends chairing the highways task force is meaningless. You tell the mayor of Creston that regionalization is meaningless. You talk about local people. Regionalization is local people. It is local people working, giving ideas, coming up with solutions, working with the people in the field. That's what regionalization is, from the bottom up, and that is what we are practising out there. Not top down, not a lot of bureaucrats running around, not a lot of civil servants, not a lot of staff, but the people who know the area, who live in the area, who have a vested interest in the area, giving ideas of what should happen in the area.

That's what regionalization is in the Thompson Okanagan and Kootenay regions. Not your flimflam, like when your leader was in Creston a couple of weeks ago talking to your little convention. He talked about regionalization and said that what regionalization would be as far as you people were concerned.... He had the audacity to say it in Creston, part of my constituency, and part of my constituency that has returned to Social Credit, or has voted Social Credit over the years. He had the audacity to say that your form of regionalization would stop this imposition of Howard Dirks on the electorate. In other words, we will tell you what is good for you; we won't let local people tell you; we won't let the person that you elect from the area say anything; we'll tell you how it's done.

Mr. Member, I would like to remind you as well: you talk about lack of development in the Kootenay area and the West Kootenays, and you are talking about the Slocan Valley and Nelson. Nelson has tremendous potential; so has the Slocan Valley. That whole area has tremendous potential. But one reason it wasn't developed like it should have been was that for 14 years we had an NDP MLA who sat over on the other side of the House and did nothing for the development of that region, for the development of

[ Page 7909 ]

Nelson-Creston. That's one of the reasons we lost the sawmill. If you want to go into all the things Nelson lost, it lost a lot more than a sawmill and a university. But it's a tough town. It's a lot tougher than you are, Mr. Member. It survives, it goes ahead and it builds on its past.

You have to be accurate when you're talking as well. You said David Thompson University was thrown away. That's not true, Mr. Member. There never was such a thing as David Thompson University. You see, that's one of those nice little half-truths you like to throw in. It was a centre where classes were taught. First- and second-year classes were taught by Selkirk College; third- and fourth-year classes were taught by UVic. You couldn't get a degree from the David Thompson University Centre. I was under the impression all the time that a university was a place where degrees were offered or obtained.

There are a lot of things you don't know, Mr. Member. Perhaps if you got out of Vancouver every once in a while and came to our area and looked around, rather than being a visiting fireman, you'd know a little more about regionalization in my constituency.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Aye.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's sounding desperate, Madam Minister.

Well, you know, I think these are government decisions.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: You're speechless.

MR. WILLIAMS: I am.

The David Thompson University Centre — the main debate point is that I didn't say it was a centre. That's it, eh? Okay, fine. That was a government decision, Mr. Minister. Your kind of government, a Social Credit administration, made the decision to end that operation in your hometown of Nelson. That was a government decision. That's what we're talking about: a lot of these things are government decisions

Governments involve bureaucracies. You dismiss bureaucrats, as Social Credit members are wont to do, and it's pretty telling in the modem world that that is your attitude. These are the people beneath you. You can barely answer a question in this Legislature, Mr. Minister, without referring to your staff.  You think about that. Then you start dismissing bureaucrats: "We don't need those bureaucrats anywhere." I tell you, this province would be in disastrous shape without them, and it's not in the kind of shape it should be in with the kind of talent we should be hiring.

Too many people have fled the scene. They won't tolerate the kind of know-nothingness that abounds in cabinet, not much anymore. They're waiting for a change so the talent and human capital we've lost throughout this bureaucracy can come back home again. You and your colleagues keep dismissing the public service. You know, your competence level would descend beyond the pale without them.

[8:00]

Now you've gone and established these new regions, and the dollars you're expending and the talent you're bringing to bear on it are so modest it's laughable. You say that because the citizens are volunteering, that's good enough, that's wonderful, that's the works. Well, it isn't that kind of world anymore. The modern western economies of Europe and the Pacific don't operate in that kind of turn-of the-century — the last century — mind-set you operate with. What kind of hope do we have in the competitive world economy with this kind of know-nothing view of the public service?

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, he's been bragging about the fact that he didn't need those bureaucrats out there to tell him how to do these things. He has $1.4 million for an area the size of three Maritime provinces, for God's sake. It's an absolute insult. I mean, anybody who has even begun to work in regional planning — and I have in the past — knows it's an insult. It's just such hokum, it barely deserves a response; it just deserves contempt.

Earlier this evening I asked the minister some specific questions about New Westminster. I could spend more time on this broad aspect of the regions, but the response leaves just too much to be desired. There were specific questions about the New Westminster waterfront, and I believe the minister got some advice in that regard.

HON. MR. DIRKS: In regard to New Westminster, all are sold or under agreement for sale right now, but are not completed at this point.

MR. WILLIAMS: Sorry, the studies are not complete? Or analysis is not complete?

HON. MR. DIRKS: The deals are in place, but they haven't been completed.

MR. WILLIAMS: The deals are in place, but they are not completed. That's the remaining lands on the New Westminster waterfront?

HON. MR. DIRKS: At this point there are no lands there for sale.

MR. WILLIAMS: So there is a chunk of land immediately upstream between the Westminster pier development — the $10 million flip — and the market. The title when I last checked it was with the B.C. Enterprise Corporation. I presume that's within the Ministry of Lands now.

HON. MR- DIRKS: It's still with BCEC, but it is under a deal, or it is being negotiated right now. Not negotiated.

[ Page 7910 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: I guess what the minister is telling us regarding the site immediately adjacent to the public market in New Westminster, and between the public market and the Westminster pier development, which is the 2,200 feet that I discussed at some length at an early stage of this session, is that there is some deal pending on that site, but it involves the remnants of BCEC, not the Ministry of Lands. Is that the case?

HON. MR. DIRKS: It's not a new deal, by any stretch of the imagination. It's an old deal that is simply being completed. That's it.

MR. WILLIAMS: I see. Well, I thought we might make a few bucks out of it down there. This will take care of that too, I guess. So there was some interim agreement signed between BCEC and another party with respect to that adjacent water frontage next to the public market in New Westminster, and it must have been a fairly lengthy option period under the interim agreement. Is that the case?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I don't have the date of the option here, but we can get it for you.

MR WILLIAMS: I appreciate that, Mr. Minister. That will be interesting, because it is a prime site, needless to say. It's right next to the market; it's adjacent to the pedestrian overpass; it's half a block from the SkyTrain station. So in my view it would have immense value, and I think any appraiser would tell you it has immense value. If it has been a long interim agreement, then it begs the question as to whether the real value of the land is going to be reflected in the deal.

I also asked specifically in the same area about the land behind the inn and the office building on Westminster Quay. There is a significant site there that was leased for parking purposes only. The clever developer would make arrangements to see that the terms of the lease simply changed so that you could build a highrise there. An unthinking owner would go along with that. Since it is a long-term lease, it's almost like fee-simple land. By just changing a clause in the agreement, somebody would have something that was worth many millions of dollars. I would like some assurance from the minister that any changes in that agreement are not being contemplated.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Could you give me a few specifics on that piece of property that you are talking about, Mr. Member?

MR. WILLIAMS: If this page were broken into a T in terms of three parcels, and if this is the Fraser River at the bottom of the page, then outside the foolscap is the market site on the waterfront and then one step down river is the inn and the next step down river is the office tower. Behind that is a very significant parking area. That has been leased on a very generous long-term basis by whoever was within First Capital City and all of the collapsing companies of the Crown. It's a long-term lease for parking purposes only. The site has a tremendous potential in terms of either office or condo development. All it would take to change the arrangement that is registered is to change the clause with respect to use. A few words would be worth many millions of dollars in the Westminster Quay exercise.

I'm saying there's now abundant information around to indicate that bad decisions were made in the collapsing of those Crown corporations, and I'm asking for some assurance that the right to develop this parking site behind the inn, which is the main hotel on the waterfront and the office, will require an open kind of market-based approach prior to any change in existing agreements.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I thank the member for alerting me to that possible scenario. I certainly will look at it.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's good, but not quite good enough.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, no. I think we have to be assured that there's not going to be a simple changing of those clauses so that the people who have already benefited immensely in acquiring Crown assets far below value will not benefit once more. Not only was Westminster pier, the 2,200 feet of water frontage upriver from this site, sold at grossly under value, but Westminster market, the public market on the same shoreline, was sold at grossly under value. The inn site was sold at grossly under value, the office site was sold for grossly under value, and other assets around that area were sold for grossly under value. I'm saying we don't want it to happen anymore. Not again.

We want to know what kind of deal there is adjacent to the market. It appears now that we're stuck with some long-term deal where they haven't had to ante the money up — immediately adjacent to the public market. Do you know what the market sold for, Mr. Minister? After all the press coverage on that Westminster Quay area, one would think the minister responsible for the remnants would have looked over the whole exercise. Did you ever do that? Maybe you should do that overnight. Maybe you should look at it all.

You should look at what the former minister, the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain Mrs. McCarthy), did. She was the one responsible for all that stuff. She's busy tonight, out organizing again in her leadership campaign. She may be here one day a week if we're lucky — or unlucky, depending on your point of view. She was responsible for that whole Westminster harbour exercise, and you have the remnants. Your staff probably have the information. Have you ever asked yourself what the Westminster public market probably sold for at the hands of the Crown? You don't have any comments? Look at all those sites on the New Westminster waterfront. We know that one of them sold for $2.2 million and was

[ Page 7911 ]

mortgaged for $7 million right away. They usually mortgage raw land at 50 percent of value if you're in the banking business, so you can double that to $14 million. That's the reality.

Now that it's been challenged, the Minister of Government Management Services (Hon. Mr. Michael) did a bit of a dance and said it was a paper exercise. But that doesn't wash; it wasn't a paper exercise, because the banks loaned against it forthwith. So we know it probably had a value of about $14 million. It seems then to beg the question about everything else in the area, doesn't it? If some previous ministry — or head of ministry — was that irresponsible in terms of disposing of public land, you would think it might be a lesson for the incumbent who inherited the remnants.

So if I were the minister in your position, I'd want to know the whole shooting-match. I'd want to know how it all happened and what we had left to bargain with, because the government lost a potful on the New Westminster waterfront. I'd want to know what the deal was on the hotel, the office tower, the parking area, the public market and the marina. Do you know what the deals were?

[8:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 52.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, he obviously doesn't, Mr. Chairman, yet there are still pieces there.

We really should learn from these things, otherwise we're stuck with the prospect of repeating them What do you think a marina in downtown New Westminster would be worth, Mr. Minister? You make a deal for a hotel site, an office tower site, the parking area, the public market and half a mile of public waterfront, and then you throw in a marina for good measure. A lot of people pay quite a bit a month just to rent a site for a boat in a marina. I wonder what kind of deal was made with respect to acquiring the marina in the New Westminster waterfront. That does involve the Ministry of Crown Lands because it's water; it's not fee-simple land. I'm sure your staff could tell you how much was paid for the marina at Westminster Quay. Could you advise the House?

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

HON. MR- DIRKS: Well, the member opposite takes great delight in going back into history, and he has a view that he needs to look backwards all the time. I prefer to look ahead, and as I said earlier, I assumed this role in July of last year. I will certainly answer questions about proceedings after July, but anything that happened before July of 1988 was canvassed in a previous minister's estimates.

MR. WILLIAMS: But you've got the information, haven't you? You just got the information, and you know what the deal was; you're so shocked by it, you don't want to tell us. Isn't that the case? You know what the deal was. How many other examples do you have of 99-year rights to a marina in British Columbia, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. DIRKS: We don't issue 99-year leases; they're 30-year leases.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is the minister saying that's the limit of the lease in New Westminster?

HON. MR. DIRKS: No, Mr. Member, I'm saying that the standard is 30 years.

MR. WILLIAMS: But you didn't make it too clear. The standard is 30 years, but for some reason in New Westminster it's 99 years. Right?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 52 pass?

MR. WILLIAMS: No, it's not passing.

Is it the case that there was a deal made on the marina in the New Westminster site, and it did not meet your normal standards?

HON. MR. DIRKS: That lease was negotiated by First Capital City, not by Crown Lands.

MR. WILLIAMS: And the poor old Lands ministry just had to go along, I guess; that's really what it amounted to. So the minister is now confirming that it's a 99-year lease for the marina in downtown New Westminster on the riverfront.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I'm confirming that the standard lease through Crown Lands is 30 years.

MR. WILLIAMS: I don't blame you for not wanting to talk about it. You've got a standard of 30 years. For some reason the standard got broken in New Westminster. We have a tradition in this province in terms of waterfront and underwater lands of not doing that kind of thing. And 30 years is really pretty generous when it comes to water lots, water leases. Why on earth would we entertain something beyond that? I suppose it might have been entertained if we really got a lot of money for it. But you know what we got, and you know we didn't get a lot of money, don't you?

MR. ROSE: I'm intrigued by this. I'm really appalled that the minister refuses to answer and clarify this. But my colleague from Rossland-Trail has another subject he'd like to pursue, and if the minister doesn't intend to reply to the latest representations by the member for Vancouver East, then perhaps we could entertain his intervention at this time. But I would defer to the minister if the minister wishes to get up.

MR. D'ARCY: Without wanting to recanvass anything, Mr. Chairman, I have to note to the committee that I find it somewhat absurd here that from time to time — in fact, very frequently — we have people on the other side of the House who rhetorically are very

[ Page 7912 ]

familiar with what they believe to have happened, or allege to have happened, between '72 and '75, but don't seem at all familiar with what might have happened yesterday or last year in their own ministry. We find people who are even greatly familiar with what might have happened when the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) was in charge of forests and lands, but can't seem to be too familiar with what might have happened before they themselves assumed that role.

In any event, I have a few items regarding the responsibilities of the minister opposite, without recanvassing the discussion which took place this afternoon between the minister and the member for Omineca regarding the question of leases of waterfront land. In our area we have the same problem in the Christina Lake area, where the ministry has set a price which not only the individuals involved, the owners of private land, dispute, but — more importantly, I think, considering that this is a government question of sale — the appraisers and assessors of the Assessment Authority dispute as well.

I realize that assessment and appraisal of land is a most uncertain science. It's much like getting legal opinions; you can get at least as many opinions as you have lawyers. However, I see no reason why the ministry, since we are dealing with a public resource and something that the public owns, should not feel free to incorporate the opinions of the assessors from the Assessment Authority, as well as giving lessees.... After all, some people would argue that there's a fine line between long-term lessees from the Crown and people who own property from the Crown in fee simple. After all, the technical term is property "alienated from the Crown." The notion of ownership of property is really one of ownership relative to some other individual. The Crown always assumes the right in Canada and in British Columbia of having the ultimate authority to de-alienate land through various expropriation procedures. So it is a fine line between a lessee and an owner fee simple.

I see no reason — and perhaps the minister could expand on this a bit more in a few minutes — why the assessors from the Assessment Authority and private sector appraisers should not get together and come up with an evaluation that the lessees as well as the owners would find defensible. After all, we had the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) talking the other day about the necessity of quick and fair justice relative to the courts of revision, and how he felt it necessary that in courts of revision for the settlement of land valuation disputes, justice should be quick, and there should be no problem appointing people if somebody got ill or resigned quickly. Everyone in the committee agreed.

Why does the minister have a problem with sending disputes in which the ministry says one thing and the individual or group of individuals says another to a court of revision? After all, I should think that there's no reason why the Crown can't go to a court of revision. If they think the prices set are too low or reflect an alleged market value of two or three years ago and the market value has changed.

Because that is where part of the problem lies. It's not just in the Omineca area or in Christina Lake. There are similar problems in other parts of the province, where waterfront lots that have been leased for a long time are now up for sale.

The problem is that property values vary. As everyone here knows, they very seldom stay the same over a period of time. In many parts of the province, property values have in fact declined. This point was made for what seemed like hours this afternoon by the member for Omineca.

I see no reason why the existing courts of revision, the professional appraisers of the Assessment Authority, as well as private sector real estate people who have to live, work and establish and maintain professional reputations, by the way, within the region.... Because, after all, if an appraiser sets a price of property which he or she has no hope of attaining, their professional reputation doesn't last too long among their peers or indeed in the local real estate market, as I'm sure the minister knows. So what is wrong with using local private sector appraisers as well as Assessment Authority appraisers and taking disputes, perhaps on a class action basis, to a court of revision and resolving this perception that the public is being dealt with unfairly in this regard?

One of the problems with this perception that the people's own government is not treating them fairly is the reports that appear in the press and electronic media, emanating from this chamber in many cases, of the kind of discussion that the first member for Vancouver East has been having with the minister, where the member for Vancouver East makes a case that the Crown has sold property at Whistler or New Westminster for what the member says is less than market value, and the minister, of course, either says nothing or disputes the claim. When the public, who rather correctly feel that we are all public servants and in fact work for them, read reports of this and believe quite sincerely that the Crown is placing arbitrary values on land that have no bearing at all to the sale of private property and to what the Assessment Authority assessors say the property is worth, they have, in my view, good reason to cry "Tilt," and say that things aren't working quite right.

[8:30]

It is not good enough for the minister to say: "We're just another property owner selling property." You're the public; you're the Crown. It's the people's land, for all the people of British Columbia, and there should be no perception that the rules are being stacked the wrong way.

I want to talk quite briefly about a longstanding absurdity in the parts of the province that have had hydroelectric development along them. This is the land that has been flooded for years and years and has never been degazetted. In other words, while there may have been shoreline surveys, there are still streets, roads, towns, lots, highways and lot lines below the surface of lakes in this province, whether they be simply deep and natural lakes or completely new artificial reservoirs created by hydroelectric development where the land below the surface of the

[ Page 7913 ]

water still exists on land maps. I know that there may be some legal problems in this, but I really think that the Crown should have a plan over the years for degazetting lands that are flooded and have been flooded for 20, 25 or 30 years in many cases.

Another point under Crown lands — and it's a thorny one, I'm sure the minister and his advisers would agree — is an issue which constantly comes up throughout my region and probably in most regions of the province: individuals who essentially go out and build themselves a cabin or shelter in the woods, whether it's because they want someplace to warm themselves when they're out cross-country skiing or snowmobiling, or simply want someplace to camp with a bit of a shelter and some seclusion. I realize that this is a problem, this squatting — technically, I suppose — on public properties, but I do think that the Crown should have a more comprehensive policy, a better working policy, than they now have to accommodate essentially public use of public lands without threatening other resources, without threatening the wildlife resource or the forest resource or, indeed, compromising the use of those lands for recreational purposes by the public other than those who wish to construct shelters.

I think there needs to be a licensing or leasing policy. The same thing, by the way, Mr. Chairman, is true of anchored boathouses and houseboats in our public waterways. There needs to be a comprehensive policy to accommodate the public so that not only is the public interest protected, but the right of all of the public to the recreational resources is maintained as well.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I want to say again that I know it is a most difficult problem, but I don't think a draconian solution is the correct one.

I want to say just a few words about the economy in my region and indicate to the committee an expectation that I had and my constituents had as well when the government announced regionalization and decentralization. There was a presumption, politics being what it was, is and probably always will be, that decentralization and regionalization essentially would mean a method of organizing and dispensing favours and patronage, financial and otherwise. Nobody really minded that too much, and we still don't mind that. In fact, we are grateful for assistance and favours, whether they are announced by a line minister or by a line minister and the regional minister taken together; and everyone is.

The fact is that we all know that this is public money, money that no doubt, whether it is lottery funds or general revenue tax funds, has been generated by the people and their industry — their industry of their own individuality as well as the industries that use the natural resources — and it is simply a repatriation of what is there and should be there anyway.

The expectation — and I see a green light on so I will hurry — of the public was that decentralization and regionalization would mean a proactive position on the part of government working with the local people to try and decentralize the B.C. economy. The public, in my riding and throughout the region, and I think throughout the province.... It is one thing to be handed Go grants and lottery grants and highways projects, and people appreciate that sort of thing. I don't want the committee or the minister to get me wrong, Mr. Chairman. But the fact is that we could be a long time waiting for value-added industries relative to the natural resources that we have to make something happen in the region.

It's not just the southwest Kootenay, which I represent. I think that through all those regions outside greater Vancouver, the taxpayers out in those regions expect a proactive attitude of government, to decentralize the B.C. economy so that those public resources and those natural resources within the region be taken together to increase the activity and wealth of the area. Then the government revenue for those projects which I mentioned will have no problem being generated, because the municipal and local and provincial infrastructure, by and large, is already in place. Yes, we would like some improved highways here and there, but the fact is that we have good highways. We have town infrastructures; we have sewage systems; we have water systems; we have the hospitals. We have all the things that a region needs, and it is true not just in my region, but elsewhere as well.

What we need is a proactive position on the part of government — working with industry, working with the local people — to build up the economy throughout the area, and that is what we would like to see. I think I speak for all of the regions when I say that.

Mr. Chairman, I notice there is a red light on, and you have been very good to allow me a couple of extra seconds, so I will take a break and hope the minister has a response.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I am pleased to respond to the member for Rossland-Trail. He mentioned Christina Lake at the start. The area that is in question is an area that is represented by the Christina Lake Boat Access Society that has been formed. They have basically agreed with the ministry to a process. I think we have reached that agreement. The process will be that we will carry out a second appraisal, the completion of which should be by July 20 of this year.

You mentioned the use of a court of revision rather than simply going to an appraisal system. The court of revision, I would say, is a specialized appeal process, and is really suited to maintaining equitable property valuation for taxation purposes; whereas the independent fee appraisal process to determine a land value binding on both parties is really appropriate for estimating the market value of the land.

Earlier you mentioned that we were dealing with people's land, and that really is the case. We are dealing with people's land — the people of this province, their land. Therefore it behooves us to get fair market value when we are alienating that for specific use of an individual or individuals.

You also mentioned what we refer to as trespass cabins. I think you were a little modest in your

[ Page 7914 ]

description of what these cabins are and of what the purpose of them sometimes is. Some of them have, over time, become quite elaborate and what not. But in dealing with these trespass cabins, I would assure you that we deal with the other ministries involved, trying to ascertain what is the highest and best use for that land. Wherever possible, if it is possible, we try to legalize tenure on those properties. But we always try to find the highest and best use of the land.

MR. D'ARCY: Perhaps we'll give the minister another opportunity to discuss what he would like to see the government do on a regional basis relative to improving economic opportunities and taking advantage of some of the natural and human wealth within the Kootenay-Thompson-Okanagan region that he represents. I know he can't do it all alone, but I'd like to know what he's advocating government do. The area is very rich in natural resources and very rich in people resources, and we feel that the area could produce a lot of wealth both locally and for the province at large.

Just to expand a bit on the point I wanted to make, the industrial things that are done in my riding are done very well. They're done so well that we don't need nearly as many people to do them as we used to. There is more production, more volume of wood processed into pulp, more volume of wood processed into lumber, plywood and veneer. There is more ore processed into refined metals. There is more high-tech manufacture in my constituency than there used to be — and higher quality, I might add, of all those products I mentioned, both metallurgical and forest. But it takes a lot fewer people to do it.

I'm going to maybe just stray a little bit beyond the borders of my riding to illustrate the point. I wanted to restrict my remarks to my riding, but I think the minister will agree that much of the wood volume processed in sawmills, veneer plants and pulp mills in my riding in fact originates in the minister's riding. Just to give an example to the committee — and I'm sure most forest-product-producing areas of the province have shared this problem — in the Kootenay Lake area alone the Crestbrook mill in Creston is no more, the Kootenay Forest Products mill in Nelson is no more, and the TMA sawmill in Kaslo is no more. Yet the wood volume — the removal, the cut — from the areas that supplied those mills has not only been maintained but in fact increased. So the wood volume is still coming off, the logging is still taking place, but the processing is not taking place in as many mills or in the specific areas that it used to. So we have fewer mills processing more wood, to a higher level of value-added, with fewer people. I just give that as an example from my immediate area; but it's not unusual throughout the province; it's the pattern everywhere.

We have a feeling that if we wait for the Westars, the Comincos, the Celgar Pulps, the Johnson Mattheys or the Atco Lumbers — I just mention industrial concerns in my riding — to take the position that they're going to increase the numbers of people employed there by an intensive effort towards value-added, we might have to wait a very long time. We have a feeling that if it was going to happen, it would have happened.

[8:45]

That's why we would like to see government take a positive approach, working with industry and with the public, to see what can be done to diversify the product that we're already processing, that we're already producing, that is the highest quality on the markets in the world today. Again, I don't think we're unusual in that situation in the province. I think everyone east and north of the Pitt River — maybe east and north of Boundary Road — is in exactly that same situation.

I know one can say that perhaps in the normal evolutionary economic scheme of things it may become trendy economically for manufacturing concerns now located or clustering in the lower mainland to suddenly say: "Gee, I want to go to Merritt, say, or Castlegar." That may happen. We also may be very old men and women by the time it does. That's why we think that since, after all, these are all public resources to begin with, and it's the people who make these resources worth something — the investing public, the manufacturing public, the technological public, the working public and the transportation public.... We think senior government — I'd like to say the federal government too, but we're not in the federal House — needs to take an active role. It would not only benefit the people; it would benefit the entire economy of the province.

Enough of that for now. I want to say one more thing. The minister says that courts of revision are not appropriate. I don't know whether he is talking in legal terms, political terms or what, but I repeat the old saw: "Justice must not only be done; it must be perceived to be done." Not only must the evaluations be fair; they must be seen to be fair. We are not dealing here with a case of a private developer selling lots — somebody who has subdivided the waterfront on a lake somewhere. We are dealing with a public concern, and the public's conception of that concern is that they need a fair process of evaluation.

Yes, I agree with the minister: your line staff in Lands working out of Cranbrook have been most helpful and have come to an accommodation which goes partway to meeting the concerns of the lessees in the Christina Lake area. I would like to see Lands offices around the province move in the same direction. Maybe this is a pilot project. The fact is, though, that the people involved are still not happy with the process. It's been my experience that when the people are not happy with the process, they are usually not happy with the result, whatever that is — even if the result is fair; even if by some dispassionate evaluation the result is fair. So the process must seem fair before the result is seen to be fair.

The people involved are not unreasonable people. They are longstanding citizens of the area, in many cases second- and third-generation citizens of the area. The reason I have a concern is that a great many of them live in my riding, even though Christina

[ Page 7915 ]

Lake is not in my riding. Many of the permanent residents of the Christina Lake area retired from longstanding residence in my area and moved 45 miles over the summit.

I would like to see the minister, on behalf of all the waterfront lessees in the province, particularly where it is perceived that real estate values are level or have declined over the last few years — and that's where the problem arises; it doesn't arise too much where the real estate values are on the upswing — go a bit further than he has in providing the perception of fairness to the lessees.

I want to repeat to the committee that the dividing line between a long-term lessee and an owner in fee simple, where the land is merely alienated from the Crown, in any event is a very thin one. There needs to be the perception that, as with property evaluation for taxation purposes, people have had a fair day in a fair court.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I agree that the process has to seem fair and equitable, and certainly that's what we want to achieve. One thing the member has alluded to but hasn't really come out and said when he talks about a long-term lease is that the people are under no obligation to purchase those lakeshore lots. This is simply an option available to them. It's another aspect that has been developed and is being made available to them. They are under no obligation to purchase if the land isn't right.

The other thing that the member needs to keep in mind is the fact that whenever you are purchasing anything, you always try to get the best possible deal. No matter who you are talking to, until you have that deal signed, sealed and delivered, you always want to knock that price down a little further if you possibly can.

He asked what I would have the government do to facilitate economic growth in the area. I'm very sorry to hear the member ask that, because it is not I who would say what the government should do. Under regionalization, it's the people of the region who say what they would like the government to do. It is the people determining their future, and it is then simply my job to take that word and see what we can implement.

I would disagree with you a little on the wood situation in the region. In your constituency you do have some large employers, some large mills that are very productive and have a tremendous throughput. In the rest of the region, or in a large part of that region — certainly in the Nelson-Creston constituency — rather than a large very productive mill, we have ended up with a number of smaller mills that for their output are indeed more involved in labour. But there is a need to diversify. This is one reason to ensure a better utilization, especially of the woodfibre in our region. That's a very important aspect of the economy of our region, and that's why I have been talking to Celgar about the plans for the expansion of their pulp mill.

MR. D'ARCY: I'll make the point again, Mr. Chairman: the minister is either unwilling or unable to grasp the point that I'm making here. It's not to quibble with the extent of the bottom-up approach that he talks of towards dispensing government largesse — spending dollars, that is — throughout the region. That's not what I'm talking about.

What I'm talking to the committee about is that there is an expectation throughout the region which has not been fulfilled. If this chamber — the government in particular — really wants to go towards fulfilling the public's quite honest and understandable expectation as to what significant regionalization or decentralization is, then the minister and/or the government.... Nobody really cares whether it be through him or through the line ministries, but they want to see the government taking some action to decentralize the British Columbia economy. There is a perception that there's a certain growth rate and a certain busyness about the British Columbia economy that somehow takes place elsewhere. That perception is not just in the region that I'm from and the minister is from; that perception is throughout the interior and the north and, for all I know, on Vancouver Island as well.

That means the government has to deal — or should be dealing — on behalf of the public, who pay all the bills ultimately and have some method of dealing with that perception. No one has heard that from this minister or the other ministers of regional development. The member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Hon. Mr. Veitch) is ultimately responsible for all of the regional ministers. We hear from those ministers about the dispensation of government largesse. We do not hear about actual economic development. That's what the public wants, whether it's from this side of the House or your side of the House. British Columbians are well practised in how to secure government largesse, and your party, this party, anybody, is well practised in how to dispense government largesse. That's not the issue. The issue is economic development: real economic development, viable economic development, profitable economic development, both to the working public and the entrepreneurs of the area as well as to the treasury of this province.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I agree that there are regional disparities. I imagine there always will be. Look at the Kootenays. One of the things that attracts a lot of people to the Kootenays is the lifestyle they've got there — the quality of life. Really, that's one of the strong points about the Kootenay region: its way of life. It's a slower pace, and that's very attractive. A lot of people in the Kootenays would not like to see the same type of development in the Kootenays that you would have in the lower mainland. I'm not suggesting that they should. I'm simply saying that the local people should decide what type of development should occur.

We are working on ways to increase or improve the economy of the region. You should recognize that it takes time to have any large economic process come

[ Page 7916 ]

into being in a region. What we're concerned about and what we have been concerned about, especially in the Kootenay region, was what kind of infrastructure is required in the area. What kind of infrastructure does the government need to put in an area in order for economic activity to occur?

We're working on that, and we have worked very diligently on it. I'm sure that as time goes on you will see economic development occur in that region. It's occurring now. I think it will increase as time goes on, as we get things in place.

MR. ROSE: I've been listening to this lengthy, often tortuous, often acrimonious debate all day. If there's one theme that comes out to me as an innocent bystander, it is that the highest possible value is placed upon government property that the average person wants, and the lowest possible price is placed on valuable property that developers want. If I could sum up the whole debate that way, I think it's the sort of thing that has stood out in this whole debate, without going into all the details.

[9:00]

The minister, a little while ago, talked about how the government believes in the highest and best use as a principle in land development. I would like to take real umbrage at that, because the highest and best use means taking farmland, as an example, and turning it into residential. That's a higher use than farmland. You can also take farmland or residential and turn it into commercial or industrial. If that's your only guideline and there aren't social implications, then I don't accept that. I think that's what's wrong.

The minister puts the big "T" up there for time But the point is that the minister said it. I didn't say that the highest and best use.... Does the minister not believe in the highest and best use? I would like him to answer.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I said before, highest and best use. Those two have to be combined. You don't simply take highest use or best use separately. You put those two together. It's a package deal.

MR. ROSE: But he didn't say that earlier. He said his principle for the government was highest and best use. That means to turn the most rural land possible into the highest urban, commercial and industrial development. That's what highest and best use, in real estate terms, means. I'm sorry, but that's what you said. Now you qualify it and say: "I don't really mean highest and best use after all. I mean something else. I mean highest and best use consistent with the social and economic development of a region."

I see the deputy — or what I suppose to be the deputy, since I don't know the gentleman — nodding his head sagely. Unfortunately, his nod will evade Hansard.

MR. LOVICK: No, we can hear it here.

MR. ROSE: You can hear it? I didn't see him rapping his head on the table, but he may have done that. Anyway, he is suggesting that the minister really doesn't believe in highest and best use after all.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Quite the contrary, Mr. Member. Highest and best use. Read my lips.

MR. ROSE: Well, I wish I had said that.

I'm sorry, but that's not what it means in real estate terms. If you're going to flaunt those real estate terms in front of us, leaving them dangling in front of us tantalizingly as you are, then you should at least know what they mean, even in Georgia's terms, if you don't mind.

MR. WILLIAMS: You have to have it to flaunt it.

MR. ROSE: Yes, you have to have it to flaunt it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go ahead.

MR. ROSE: Go ahead? Who's stopping me?

I've gone about six or eight hours listening to the proper value of property — whether or not a lakeshore lot on the Babine is worth $10,000 or $5,000, whether a leased lot is worth $10,000 or $5,000 when people have leased it and built homes on it and now they're going to convert it. The government says that they want to get the highest possible amount of money for the Crown out of those lands. I don't blame the government for that. I think they should get a fair price only, not the highest price you can wring but of a poor individual who has built a house on the land. 

The minister is scratching his ear. Does that mean he wants to talk? Is that what he means? Oh, he wants to listen. If he will stand up, I will yield the floor to him — even the ceiling.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I appreciate the levity of this. I have repeated very often throughout the debate: fair market value — not the highest price, but fair market value. It's very simple: the highest and best fair market value.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Minister, people in this House have disputed the appraised, assessed market value because they don't believe the market value put on certain properties reflects recent sales in that area. Even if they did, I am not sure that is a total solution. Ask the poor widow who owns a house in West Vancouver whether recent sales accurately reflect the value of her property. If they do, why did the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) bring in a cap not more than a month ago on those properties? I am not sure that is the way to go.

There were suggestions advanced earlier that perhaps the private appraisers wanted more work, therefore they would highball the property. The government appraisers might not be all that accurate, either. I would like to know what kind of assurance you have that the kind of appraisal you put on for

[ Page 7917 ]

assessment purposes — and ultimately for sale purposes — reflects the real value of the property.

HON. MR. DIRKS: We are very careful that we hire only registered appraisers to do appraisals, who are trained and have a reputation to do that work. I am not sure what the poor widow has to do with this, but I should point out that the lessees on these waterfront lots have the option to continue the lease. They do not have to purchase. If they do not like the price, they do not have to purchase. They can continue to lease.

MR. ROSE: As the government is wont to say many times, one of the reasons that people came to this country by the thousands — if not millions — from Europe was land they could own. This side over here wanted to give them the bait of leasing, but they really did not want to as a group of individuals; they wanted land they could own, that they could have and hold as their own. So I am surprised to see a reverse formation happening here, where the minister is advocating leasing, and we over here are.... No, sit down, I'm not finished.

The Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) says: "Don't let him bully you." He knows the word really well. I know the minister is not going to bully me. I just wanted to make.... Bud, I'm sorry. Am I interrupting you? I'm sorry, Mr. Minister, I'm not quite finished.

There must be some way to tiptoe through the tulips of the different attitudes that have been expressed here today on the value of public lands in terms of leasing and purchase. My friend from Rossland-Trail suggested a court of revision, but there are other examples that you might examine.

There is a Danish experiment which is called self-assessment. It goes something like this: the owner puts his own price on the land. In other words, he values his own property, he dictates his own assessment and he signs some sort of a covenant that he is prepared to sell it at that price. It makes a lot of people very honest, because if you are going to put a low assessment on your property, and it is worth more and you are likely to lose it because you put a low assessment on it, then it is going to make for a fair market value. That is one idea that has been used in Denmark. I don't know if you know about that, but if you don't. you might look into it.

The other thing is compulsory arbitration on the market value of the property, which could go to some sort of a municipal court or a court in the region. I think that would get us a lot closer to the true market value.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I am sorry, Mr. Member, but earlier you said that you would give me the floor if I stood up; that's why I kept popping up. I'm very sorry to interrupt you like that, but I find your comments rather interesting. Here you are, the great proponent of private ownership. Yet repeatedly, I believe, your party federally has stood against the entrenchment of private ownership of land in the constitution. I want it to go on the record that in no way, shape or form am I suggesting that I am opposed to private ownership of land; quite the contrary. In fact, this option to purchase simply makes it possible for people to purchase land. I simply want to say, though, that they are not forced into purchasing that land; they can continue to lease if they so desire or if they do not wish to purchase.

MR. ROSE: I thank the minister for popping up when he was ready. I would just like to tell him that the freedom to purchase the land is one thing; but if you put it at a price that people can't do it for, it's quite another. People who know this better than I do say that continuing to lease is probably the best idea, so they'll perhaps continue to do that when they have no say in the ultimate price of that property. There's no court beyond the government in this instance.

Now private property rights. I think private property rights have already been expressed in this House, and the New Democratic Party voted to have that particular plank placed in the constitution. There's no problem with that provincially, but this House has already expressed itself on that. I am really angry. I would certainly have no difficulty if you put in the right to a clean environment, the right to a job, the right to....

HON. MR. DIRKS: Oh, you're backing down.

MR. ROSE: Why is that backing down? All you people want is property rights in there, and I'll vote for that. But I'm really unhappy, because those Tory Premiers of Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island, when this matter of the constitution came up — I was in the House — were adamantly opposed to it. I've never forgiven those Tories for doing that to us and preventing the enshrinement of property rights in our constitution.

MR. CLARK: I thought I might talk just a bit about Kamloops, seeing as the two members for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Richmond and Hon. S.D. Smith) are in the House, and given that this is the minister responsible for Kamloops, I'm given to believe. I'm sure the people in Kamloops were surprised, when they voted for two members, that there would be a member from a different part of British Columbia responsible for the affairs of Kamloops, but I guess that's the way the government has decided to arrange its affairs.

I want to talk a bit about regional development and how it impacts on Kamloops, because Kamloops has an unemployment rate roughly 50 percent higher than the lower mainland's. That's after many years of Social Credit, but in a general sense, what's happened under this administration in the last five or six years is that 80 percent of all of the new jobs generated in British Columbia have taken place in the lower mainland. Prior to that, as you might know, 50 percent of the jobs were generated in the lower mainland and 50 percent in the rest of British Columbia. In the last five or six years 80 percent of the jobs have been created in the lower mainland and only 20

[ Page 7918 ]

percent in all of the rest of the province. I might tell you that Kamloops received less than other regions in terms of the small share of that 20 percent that was generated outside the lower mainland.

We're seeing structural changes take place in the B.C. economy. We now have two British Columbias: the lower mainland, which is driven by offshore investment, financial services, financial institutions, consultants and lawyers.... That's what's being generated in the lower mainland: a separate engine of the economy. Then in the rest of British Columbia we see a continued reliance on the primary resource sector, shrinking employment related to that sector, and overharvesting, so that it's unsustainable in the long run.

[9:15]

We have real structural problems developing in British Columbia, and what do we have to deal with it? Well, we have ministers of state. I see the head Pooh-Bah giving advice to the czar who represents Kamloops. Mr. Chairman, I don't think that's unparliamentary, is it? I think it's quite appropriate. But I see that he's giving advice to one of his state ministers...

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Disciples.

MR. CLARK: Disciples; that's good.

...one of his disciples — responsible for a third of British Columbia, I might say. And I might say that some sections of that have been depressed economically.

So what is the government doing about it? We saw the minister respond to the member for Rossland Trail (Mr. Darcy) by saying," highways and infrastructure," and I agree that highways and infrastructure are important components of economic development. But surely that's not enough, because if it were enough, we wouldn't have.... What has the money they've put into the first phase of the Coquihalla and elsewhere done for the unemployment rate of Kamloops? Has it gone down more than the lower mainland? No, it hasn't, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Attorney-General on a point of order.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Oh, I thought the member was sitting down to give me the floor. He was asking the question. So I'll be happy to, when he....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the second member for Vancouver East please proceed.

MR. CLARK: I appreciate it. I like to see the members for Kamloops respond, because they've done nothing, very little, to deal with the structural unemployment that's taking place. We've seen double-digit unemployment in that region tolerated by successive Social Credit governments and continued to this day, with very little assistance, except for roads and a passive-development approach that we've seen from the minister of state responsible.

We have two cabinet ministers from Kamloops, and now a disciple of the Regional Development minister, who is responsible for Kamloops, and we still see intolerable unemployment and very little happening in Kamloops to try and deal with structural changes that are taking place in British Columbia. So we have too much growth, or too-fast growth, in the lower mainland, and no government intervention to try and deal with the strains and stresses there, and not enough growth in regions like Kamloops, not enough growth in other regions of British Columbia. There's no attempt by the government to intervene and try to move some of that growth into the regions. Instead we have another layer of bureaucracy developed, with the minister of state responsible for it.

I see, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has a budget, that he's responsible for $1.4 million to deal with a third of British Columbia and some regions that have been seriously depressed for many years. So we on this side want to know what we're going to do for this $1.4 million. How much of it goes to Kamloops? What kind of a sectoral analysis is being done? Is there going to be venture capital made available for people in Kamloops, for businesses, for entrepreneurs to get going. Is there going to be from your ministry the kind of sectoral analysis that can see how we can break out of this cycle and deal with the structural problems that are taking place in British Columbia? Are there going to be, for example, moves to look at copper smelters and the kind of value-added we might see in that region if we had an interventionist government, if we had a creative government, if we had government leadership with respect to the copper industry that would do something to generate more value? Is there going to be any initiative from the government to look at value-added in the forest sector? Are there going to be any of those kinds of initiatives that we might see from a government that was concerned about regional economic development, concerned about the structural changes and concerned about unemployment?

We're waiting on this side. We're waiting for the meat. We're waiting for some flesh on the bones of these announcements so they aren't just PR, so there's something real, some real control from people in the regions. We haven't seen any evidence of that with respect to Kamloops. We're waiting for some answers to those questions.

MR. SERWA: Mr. Chairman, I'm delighted to stand up and take part in this debate on the estimates of the minister.

I've certainly had one question answered tonight. Now I know why the lawns are so green, after listening to the members of the opposition. I'm also very pleased to see that the warm-hearted, affable, gregarious first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) is here with us tonight. I just wanted to set the record straight. He mentioned a city in the centre of my riding of Okanagan South tonight, and I thought that I would take a few minutes of the

[ Page 7919 ]

House's time and talk about Okanagan South and the city of Kelowna.

The member indicated that W.A.C. Bennett and Bill Bennett had a great deal to do with the success and prosperity of Kelowna. I would like to say that the seeds for that economic development and prosperity were sown many years ago by the first pioneers who settled in that area, because of their ability and their willingness to work and take risks. They were innovative and took advantage of opportunities. Kelowna was not sited in the best possible place in the Okanagan Valley. For many years the communities of Penticton, Vernon and Kelowna were roughly equivalent in size, and the opportunities actually lay in the hands of those to the north of us in Vernon and to the south of us in Penticton, simply because they became supply areas for valleys radiating out of those points, and Kelowna was situated in the centre of that. But faced with that adversity, the hard-working people of Kelowna decided that the future in fact was in their hands.

I believe that Kelowna is an outstanding example of regional economic development working at its best. From the time when the populations were roughly equivalent — 7,000 to 8,000 people — Kelowna has now grown to more than two and a half times the population of Penticton and more than three and a half times the population of Vernon. Because of the adverse conditions we faced for economic growth in the centre of the Okanagan Valley, we were the first to start diversifying into secondary manufacturing.

The federal DREE program is certainly to be credited with giving us the opportunity. We too had high rates of unemployment. With the initiation of that particular program and the spinoff industries that functioned around and supplied the original beneficiaries of that particular program, Kelowna started to grow. We have such developments as Western Star, which is a truck-manufacturing facility, and the spinoff industries. Small and major machine shops — even mom-and-pop type facilities working in basements with lathes or drill presses, producing whatever for Western Star Trucks — have provided a nucleus for a great many job opportunities in our constituency.

The secondary manufacturing has continued to expand. One of our manufacturers, Decor Doors, sold 25,000 doors to the state of Alaska a few years ago These are the things that are happening in a community because of regional economic opportunities. One of the strong things that Social Credit has done — and the people of Okanagan South value the good Social Credit free enterprise government — is the recognition that our transportation routes are imperative to future economic opportunities in the interior of British Columbia.

Many years ago I was involved with a company whose head office was in Austria, in many places in Austria, Switzerland, France and Germany, economic opportunities, because of the initiatives and the transportation routes that they have, are spread throughout the country. This, as has been said tonight, is one of the things that has been lacking in British Columbia. As we enhance our transportation routes and as long as we continue to take positive, regional initiatives, the focus of this government on the regions in British Columbia is to take every advantage. We will all be happy throughout British Columbia when our unemployment rates drop, perhaps to the 3, 4 or 5 percent range. It will be a credit to regional economic development.

I believe that the tools that Social Credit has put together — that good government has put together — will enable that to happen. In the end, we are confronted with the recognition that we're all striving for the same thing: job creation and job opportunities and the equalization of those opportunities throughout this great province. This government and the minister are to be commended, and we're exceedingly proud of the fine record of accomplishment that this government has made in the past two and a half years in that direction. It's a positive story, a good news story, and I congratulate the minister.

MR. WILLIAMS: I thought we were going to get a response with respect to the second member for Vancouver East, who discussed the problem of unemployment in Kamloops — serious problems of underemployment and the fact that we have two British Columbias: one where the economic engine is revved up and where there is much higher employment than we've ever seen, and another that is falling and lagging behind. That other British Columbia is Kamloops, Kamloops, Kamloops and Kootenays, Kootenays, Kootenays. They haven't developed.

The Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) says: "Mr. Sleaze." The other member for Vancouver East told you that for the first time in the modern history of British Columbia, Mr. Member from Kamloops — who holds his own separate office from the other member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Richmond), who knows him too well.... What about that? What about the fact that the growth is in the lower mainland?

What we have is an evolution of Jane Jacobs's views. Jane Jacobs has said that it's really a world of the economy of cities. The cities are the economic generators in our nation-states. Vancouver, more and more, has lifted itself out of this morass that has been dominated by Social Credit. The greater Vancouver region has almost got to the point where you people are irrelevant, thank God. What we have is an economic engine in greater Vancouver that is running on its own. The Leader of the Opposition is the guy, as mayor of Vancouver, who saw to it that that economic engine got moving. It's carrying on today, with the city council in Vancouver, and you're finding it hard to take.

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS: This gaggle of goose over here are just bubbling away, or babbling away.

MR. LOVICK: You mean gaggle of geese.

[ Page 7920 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member...

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, yes, a gaggle of geese. I mispronounced the term, Mr. Chairman, and I do withdraw the error.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Would the member please proceed, keeping the rules of this House in mind.

MR. WILLIAMS: I did not mean to say they were a gaggle of goose; I meant to say they were a gaggle of geese.

But the babbling from the Attorney-General is because the reality of these two economic engines is hurting him. He is afraid that the truth might finally get out in Kamloops, where this minister is supposed to be repairing the machinery — yet the interior is suffering.

We do have two British Columbias. Maybe the minister can tell us what he is going to do in terms of the two British Columbias.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Obviously there is something wrong with the water over in Vancouver East. I was listening to the way the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) was talking, and somebody wound him up before he came in here to join in the debate, which I appreciate. But really, it reminds me of that little saying: "...a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." The first member for Vancouver East just verified that.

I would like to say that, basically, both of them are a little wet — speaking of water — in that of the major projects inventory on the books today, totalling $24 billion, $14 billion is outside the lower mainland So obviously there is activity occurring outside the lower mainland, and it's occurring at a faster rate than it is in the lower mainland.

[9:30]

MR. CLARK: I want to ask some specific questions — I think I did ask — about the $1.4 million, this sum of money that you have for economic planning in the entire southern third of British Columbia. Can you tell me how much of that $1.4 million is allocated for analysis, study and staff time, with respect to Kamloops?

HON. MR. DIRKS: We spend our money equally across the region, and we spend it where it is needed, when it is needed. We don't allocate it and say we'll spend X number of dollars on Kamloops come hell or high water.

MR. CLARK: I guess if it were prorated we would probably get a number.

Maybe you could tell us what you are doing generally with that $1.4 million allocation. Specifically, I am interested in what kind of staff you have and what they are doing, and whether they are doing any sectoral analysis, economic analysis, that kind of thing.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Chairman, he seems to be hung up on sectoral for some reason or other. And again I would have to say that the member unfortunately keeps dashing in and out of the chamber, so he misses half the debate. If he had been here a little earlier he would have heard precisely what our staffing is in both of the development regions. I would suggest that you will be able to find it all in Hansard as to what our staff is.

You keep saying: what am I doing? It is not what I am doing; it is basically what the people want us to do. It is what the people are deciding should happen in the area, not what I decide.

MR. CLARK: What have the people of Kamloops asked you to do, and what are you doing in response to initiatives from people in Kamloops?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Chairman, if the member would look seriously at regionalization instead of simply sitting there contemplating his navel and interpreting the world through it, I think he would find out that the task forces we have in place are from throughout the region, and that we are not zeroing in on Kamloops and saying — "Oh, this is specifically Kamloops."

MR. CLARK: Are you telling me that there are no task forces specific to Kamloops? Can you tell me how many people from Kamloops are participating in the committees?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I could get that information for you if you like. There are no specific task forces for Kamloops per se. They are to look at the whole region, and what would create economic growth throughout the whole region, not specifically Kamloops. As I said earlier, we have six task forces. Just glancing at the list here, I note we have a number of people from Kelowna serving on the various task forces.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Kamloops, yes.

MR. CLARK: Could you tell me what the six task forces are? I don't think you did that earlier. Did you?

HON. MR. DIRKS: In light of the hour, I would suggest that the member would like to refresh himself with Hansard tomorrow morning before the House sits, and that question would not be necessary.

MR. CLARK: I wonder if you could tell me whether any of the task forces are looking at the copper industry specifically.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mining.

[ Page 7921 ]

MR. CLARK: You have one looking at mining. Could you tell me the makeup of the committee looking at mining?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Rather than playing Jack-in the-box here, if the member — especially in light of his absence earlier — would like to give me about six or seven questions, then I'll get back to him. But if he was asking about the mining task force specifically, the members are: Mr. Mel Cook, chairperson, Okanagan-Similkameen Community Development Association, 1531 Fairview Road, Penticton, British Columbia; Mr. Colin Fothergill, president, Sorrento Chamber of Commerce, P.O. Box 250, Sorrento, British Columbia; His Worship Mervin Pears, mayor of Ashcroft, P.O. Box 129, Ashcroft, British Columbia; His Worship Ove Christensen, mayor of Logan Lake, P.O. Box 190, Logan Lake, British Columbia; Mr. Ron Coxon, P.O. Box 717, Logan Lake, British Columbia; Mr. Tom Kendall, a Kelowna lawyer, 147 Park Road, P.O. Box 2130, Station R, Kelowna, British Columbia; Mr. Doug Weir, economic development officer, P.O. Box 170, Revelstoke; Mr. Greg McKillop, manager, mineral development agreement, Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources — he's a resource person.

MR. CLARK: So no one is on from Kamloops, but two are from Logan Lake, so I know that's true. It's the staff person from Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources under Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, or is it in your budget? Oh, the minister wanted a few more questions. Does the budget come under Energy or does it come under Lands? That's one. The question is: is he directed by Energy, is he directed by the committee or is he directed by your ministry? A third question would be: is there any other staff time allocated through your ministry? The fourth question would be: in response to the committee members, what specific tasks are the staff currently undertaking? Are there any tasks given to the committee to look at, any specific initiatives that come from your ministry that might be suggested to the committee? Finally, what process does the committee have to go through in order to get the ministry to spend some of that money in order to undertake any kind of analysis in that sector?

HON. MR. DIRKS: The salary of the resource person comes from the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

No — for your next question — basically the committee members are working with that resource person, and he is a technical adviser to the task force. What they do is come up with recommendations to the advisory council, and the advisory council in turn brings their recommendations to me.

The primary role of the mining task force will be to advise the minister of state on feasible strategies to encourage responsible mineral development in the region. A first step in this initiative for the task force will be to work with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to articulate the particular needs of the mining industry in the region. Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is currently negotiating with the federal government for the renewal of the mineral development agreement, a five-year, $10 million, cost-shared program intended to strengthen and diversify the mining sector.

It is essential for the long-term health of the mining industry in the Thompson-Okanagan region that its needs are addressed by the MDA, if the program is renewed. In particular, we wish the task force to: examine the current status of the mining industry in the region and the future prospects for currently operating mines, (2) make recommendations to the minister of state related to the promotion of environmentally sound mining activity in the region — certainly something that is very important; and (3) determine the most appropriate assistance to mining development for the region and suggest what assistance may be appropriate under a renewed MDA.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is there anything in the valueadded sector with respect to this task force? Well, I guess not. The minister didn't get an answer from his assistants.

HON. MR DIRKS: Not so, Mr. Member. Both forestry and manufacturing are looking at valueadded.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's possible to do it in mining too.

MR. B.R. SMITH: He just told you that.

MR. WILLIAMS: In mining? It is included? Okay.

So we now know that Kamloops has lost out in this sector, in this exercise.

MR. CLARK: Logan Lake.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, it's stretching it to say that Logan Lake is a suburb of Kamloops. You might argue it was a suburb of Merritt, but not Kamloops.

So you have a transportation committee, do you, Mr. Minister? Could we hear what the membership of the transportation committee is in terms of their location?

HON. MR. DIRKS: With pleasure, Mr. Member. No problem at all; just let me turn a page here. The chairman is Mr. Paul Mitchell, 301-1475 Ellis Street, Kelowna, British Columbia. How about that? Kelowna. Hey, you'll love this one: Mr. Don McIntosh, chairman of the economic development commission, Okanagan Advertising, Post Office Box 1177, Kelowna. Also Mr. Ray Vandenburg, alderman, Post Office Box 3010, Osoyoos; His Worship David Simpson, mayor of Lumby, Post Office Box 430, 1947 Glencaird, Lumby; Mrs. Edith Rizzi, executive assistant, Bag 100, Salmon Arm; Mr. Henry Norgaard, Merritt and District Chamber of Commerce, Rural Route 1, Merritt; Her Worship Dorothy Whittaker,

[ Page 7922 ]

mayor of Penticton; Her Worship Gloria Stout, mayor of Princeton; Mr. Gord Robinson, Far West, Vernon; Mr. Fred Beruschi, alderman, Revelstoke; Mr. Wayne Nicol, branch sales manager, RivTow Equipment, Kamloops.

Oh, the list goes on — sorry about that, I forgot to turn the page there, Mr. Chairman: Mr. Joe Sparks, manager/partner, B.A. Concrete, Kamloops; Mr. Jim Walch, director, Thompson-Nicola Regional District, Clinton; Mr. Eric M. Elkington, E.N. Elkington Ltd., P.O. Box 250, Golden.

MR. WILLIAMS: That was very useful, Mr. Chairman. It includes Clinton; my God, It includes the Cariboo too. The chairman is from Kelowna — what can I say? It's those chairmen you have to watch out for. I think it is clear that the city of Kelowna is a major player and continues to be a major player.

I'd be interested in asking a couple of questions about the aquaculture area now.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: You're all over the map.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, just like the minister.

I noticed in the most current annual report that two coastal resource identification studies on the western Georgia strait, Desolation Sound, Johnstone Strait and Sechelt-Sunshine Coast were completed to guide aquaculture interests in those areas. Maybe you could tell me how many aquaculture farms had been approved by the time you started carrying out the studies in those regions. I don't think we should talk about closing the barn door after the horse got out in this case; it's kind of mixing metaphors.

MR. MERCIER: That's Agriculture.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, the actual leases are in this ministry. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds doesn't get around too much in these outer regions. That's part of the reason Kamloops is in the trouble it is in today; it's fascinating.

[9:45]

The numbers I have in another report suggested that there were ten operations in aquaculture in 1984 and that by 1988 the number had grown to 173. That's just from a magazine source, and I don't know if it is valid. A very large number were slated for approval beyond that. Maybe the minister could advise us what the numbers were, how that has evolved, and how late we are in this exercise, if resource identification studies were only completed last year. Did we have about 200 of these farms on the coast, and then had the studies completed?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I'm informed that we have approximately 200 licences and leases at the present time. There are about 125 operating farms. They are on the eastern side of Vancouver Island and on the mainland coast. What we're studying now is the west coast of Vancouver Island.

MR. WILLIAMS: So we have 200 leases but only 125 operating farms. Maybe the minister could explain that.

HON. MR DIRKS: There is a delay between receiving a licence or a lease and the actual farm going into operation, while they acquire the necessary equipment, stock and so on.

MR. WILLIAMS: Do you have rules in terms of performance and time-limits relative to performance, and are they more recent? Have people been able to sit on these leases for some length of time without performing?

HON. MR. DIRKS: There are very stringent requirements set down, and the Ministry of Agriculture is also involved.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, if they're very stringent, let's hear them, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I wish it was that simple, that I could simply stand up here and rattle off what they are, but they are individually designed to suit the actual site. There is a specific time within which they have to be in place. Also, there are stringent reports that have to be filed with Agriculture and with Crown Lands.

MR. WILLIAMS: It would seem to me that once you've acquired a Crown asset, a time-limit in terms of performing might well be standard. Is that not the case?

HON. MR. DIRKS: There is a general rule of thumb that they're required to be in operation within a three-year period.

MR. WILLIAMS: As a rule of thumb, then, how many of the remaining 75 leases that are not operating have exceeded the three-year term?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I'm sorry, we don't have that information available right now, but we can get it for the member.

MR. WILLIAMS: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. And if a good many of them have indeed exceeded the three-year term, will they be told to forget they have the licence, and those will be made available for others?

HON. MR. DIRKS: If they do not live up to the specifications that are laid down, there is a cancellation of the lease.

MR. WILLIAMS: Has any lease ever been cancelled?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Both licences and leases have been cancelled.

[ Page 7923 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: We'll be getting more detailed information from the minister relative to the other questions, but there are indeed licences or leases on the west coast, are there not, Mr. Minister? Are there a significant number on the west coast?

HON. MR. DIRKS: There are a number there now. That's an emerging area, so it will no doubt increase.

MR. WILLIAMS: I asked whether there was a significant number, and the response was: "There are a number." Thank you very much.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, there are a significant number. Might that be 25 or more on the west coast? Are you entertaining licences on the west coast? Are you processing applications right now, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. DIRKS: We are processing applications, and some will be held in abeyance until the study is complete.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's the whole thing. What do you know about this subject? It just raises the question about how much you really know about the subject. You are processing applications while you are carrying out overall studies for these regions. You carry out studies, only completed last year, and you've granted 200 leases, and it's last year that you completed the studies of the regions. What kind of process is that? It's absolutely backwards.

Historically, the people that put up with these things in their front yards on the Sunshine Coast and elsewhere were protected. The upland owner always had a veto right in terms of what happened at his front door on the waterfront. All of that's changed What kind of legal backup and so on have you got in terms of that transition, in terms of upland owners having some control over what happens in front of them on these water frontages?

When I was Minister of Lands that principle was maintained, in terms of the waterfront owner having a significant input and exercise in preventing the worst from happening in front of his place. Never would we entertain log-booming in front of private property owners along the waterfront. It just wouldn't be tolerated.

These fish pens, in many cases, are probably more offensive. There's been a history of 100 years in this province of taking into account those upland owners.

AN HON. MEMBER: If you wanted to put log booms there, you had to buy the land.

MR. WILLIAMS: Exactly. Historically, for booming rights, those people would end up buying the private land rights on the waterfront prior to putting in the booming grounds, provided they got ministerial approval. At what point was the decision made in the Ministry of Lands to change this whole exercise in terms of water lot leases?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I want to say a few words, in terms of regional development, about the university college program, which has been extremely successful in its development. I believe it is going to be probably the most important and significant change in the Kamloops region that has occurred since the railroads came, because it is going to give us an opportunity to develop that incredibly fine institution there.

I was sorry, earlier on today, to listen to the first member for Vancouver East putting down that process and implying that these people should not link up with the universities in the way that they have. I think that is not very smart.

I think the model of Simon Fraser University as the instant institution is not the one we should follow. I think the model that is being followed in Okanagan College and Cariboo College in Kamloops by picking out the best in Simon Fraser University, the University of Victoria and the University of British Columbia and contracting with them is very wise and will serve the area much better. It will give us the diversity that we need and a greater range of educational opportunities with those institutions.

We will have something to sell. We will be able to sell a University of British Columbia degree obtained there or a UVic degree or a Simon Fraser degree. I think that makes a lot more sense, and I would commend to the minister not to listen to the first member for Vancouver East when he tries to put down that process, because he is wrong.

The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) is a man for whom I have a great deal of regard. Now that he is the critic for the community, I hope he will take up my invitation — which I extend quite seriously — to come up at a time when I and the federal Member of Parliament can show him around the community.

Interjection.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Not if you have the federal Member of Parliament with you; it will be okay. That's why I said that would be a good thing to do. We can show you around and give you a better perspective on the riding, because I think some of the things you said here tonight disclose that you don't have a particularly good perspective on the community or the riding.

Interjection.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Well, I think he is quite bright, actually, but he doesn't have a very good perspective on it. Certainly I would want to show him some progress that's been made on mining, because I will tell you, one of the reasons I got thoroughly involved in provincial politics was the devastating impact on mining by the NDP government and particularly by the first member for Vancouver East when he was the czar of resources. He hosed the industry. It is on that

[ Page 7924 ]

exploration side, because the fundamental error, the fundamental thing he could not get through that obtuse, know-it-all head of his is that the part that gets hit when you hit exploration is the innovative part and the labour-intensive part of the industry. All his little game plans were designed to smash capital and to put on the super-royalty for the guys who were already in production. The problem is that the guys already in production don't employ that many. The second member is absolutely right: there has been that structural change where there has been a reduction in the number of employees per unit of production, and that is a major problem.

I want to tell you that the major issue in mining that I got involved in came directly as a result of the work done by the first member for Vancouver East when, he set apart a deliberate policy that was designed to reduce the impact and the value of capital, and he destroyed the exploration industry in the course of doing that.

MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, I'd like to correct the record. I was Minister of Lands and Forests, but not Minister of Mines. I think the member is confused again, but it is late in the evening.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I know that his title was Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, but I want to tell you there is absolutely no confusion for anyone in the province's interior about what his real job was.

Finally, before winding up, because I know the time is getting there, the members opposite asked me to give them one simple reason why there might be some difference between some of the areas in the interior, and I would point out that one of the major differences is who represents us in Ottawa and who gets things from there for their communities.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.