[ Page 7925 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Supply Act (No. 2), 1989 (Bill 62). Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 7925

Second reading –– 7925

Committee stage –– 7925

Mr. Clark

Third reading

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 –– 7925

Mr. Lovick

Ms. Pullinger

Mr. Gabelmann

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Perry

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

SUPPLY ACT (No. 2), 1989

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 2), 1989.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, this supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the continuation of government's programs until the estimates for 1989-90 have been debated and voted upon in this assembly. The first interim supply bill for 1989-90 granted by the Legislative Assembly was for a three-month period, which ends in the next few days. Therefore this interim supply is urgently required in order that a variety of essential payments, including GAIN as well as payments to hospitals, school districts, universities and social agencies, and the government's payroll, may continue uninterrupted. In moving introduction and first reading of this bill, I ask that it be considered as urgent under standing order 81 and be permitted to be advanced through all stages this day.

I move first reading.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the Minister of Finance for the notice he gave to our finance critic, who is noticeable by his absence, but I think this is pretty standard procedure, and we're pleased, by leave, to grant the minister's wishes.

Bill 62 introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading forthwith.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This supply bill is in the general form of previous supply bills. The first section requests one-twelfth of the tabled estimates to provide for the general programs of the government. The second section requests one-twelfth of the disbursement amount required for the government's fully recoverable ministry-related financing transactions which appear in schedule D of the estimates.

Finally, I point out the requirement for early passage of the supply bill in order to provide for the ongoing expenditures of the government for the '89-90 fiscal year. I move second reading of Bill 62.

Motion approved.

Bill 62, Supply Act (No. 2), 1989, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

The House in committee on Bill 62; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. CLARK: We have no problem supporting the bill at this time. Obviously it's of great importance to many people in the buildings that we have a Supply Act.

I might make a favourable comment. I gather it has been common practice to bring in a bill like this that gives the government the power for three months hence, and that of course was the first Supply Act. This bill, as I read it — and I can be corrected — is to the end of July, so if we do sit past the end of July, it will presumably occasion another supply act. I think it's admirable that the government has chosen to bring in a bill which authorizes expenditures for as brief a time as might be required, because clearly the principle of the building and what we do here is the scrutiny of budgets of ministers and the budget of the government as a whole. We would be loath to authorize acts which would allow expenditures pending the passing of the budget or ministerial estimates. The principle of keeping the Supply Act tight and only in a brief duration while that debate is taking place is a good one. I commend the government and the minister for bringing in a bill which is one-twelfth of the budget allocations.

With that said, we have no problem supporting this section and indeed this bill.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

[10:15]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 62, Supply Act (No. 2), 1989, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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 (continued).

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we're on the verge of making parliamentary history. We're about to discuss the estimates of the Minister of Responsible for Crown Lands, and behold, he is not

[ Page 7926 ]

here. I have a number of questions that I have often been suspicious about that individual's ability to respond to — I grant that — but I thought, nevertheless, that we might do a little better if he were here to at least make the effort.

Behold, he has arrived!

I want to pose a couple of very direct questions to the Minister of Crown Lands specifically arising from the debate we had not very long ago with his colleague, who I notice is in the House and seated directly next to the minister: namely, the Minister of State for Vancouver Island-Coast, Responsible for Parks (Hon. Mr. Huberts).

On June 22 I asked a question of the Minister of State for Vancouver Island concerning a particular development project in my constituency of Nanaimo: namely, a ferrochromium plant that is proposed for Duke Point. My question had to do with the fact that a part of that development located on Duke Point is to be situated on what was a greenbelt, which was established by covenant between Duke Point Development Ltd. and the city of Nanaimo.

What I wanted to find out from the minister is simply what his involvement was in that process whereby the covenant was effectively broken. I gather the two parties agreed. My assumption in asking the question is twofold: (1) that your colleague, Mr. Minister — the Minister of Parks — was correct when he told me that I ought to pose this question to you; and (2) that you indeed had some involvement with this, insofar as the B.C. Development Corporation and Duke Point Development Ltd. are now, in effect, part of the Crown Lands responsibility.

If my two assumptions are correct, perhaps the minister could tell us, please, what his involvement has been in this process, whereby a chunk of property that was a greenbelt has now been removed from the greenbelt, or is in the process of being removed from the greenbelt, in order to provide a private residence to the developer contiguous to his property, the proposed ferrochromium plant. Could the minister answer that question for me, please.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Yes, I'll be pleased to talk a little bit about Duke Point and the greenbelt. Basically, I think the member was in error when he talked about a covenant being lifted. Negotiations are going on at the present time, but they're being instigated by the city of Nanaimo. Consequently, the good member should really talk to the city of Nanaimo and find out what their desires are, because it was the city of Nanaimo that virtually had that property and then turned to the Ministry of Crown Lands and asked that the covenant be removed from the property so that leasing might occur.

I would say the current agreement will result in increased protection for the greenbelt — the actually dedicated park part. There will be no net reduction in the greenbelt area, and over the long term a significant increase in the amount of land which is dedicated park.

MR. LOVICK: I'm a bit surprised, first, to hear that that process is still under negotiation, and then to hear from the minister a kind of chapter-and-verse explanation of why this is a good deal. It sounds to me as if you obviously have been well briefed and you know exactly the arguments in support of that.

Second, your reference to the city of Nanaimo's decision and its responsibility. Is the minister telling me that he effectively absolves himself and his ministry from any responsibility for that, insofar as the city makes a request to get out of this particular agreement, and therefore the ministry no longer has a responsibility? If that's not the case, can the minister then tell me what his own investigation has revealed or if there has indeed been an investigation of this problem?

HON. MR. DIRKS: You're referring to lots 25 and 26. Those lots belong to the city of Nanaimo, and they would have to be transferred to the province.

MR. LOVICK: My question to the minister was whether his ministry had any involvement, given that it is a signatory to that covenant. Crown Lands has now, in effect, become Duke Point Development Ltd. Therefore it seems his ministry would be one of the parties in that deal, if you like. I'm asking him what the involvement has been of his ministry.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Well, rather than actually remove the convenant, the city has decided that they'll transfer those lots to the province. Then the restricted convenant will be removed, the lease areas will be created for residents or a communication centre and a security buffer, and the balance dedicated as a park and returned to Nanaimo. So basically the area, which started out as five acres, has been reduced in these negotiations to 3.6 acres. There's a road that will be closed and only the untreed portion will be incorporated in lot 24, the industrial site; the treed portion will be incorporated into lot 25, which will remain a greenbelt.

The lease area and security buffer lease area are to be dedicated as a park, when no longer required by the plant, for the maximum of 25 years. Basically we're trying to get some protection in there so that it will revert to the Crown if it is no longer used for the purposes required.

MS. PULLINGER: The minister has just confirmed for us that in the agreement entered into by Duke Point Development and the government, as represented by the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant), the covenant is put on to circumvent or to satisfy the requirements of section 75 of the Land Title Act. The government is now going to break that same covenant. That's what the minister has just confirmed for us.

I have some problem with that, because it then is in contradiction to the Land Title Act. That covenant is there for a purpose; it's there for a reason. In my opinion and in the opinion of many others, that sets a dangerous precedent for Crown Lands and for the

[ Page 7927 ]

breaking of covenants. I would hope that any of us who would like to would be able to apply like Mr. Wooding did to have a covenant removed and simply have that land leased to us. Frankly, I think that's a very dangerous precedent.

I would like to ask the minister what kind of protection we have, if you put yet another covenant or make another agreement, that the land will come back to the people of the province and of Nanaimo and the area. Given that this government has broken its own covenant in this instance, what assurance do we have that the government won't break its own covenant or its own agreement in the next instance?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I'm glad to see that the other member for Nanaimo is joining in the debate and talking about something she knows about — certainly something that's close to home for her. But I think she should also look back to the city of Nanaimo, because it is the city that requested this move. The city of Nanaimo, the mayor and council of Nanaimo worked out the negotiations with Wooding. If she has a problem with that, maybe she'd like to talk to council; maybe she'd like to talk to the mayor of Nanaimo. Maybe she's not in favour of industry coming to Nanaimo; maybe she'd better tell the people in Nanaimo that, because these were negotiations the city of Nanaimo entered into with Wooding. I would suggest that the member stay a little closer to home and maybe talk to her council.

MS. PULLINGER: First of all, it seems to me that the minister is trying to slide sideways on the point. We're not talking about whether development will or will not come to the city of Nanaimo. What we're talking about here is the fact that this government has made a covenant between Duke Point Development Ltd. and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia, as represented by the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

They have made a convenant to satisfy section 75 of the Land Title Act, which sets out the requirements that a subdivision "shall comply with." One of them is that "where the land subdivided borders (i) on a body of water .. access shall be given by highways 20 m wide to the body of water and to the strips at distances not greater than 200 m between centre lines...." To circumvent that particular requirement of government legislation, the government has formed this covenant and dedicated these two lots, 25 and 26, as parkland, essentially. The wording of it is "for parks and public use."

Now the government is telling us that it's going to break that covenant, and in response to the first member for Nanaimo, the minister has stated very clearly that they intend to take title back from the city and then break the covenant. Therefore it's this government that plans to break its own covenant. I would still like an answer to my question. If you are going to break this covenant that you have made for the benefit of the people of British Columbia, what assurance do we have that you will not break any further covenants or agreements that you make regarding this land?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Again, I wish the member would pay a little more attention to what her city council is doing, because the Nanaimo council originally agreed to allow Mr. Wooding to use five acres of lot 25 to construct his communications centre, and an additional plus or minus four acres for a security buffer to lot 24. They also agreed to the closure of the road and adding it to lot 24 for use as part of the plant site. Basically we pride ourselves on being able to work with municipalities, regional governments and so on. We think that they know what is best in their area, and when they come to us with a request, we try and accommodate them wherever possible.

I would say that we're not breaking a covenant; but what we are doing virtually is shifting that covenant to the part of the land that is really better used for park purposes. Contrary to what you were saying, the public will have access to that whole foreshore area through lot 26.

MS. PULLINGER: Part of the agreement for this piece of land I will read a letter, dated 1988: "The agreement that Sherwood made restricts access across the south line of lot 24, including the greenbelt north of that line, except under prearranged and special circumstances." That says pretty clearly to me — and you ought to know that, if you're in touch with our city council — that access to that area will in fact be restricted. As one who has walked out on that land recently, I am also very aware that by taking that piece of land, you restrict access to Jack Point in a very real way. It takes a great chunk of it; it takes a third of what's there.

But the question that I'm getting at is this. What assurances do we have, given that the government is quite ready and quite willing to break a covenant for this purpose, for Mr. Wooding...? The Premier has stated: "Jay Wooding, we love you." Given that the government has that attitude, and will do this for their friend Mr. Wooding, what assurance do we have that you won't do it again? You say that the rest will be dedicated; it will come back in 25 years. How do we know that? What assurance do we have that it will actually happen?

[10:30]

HON. MR. DIRKS: I think a member who has walked that whole property really needs to take out some cobwebs this morning, because if she looks at it, the area that we're talking about that Wooding would situate his communications centre on is at the far end of the point, and public access will be available through lot 26 and the remainder of lot 25. There's no problem in public access to that beach. It would simply be that little point that is being restricted.

MS. PULLINGER: Given that I can't seem to elicit a response from the minister on this question, Mr. Chairman, I have to assume that we will have the

[ Page 7928 ]

same assurances we had with the present covenant, and that is none — the government's whim and will.

I would like to ask another question of the Minister Responsible for Crown Lands. Has the minister received any offer to purchase lot 24 of Duke Point Development?

HON. MR. DIRKS: The lease on lot 24 has not been completed at this point.

MS. PULLINGER: Again the minister seems to have a problem hearing my questions. What I asked was: has there been any offer to purchase lot 24?

HON. MR. DIRKS: If you're referring to Mr. Wooding, I understand that he has asked that an option to purchase be included in the lease.

MS. PULLINGER: I would like to ask the minister then what the government's position is on that? What is the government's intention, and where is that at this stage?

HON. MR. DIRKS: The only thing that would be included would be the industrial part of lot 24.

MR. LOVICK: Does that mean that we can say the greenbelt is inviolate then? Can we get a categorical answer that says it will not be sold? Categorically, will you give us that assurance?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Yes, most definitely.

MR. GABELMANN: I didn't anticipate it was going to end that quickly. I want to make some comments this morning, not so much in the form of questions initially, but rather as a statement.

I want to talk about issues relating to shoreline management and protection. These issues cross over a variety of ministerial areas, which of course transcend regional, provincial and federal politics and jurisdiction. I've chosen to raise the issue of shoreline management, shoreline protection, coastal zone management or whatever name one wants to give to the issue under the Ministry of Crown Lands, given that Crown Lands essentially is the lead ministry on questions which affect shoreline management.

I want to talk about the whole coast with particular reference to the area which I know better — the area in North Island constituency. That coastline effectively represents half of Vancouver Island and hundreds — if not thousands — of miles of shoreline on the mainland and in the archipelago between Redonda and Malcolm Islands.

Marcus Smith in 1872 wrote about this area; that's more than a hundred years ago. He described the extraordinary intricacy and surpassing beauty of the archipelago. Islands of infinite variety of size and form, bold headlands and cozy bays, deep and narrow channels leading into romantic and snug harbours." That's just a brief extract from some comments made more than a hundred years ago.

In many areas in this beautiful coast line that I'm talking about, his description is still relatively accurate. I think we are at a threshold in terms of whether or not we're going to preserve these coastlines and shorelines for future generations. I won't take the time to describe, in what I think could be done in poetic terms if one was a poet, the beauty of the coastline, the estuaries, the inlets, the islands and of the remarkably beautiful, calm inland waters of the equally beautiful, rugged Pacific Ocean coast of northwestern Vancouver Island. I won't talk too much about the kind of lifestyle that exists in these communities, other than to say that it's a wide variety of people who live on these lands and in these waters that are being managed by this minister. People as diverse as loggers and fishermen and people who move up there just for rugged and isolated lifestyle. Increasingly now, tourism is becoming a major focus of these areas.

Perceptions about the areas at the present time are that short-term economic gain — immediate economic gain — plays a higher priority in provincial policy-making about the use of this shoreline than does long-term stability and long-term use of these waters and these foreshores. There's a perception — and I think it's more than a perception; I think it's a reality — that the foreshore use is unplanned and largely unregulated. The unregulated nature of it leads to misuse, and I'm going to talk about that in more detail later, Mr. Chairman; it leads to insufficient controls to protect that natural environment.

The policies applied by the ministry appear to have an absolute disregard for concerns of people who live in those communities. I'm not suggesting that it's an easy issue. It's one that has competing jurisdictions, as I said earlier. Let me just outline a list of some of the issues involved in coastline management: recreational issues; mariculture; anchorages; fish and wildlife harvesting; commercial fishing; commercial recreation, such as sports fishing camps; estuaries and all the value that they bring to our environment; tidelands and similar kinds of values; logging; log storage and booming grounds; mining — we've got open-pit mines on parts of our shoreline; urban development, which happens more and more, particularly on the lower coast; residential development as people seek out the opportunity to live in some of these remote areas; historic sites and values; archaeological sites and particular reference made to native Indian archaeology and archaeological sites; tourism, which I mentioned; and of course, just general pollution issues. That's not even a complete list of the variety of issues that need to be managed when we talk about shoreline protection and management.

The minister himself isn't responsible for logging and logging practices, but the impact of logging has, in effect, precluded the opportunity of the Ministry of Crown Lands to properly manage much of this area given the way in which licences are handed out and the way in which logging takes place, particularly in some of these small islands. I think that the Ministry of Crown Lands needs to play a greater role

[ Page 7929 ]

and have a bigger say in how logging plans are developed along these beaches and along these shorelines.

The same thing goes for mining. I won't pursue that any further other than to say that Utah Mines, for example — which is a mine in Quatsino Sound — does great damage to resources that are managed by this ministry and pays very little for the impact on marine life in that area.

Estuaries and their management continue to be a serious problem for this ministry. The latest issue is in respect of development at Royston in the Comox constituency. We're looking at prime estuarian habitat. It's talked about being developed as a commercial and pleasure boat marina, even though Environment Canada calls it an unfortunate choice, provincial environment and shellfish authorities have expressed their concern and even the chief health inspector in the area notes that there are inadequate sewage disposal proposals and systems. The federal small craft harbours branch, another agency involved, admits it has no data on the whole range of environmental questions such as sedimentation, disruption of aquatic vegetation, emergency cleanup procedures, storage and use of toxic substances, sewage disposals, etc.

The estuary at Royston is a prime habitat for millions of salmon fry from the Puntledge and Courtenay Rivers. We pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into these hatcheries, and then we proceed through another area of government to destroy the habitat that allows these hatcheries to produce the stock that we're trying to rebuild.

Issues like this have no overall coordinating agency as a result of government policies which I'll get into in a minute — no overall policies relating to little things. For example, when tourists visit these shorelines and these areas and leave their garbage, who's responsible for picking it up? It just gets left. You look at Fair Harbour dock, for example; there's garbage that sits there all summer in some cases, and that's true in other areas. Just lack of coordinated management plans.

You look at clam-digging, which the Ministry of Crown Lands has a role in permitting. We're allowing clams to be dug on these foreshores without any resource study and without any overall management plan. Periodic closures. Even the federal fisheries director, Pat Chamut, says that these periodic closures — he was talking about one on the west coast of Vancouver Island — don't really address the longer-term problem of how we're going to effectively manage this growing problem. We're looking at new licensing arrangements, but it all raises the question of overall planning. Should we be harvesting our shellfish — clams in particular — as a wild resource, or should we be moving into farming these beaches and giving individuals or companies the right to a particular beach which is theirs not only to harvest but also to make sure that the stock is sustained and in fact is replenished and grows, rather than this system now where people go in, take the harvest, and we trust nature will look after the regeneration?

There's a wide variety of concerns in respect of clam-digging. There's a lot more I could say about that, but I'll leave it until later.

[10:45]

Another serious concern to boaters is the loss of anchorage. Gillespie's report on fish-farms and the whole aquaculture industry talks about the loss of anchorage as a major problem. Marine towing companies, commercial net fishermen and recreational boating groups expressed concerns to Gillespie that the coastline would soon be devoid of open anchorages for emergency and recreational uses. Those of us who do some boating in those areas can vouch for that. Safe harbours and anchorages are declining in number, and it poses a serious threat that seems to be getting worse and worse each season.

The park and recreational values in Desolation Sound in particular are being lost day by day to aquaculture. In October 1986, Campbell River Yacht Club expressed its concern by saying: "The intent of this letter" — this is to the Council of B.C. Yacht Clubs — "is to express our club's concern over the escalating alienation of marine foreshore within our sailing waters through the issuance of foreshore leases for the purpose of aquaculture-mariculture operations." This is back in '86, before a lot of these foreshore areas had been alienated.

In a letter to the minister in March of this year the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union expressed its concern about God's Pocket up on Hurst Island near Port Hardy, which is a crucial safe anchorage for commercial fishermen. In their letter to the minister they say: "Every year more and more prime anchorages and tie-up facilities traditionally used by commercial fishermen are being lost to a combination of expanding demand for aquaculture leases as well as the federal government's program to privatize former small-craft harbour facilities." The example there is Stuart Island.

A petition was signed in August '88 by 500 Canadian and American boaters and commercial fishermen to keep the west side of Quartz Bay on Cortes Island for public anchorage and public access. Increasingly those areas are being lost as a result of an industry that is good, useful and appropriate, but is being allowed to develop without the overall planning that's really required.

There's the whole question of upland alienation. People who live on the upland of these coves, harbours and beaches are having major industrial activity right in front of their homes. Of course, it has incredible impact on property value, lifestyle and general value of life in those areas.

I see my light is on. I have some more things I'd like to say.

MS. MARZARI: I hope the Chair will allow my colleague from North Island to continue his discussion on these estimates.

MR. GABELMANN: Believe it or not, I am making this much briefer than my notes would allow if I really used them.

[ Page 7930 ]

We're looking at other problems as a result of this overall lack of management, whether it's a question of morts from the fish-farms, whether it's a question of the plastic bags that you find drifting all over these inland waters now from the feedbags that some people seem to think can just be dumped into the water. We have a whole range of management problems of that kind. So much so that on June 9 on CBC radio, even the head of the provincial wildlife branch identified the major problem as being no overall land use plan, which brings me to the ombudsman's report No. 15 of December 1988, entitled "Aquaculture and the Administration of Coastal Resources in British Columbia." The ombudsman's report recommended, among many other things, "the development of a framework for integrated management of coastal resources, incorporating public participation in long-range multi-party and intergovernmental planning" including local, regional and provincial.

"The Wilderness Mosaic, " the report of the Wilderness Advisory Committee given to government in March 1986, identified what they described as emerging deficiencies." They talk about "the strains" during the past decade that have begun "to appear in the decision-making process relating to protected areas in general and natural areas in particular."

They arise from (1) the lack of a policy on wilderness.... And here I am talking specifically about shoreline wilderness areas.

The Wilderness Advisory Committee defined "deficiencies in mechanisms for dealing expeditiously with interagency conflicts, " which anyone who represents the kind of riding I do deals with every day — this incredible conflict between agencies, with no coordinating agency of any kind. The Wilderness Advisory Committee defined the need for master plans and strategies. They said that "the difficulties in addressing many of these issues arise from the lack of publicly available systems plans and master plans for parks and protected areas, and from the absence of an overall land use strategy." That really goes to the heart of the concerns I have.

They say that "government must recognize that effective resource planning and development are predicated on the design of coherent regional plans, and the lack of them therefore demands attention." The wilderness committee agreed with Peter Pearse's conclusion that "in the absence of systems plans and overall land use strategies, decision-making and policy-making are inevitably ad hoc." And if anything is ad hoc, it is certainly the decision-making concerning the shoreline management in our area.

There are aquaculture leases now being granted in the Nootka study area on the west coast of Vancouver Island. There is a study of aquaculture is going on in that area, but there is no study of land use and shoreline use in general. The UFAWIJ, in their letter to the minister, said that "rather than study the Nootka Sound area in a piecemeal fashion, we believe you should study the entire area as an integral ecosystem." I certainly endorse that sentiment.

Gillespie's report, "An Inquiry into Finfish Aquaculture in B.C., " given to government in December 1986, again identified on page 24 land — and resource user conflict issues. In recommendation 3.5.1 — "The Need for Coastal Planning Studies" — he says:

"A consistent comment during the inquiry was the need for coastal planning studies. This comment was made by all affected groups, including recreational boaters, commercial fishermen and government agencies. Groups showed maps...and offered to participate in planning.... Some desired planning for the entire coastline, while others preferred to work on specific priority areas."

Again and again, through every avenue that people have to express their concern about shoreline management, they are expressing these kinds of concerns about the lack of planning, the lack of a proper process.

He recommends a series of things:

"The provincial government should initiate a program of coastal resource identification studies for use in directing aquaculture applications away from major resource and user conflict areas. The importance of multiple use of coastal waters and the diversity of resource users must be acknowledged.... Planning studies are urgently required to minimize this uncertainty among competing site users.... The most appropriate course of action at this time is to initiate studies that will identify sites of high value for other important coastal interests and which should be reserved from aquacultural activities."

Cabinet adopted this report in principle, but again, nothing has really happened. In the Gillespie report itself it was difficult for him to make the full range of recommendations that needed to be made, simply because the question of alienation of foreshore and the adjacent uplands was not really part of the terms of reference.

I have, since representing North Island, come to recognize that shoreline management is probably the single biggest issue that affects people in my constituency, if you take issues in their broad application. Obviously questions of forestry and other areas are a big concern, but if you were to identify the biggest issue which concerns the greatest number of people, it would be shoreline management and the lack of proper integrated planning in respect of that shoreline management.

As a result of becoming aware of the seriousness of the issue and the depth of public concern about it, I have done some checking to see what we have or have not done in B.C. and what others have done in respect of these issues, and it's interesting going through the history of this issue.

Jim Gorst, who many of us know operates a bus line in Victoria, was the MLA for Esquimalt back in the early seventies. He made a speech in this House in February 1973, which I think is the finest speech ever made on the subject of shoreline management. Among the many good things in his speech was this quote: "This magnificent coastline, a very special area biologically, is one of those that profoundly reacts to the impact of human activities upon it. In British Columbia, the coasts, splendid as they may be, have suffered great abuse due solely to the helter-skelter development which has occurred with no overall

[ Page 7931 ]

consideration being given to the rational planning and management of this resource. We here in this province have allowed our coastal lands to be alienated and despoiled, often on the blind excuse that such actions were required for the expedient progress of free enterprise." He urged then — this is back in 1973 — that we protect our coastline through legislation, as Washington State had developed.

It's interesting that in this speech 16 years ago or more Jim Gorst also talked about his fears of oil contamination and suggested that Canada pass legislation specifying that any party guilty of spilling amounts of oil would suffer severely in paying fines and cleanup compensation. The guy was ahead of his time in that speech, and it's unfortunate that we haven't listened to him.

When I look through the history of this issue, in 1973 the Select Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries, an all-party committee, looked into stream bank and shoreline protection and concluded that a land inventory was necessary. In May '74 and again in February '75, Harold Steves, the MLA for Richmond, introduced a private member's bill entitled British Columbia Coastal Zone Commission Act. The issues that I'm raising aren't new; they've been around for a long time. Not much has been done, and that's the reason I'm raising them again.

Harold Steves's bill was largely based on coastal zone legislation already in existence even then in the United States, where coastal legislation was introduced in some states in 1972. 1 won't go into his bill any further other than to say that he withdrew his proposed private member's bill as a result of a promise from the government of the day that these issues would be dealt with through the Environment and Land Use Committee, the secretariat and various subcommittees of the ELUC in terms of finding a way to try to protect the shorelines of this province.

After the government changed in late '75-early '76, the resource management committees of ELUC continued their work. The coastal zone resource subcommittee — an actual subcommittee of the ELUC structure — reported in May 1977 to the B.C. land resources steering committee in a document entitled "The Management of Coastal Resources in B.C." Volume 1 was produced in draft form and never published, and was entitled "The State of the Art." There was a very comprehensive and detailed study of what needed to be done to look at coastal zone management. It was never adopted as government policy; it was an internal document which is still available to the minister and his staff, and I urge them to have a look at it.

[11:00]

The ombudsman says in report 15, which I referred to earlier that this is a valuable source document for anyone seeking to develop an appropriate system for the management of coastal resources in this province. That's the coastal zone resource subcommittee report of May 1977, which I urge be given special attention by the minister and his staff.

They recommended among other things that a full-time intergovernmental agency mechanism should be established to perform coordinative, advisory, information, assessment and identification functions regarding coastal management programs, strategies and initiatives, a major function being to develop and implement an integrated coastal resource management program, beginning with the preparation of a coastal resource atlas and a biophysical inventory program for the coastal zone." This is 1977, and 12 years later we still have yet to begin this work. They recommend that local governments should be assisted with application guidelines for biophysical and socioeconomic data, with technical expertise for the zoning and development control process, as necessary; third, that coastal resource management plans which designate the uses of land and water resources should be developed; fourth, that the public should have opportunities to participate in coastal resource use decisions. Those are some of the recommendations.

Then in 1983, one of the many unfortunate effects of the restraint program was the abolition of these resource management committees and the technical planning committee of ELUC. As a result, since '83 we've had no central body setting priorities, no effective comprehensive interministerial planning and no mechanism for coordinating planning at all.

Back in the ombudsman's report, he talks about the gold-rush mentality of aquaculture and the phenomenal number of complaints made to him by residents affected by this boom. The report, as I said earlier, called for an integrated management of coastal resource activities, and the consensual resolution of related public interest disputes — all very basic common-sense recommendations. He recommended that a framework should be established for coastal zone management, with appropriate enabling legislation to allow administrative fairness in terms of developing planning, resource allocation and management. I won't go through all of the recommendations of the report — I've alluded to many of them — just in respect of the amount of time I'm taking with this. I would urge the Minister of Lands to take special note of report No. 15 from the ombudsman and try to find a way of revising and revitalizing these integrated resource management functions of government.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, other jurisdictions have done this. The state of Washington has a Shoreline Management Act, 1971, and of course the federal government has its Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972; Alaska has its Alaska Coastal Management Act; Oregon has an Oregon coastal management program that was developed in the sixties because of the rapid growth in Oregon. And Norway has coastal zone management schemes very similar to those of Washington and Alaska. And on and on; other countries have done this.

Increasingly at the local level people are beginning to develop shoreline management strategies for their own areas. I cite Cortes Island, which has, through the regional government, now developed a zoning program, as is being developed in the area J of Comox-Strathcona, which is the Evergreen Islands —

[ Page 7932 ]

I'm nearly finished, Mr. Chairman — Quadra, Reid, Maurelle and other outer islands. You can do that where you have groups of residents who are prepared to help zone their own islands, but this doesn't deal with the overall integrated needs that exist along the entire coast.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my time is up, but I would commend some of these comments and these issues to the minister in the hope that we will in British Columbia be able to do the kind of proper coastal zone management and shoreline protection.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I thank the member for those words. Basically, I think that we are in agreement with what he is suggesting — certainly the majority of it. We do have a big task, though, because we do have literally thousands of miles of coastline. But we are moving in the direction that he is desiring. Certainly the mapping that we are doing now, the information that we are gaining in that way is a very important tool towards any type of planning.

We do have a coastal resources planning, which does involve Crown Lands, Environment, Forests, the federal government, local government agencies and Municipal Affairs. This gives us a broad snapshot of the problem; and then we zero in on specific studies, to look at problem areas. An example of this would be the Gillespie study in aquaculture, and the CRI studies. Contrary to what the member has said, while the CRIs — coastal resource identification studies — are driven by aquaculture, they certainly take in more than that. While they're looking at the total area, they look at such things as log booms, moorage, recreational facilities or recreational uses of the area. We are working very closely with the other agencies that are involved. Certainly more effort is needed, and we're looking at ways in which we can expend more effort in that very important area. But we do have literally thousands of reserves that are already established. You mentioned boat moorage. We have a number of boat moorages that have been established along the coastline. But I appreciate those comments, and we're certainly working in the direction that you indicate.

MS. MARZARI: I would like to talk to the member in his role as Minister of State for Kootenay. I am interested in trying to ascertain the role that the ministers of state play vis-à-vis the economic development of the communities they serve. I have asked the Minister of State for Vancouver Island (Hon. Mr. Huberts) a few questions, and I'd like to bring those questions up again with the Minister of State for Kootenay.

My first question has to do with the special programs on economic development that the government has in place. These are special programs which deal with low-interest loans for high-risk ventures. This has to do with venture capital programs which the government has put in place. This has to do with outright grants which are given, in terms of cash grants or in terms of tax expenditures which are granted to corporations and businesses starting up.

To what extent does the minister get involved with these individual programs as business people throughout the community that he serves come to him to ask for assistance?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I'm pleased that you did ask that, because basically what I do is take that information to the Minister of Regional Development (Hon. Mr. Veitch), who administers those various programs.

MS. MARZARI: Is the minister, then, saying that he is not directly responsible for nor has a working knowledge of those very specific programs of which I've spoken?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I think there are a number of programs that are administered through this government and to know them all would be certainly very difficult. The important thing is that you know where to go to access those programs, and when you do take something in, that it is being attended to.

MS. MARZARI: To pursue it somewhat, if the minister does not have a working knowledge of those programs nor does his immediate staff have a hands on appreciation of what those individual programs have to offer for the people who are coming to you, in what way are you a minister of state? If in fact you are out there collecting proposals from business people to bring them to the central ministry of economic development — to the minister of state for regional development, or whatever he is called — what is to prevent those businesses and companies from going directly to that person rather than to you? I'm asking what paraphernalia, what administrative machinery, what hands-on tools you have with which to face the job that you have as minister of state when you're dealing with the disbursements of moneys from the economic development portfolio.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Well, I guess one of the key tools of minister of state — and something maybe the opposition doesn't understand the use of — is a set of ears, because one of the main functions of a minister of state is to listen and then to take that information where it can be acted upon. But the primary need is to listen. If you ask what is to prevent someone from going directly to the Minister of Regional Development, nothing whatsoever. I'm simply there to facilitate, to help. If someone is having a problem getting through, perhaps I can help.

MS. MARZARI: So then in your listening role — and the minister for the Islands talked about it as being a teamwork role — you can or do not claim to have any real working knowledge of the individual economic development programs that you are there to implement. In other words, you bring those businesses, those business pro formas and those business plans back to the minister of economic development and put them into the general pot for the minister of economic development to then sort out and take back

[ Page 7933 ]

to you, and you carry them back to the community as a messenger.

HON. MR. DIRKS: No, I think the hon. member is totally confused about what ministers of state do and what our function is. I think she's leading and trying to get down this little path where she'd like to find out whether I sign a contract and how big the contract is. Forget it. Basically I'm very interested in listening to the community and certainly in assisting any venture that wants to establish in an area, taking the information forward that they give me to where it can be acted upon by government — not only Regional Development but any other line ministry.

MS. MARZARI: So then in your lobbying capacity, how many minutes or hours do you get to spend with the minister of economic development on your own in an average month, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. DIRKS: How many angels dance on the head of a pin?

MS. MARZARI: No, I'm asking a technical question. You are a minister of state; you are a minister You carry the concept of decentralization — your definition, your word — into the region. What you are describing to me in your role as minister is a very centralized role, one in which you listen carefully and in which you bring the business projections, the proposals and the pro formas back to the senior minister, the economic development minister, and then you spend time with that minister and give him your best opinion about what you've heard. Do you do this alone with the minister so that you feel that you are in fact being listened to? Or do you do this with all your fellow ministers of state in sort of a grand concert of local-need resolution? I really do mean it. How many minutes or hours do you spend alone with the minister for economic development, going over loan proposals?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Well, I really don't count the minutes or count the hours. I think the member is zeroing in on proposals and what not. Virtually, when I'm talking about listening and taking information from that area, listening to local input, I'm talking about the wide spectrum, not simply business proposals. If business proposals were the only thing that I brought forward or that we worked on, then there wouldn't be that much time spent on it.

[11:15]

MS. MARZARI: If he was spending substantive numbers of hours with the minister of economic development, he would be proud of it and telling the House that he was in fact spending time with the minister who was devolving the funds. This is an interesting point, because I asked the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) who was responsible and where the buck stopped when we were dealing with — these economic development funds. When we were dealing with these giveaways, these tax expenditures, these low-interest loans, these venture capital loans, I asked the Minister of Finance where the buck stopped, because he would not claim that it stopped with him. At a certain level, I gather at the $500,000 level, everything devolves or is worked through by the ministers of state, he said. Now as I stand and talk to the ministers of state, I'm discovering that they don't have a working knowledge or a hands-on experience with these different programs — that it is only the minister of state for economic development and his staff who have that working knowledge.

You are claiming, however, that you listen and you take money back to your community I would ask you and I am asking down that line of reasoning: do you sign contracts? Are you a real minister, Mr. Minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman — the real minister.

I would appreciate that you wouldn't put words in my mouth. I haven't said a lot of the things that you thought you heard I had said or you thought you would like to hear I had said, or whatever you thought. You say that I take back money. No, let's be realistic. It's very difficult to answer these nonsensical questions that you seem to be posing.

MS. MARZARI: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, these are not nonsensical questions, and I would ask the member to withdraw that comment. These are questions trying to get at the root of what a minister of state actually does in the day-to-day business of being a minister and being paid a minister's salary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm positive that the minister, in the interests of the debate, is quite prepared to have it continue in the same way as it has up to now. Would the member like to repeat her questions?

MS. MARZARI: I would like a withdrawal from the minister in question, who was casting aspersions on my line of questioning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure the minister would withdraw that.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I hate to offend the Chair, Mr. Chairman, but I really think the word "nonsensical" is a very parliamentary, accepted term. It's an opinion that is expressed. They often express opinions. We certainly don't get all in a huff about that. So I really have difficulty withdrawing a word like "nonsensical."

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not unparliamentary, Mr. Minister, I would agree wholeheartedly; but I guess it does impugn the member's integrity and her question, so if you wouldn't mind....

[ Page 7934 ]

MR. BARNES: You don't have to be condescending. Just withdraw.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Okay, Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw that if it hurts your feelings. Certainly.

MS. MARZARI: Does the minister sign contracts?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Yes.

MS. MARZARI: Could the minister tell me what size the contracts are that he signs? Does he sign economic development contracts that involve loans, grants and tax expenditures to corporations?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Basically, some of the contracts are in excess of $1 million.

MS. MARZARI: Are these contracts which are in fact venture capital loans? Are they tax expenditure contracts? Are they special grants to corporations in your community? And are you the sole signatory for the government?

HON. MR. DIRKS: They're contracts for services.

MS. MARZARI: So the minister is capable of signing contracts for service, say from Highways, or different services that have been contracted out. Is the minister capable of signing — do you have the power to sign — contracts which involve economic development dollars, venture capital funds, low-interest loans, reductions on water rates, etc., to corporations?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I did not say anything about highways contracts, member. Certainly I said earlier that the LILA loans and this type of thing were administered by the Minister of Regional Development.

MS. MARZARI: The minister's region was very controversial. The whole privatization business around highways caused great concern. I have a rather lengthy transcript of one of your debates with some of the workers there. Do you sign the highways contracts?

HON. MR. DIRKS: The privatization was controversial in your mind perhaps, but it certainly wasn't in my constituency, where 72 percent of the respondents to a questionnaire said the highways maintenance last year was better than or as good as before.

On the other matter: no, I don't sip highway contracts. Those are signed by the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant).

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't sign all the contracts.

HON. MR. DIRKS: He doesn't either?

MS. MARZARI: I beg to differ with you. I have the transcripts of a meeting held between you and Highways employees on January 6, 1988, which suggests to me that you didn't have consensus among the Highways workers in your region. That's beside the point at this juncture.

You do not sign contracts with Highways, but you do sign contracts that have to do with contracting-out of services. Are these social services, Mr. Minister, since they are not highways services?

HON. MR. DIRKS: No, Madam Member. They are services that are conducted for Crown Lands, such as mapping and so on.

MS. MARZARI: Oh, then in your capacity as Minister of State for Kootenay you do not sign contracts; in your capacity as Minister of Crown Lands you do sign contracts. Are we getting closer to it now?

HON. MR. DIRKS: No, Madam Member. I do sign contracts as the minister of state as well.

MS. MARZARI: Would the minister be good enough to tell the House what areas these contracts are in, in your capacity as Minister of State for Kootenay?

HON. MR. DIRKS: They might be on studies, personal service contracts or that type of thing.

MS. MARZARI: Research studies to look at needs in the region perhaps, with individual contractors or companies that do research, social impact studies or economic development impact studies: these are the kinds of contracts you sign. Okay. Personal service contracts — those being jobs, probably the ones in your own office, because those are your direct employees. These personal service contracts then for the government, Mr. Minister, and for your ministry of state are for what areas?

HON. MR. DIRKS: They are for the minister of state function, such as drafting reports and this type of thing, but certainly not particular office staff.

MS. MARZARI: You are basically operating within the allotment granted you as Minister of State for Kootenay, and those are the contracts within that budget you are able to spend. That budget I believe is $890,000. What is your budget, Mr. Minister, as Minister of State for Kootenay?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Just for the Kootenay, I think it is.... I'm not sure of the figure. The two combined are $1.47 million; part of that would be for the Kootenay region.

MS. MARZARI: Moving on then, now that we can get a picture of where the buck stops in terms of economic development and what you are really authorized to spend as minister of state, I'd like to

[ Page 7935 ]

talk a little bit about a particular small problem in the Kootenays: the Langford Centre in Kaslo. It is a small community arts centre which features a very small non-profit gift store, an art gallery and a small theatre. It is a heritage building, beautifully situated in the middle of Kaslo, which was renovated, I gather, in the early seventies by a group of dedicated citizens with some federal and some provincial money. It is the community's pride, from what I can see, having visited it just a few months ago.

That centre is having difficulty right now simply staying open for the summer, which is a peak time for tourism, as you may know. Although it has some operating grants to tide it over during the winter months and to keep the program alive and well, and keep the art gallery and the theatre moving, it is literally facing closedown over the summer months. It is within your boundaries as minister of state, so it is within your boundaries, I would think, to coordinate some of the services that would assist in keeping this centre open.

As you know, Mr. Minister, I have written a letter to the Social Services and Housing ministry, hoping to see if we could pull some more money out of them to keep this place open. I've written to the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) to see whether or not there might be funding under Go B.C. I've written to the Heritage Trust, and I've written to you and a few others. I must say that it came to me as quite a surprise that of all the very sophisticated programs we have in this province — Go B.C., Heritage Trust, Social Services and Housing, and CEIC employment grants — the Langford building falls between all of the chairs and cannot find for itself a security net to keep two part-time people and to keep that facility open over the summer months.

I have written a letter to all of these people asking for coordination, including to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture (Hon. Mrs. Johnston), who supervises cultural grants. As of yet — this is a month and a half down the road — I have yet to find the person to go to who can release the perhaps $20,000 necessary to keep this tiny facility open in a community that wants it and needs it and where it would be good for the province to have it — at least for the tourists, if not for the community itself. Perhaps you, as Minister of State for Kootenay, might comment on the Langford Centre, since you have received my letter and in fact responded to it Could you tell me if somewhere in your budget there is room for a $20,000 grant to the Langford Centre?

HON. MR- DIRKS: First of all, I really appreciate these visiting firemen who come through an area, become the authority on what is going on in the area and then don't have enough knowledge of it to be able to even describe the centre very accurately. I listened very closely, and I will check Hansard later to make sure that I'm correct, but if my hearing didn't fail me, I think the member is talking about the Langham Centre, not the Langford Centre. She repeated it a number of times, and I think that's the fallacy of these visiting firemen. They come in, take a quick look, and then come back and dash off a bunch of letters.

Let me tell you, Madam Member, that I'm very aware of the Langham Centre — not Langford but Langham. It was remodelled in the late seventies, not the early seventies. A considerable amount of community work went into it. I have been watching it with very close attention. They do have some revenue-generating facilities in that building, and therefore, like most centres in the small regions — mind you, you wouldn't know about that, coming from a larger centre — they are having problems keeping their community halls and local little centres of activity operating.

Most centres are able to avail themselves of programs, and I think the Langham Centre could avail themselves of some programs if they were able to come up with their funding portion for the various programs. What I'm trying to do is see how we can, in effect, help them to realize their part of the various program funding situations available to them.

[11:30]

As to minister of state, I look at that as my MLA duties, because that is part of my Nelson-Creston riding. I would also point out to the member that I had a meeting with the mayor and council of the village of Kaslo approximately a week and a half ago. You certainly were at the Langham Centre and took at look at it; I don't know if you met with the mayor and council. The matter of the Langham Centre was not brought up by the mayor and council at that meeting. But that doesn't mean that I am not trying as the MLA for the area to find a solution to their problem, as I would for any other community centre. As to my minister-of-state function, that is a local area, that is a local problem, and therefore really the minister-of-state function for a region.... We try and look at things on a regional basis, and certainly that would not qualify for any funding under minister of state.

MS. MARZARI: My apologies to the minister for calling it the Langford Centre. It is the Langham Centre, quite obviously.

I know how it feels to be a visiting firefighter in a community, since I'm sure that many of the ministers of state feel the same way when they go visiting their respective territories. I know it must be rather disconcerting to have to deal not only with your riding considerations but also your whole ministry territory. The feeling of being a visiting firefighter is something that I know I share with the minister as you deal with your responsibilities.

I would like to pursue the Langham Centre, because I don't see it just as an isolated instance. I see there are a great number of facilities throughout the region that are not receiving small seed money. We're not talking about massive dollars, massive subsidies, massive tax expenditures, hydro forgiveness. We're not talking about high venture capital loans. We're not talking about big grants that make big dollars and create hundreds of jobs. We're talking about the cultural industry, which, when it is allowed to flour-

[ Page 7936 ]

ish and grow with local input and local volunteer and professional effort, can have a spinoff impact on a region and on a community to actually create tourism and bring in the tourist dollars that do create jobs in the long run and actually do create interest in a community.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

I would ask the minister, who before said that he does sign some contracts and does coordinate some functions, not necessarily just in the economic development line, to expound a little on what the other areas you do deal with, obviously not just with the large corporations or the small businesses. You must also deal, I am sure, with Social Services and perhaps with cultural services. Have you, for your region, tried to define a tourism or a cultural program that will, in fact, economically benefit your region?

HON. MR. DIRKS: We have a tourism study going on at the present time for the Kootenay region.

MS. MARZARI: In that plan, are small centres such as the Langham Centre included, and is their functioning and continued functioning a natural or an organic part of the overall package?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I said that a study was underway. A tourism task force is in place, and they may well discuss the matter of the Langham Centre or other centres like that in the region, but it will depend on local input and will be taken to the task force for recommendations. It's an ongoing process, so it may well come from the Langham Centre. They may make a presentation to the tourism task force and from there go to the advisory council and so on.

MS. MARZARI: You're saying that you are watching the Langham Centre and that you are going to do your best to see that they get funding from somewhere, although you as minister of state for the region, even though you've got an ongoing study and surveys and reports coming back, don't feel that you can intervene with some funding from your ministry to assist in the simple business of keeping this centre open over the summer months. Is that what you are saying?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Well, comme ci, comme ça — partly right, and partly wrong. I would repeat that as a minister of state there is no funding in this function for the Langham Centre. I will repeat, though, that as the MLA for Nelson-Creston — in that role and that hat — I will certainly seek what kind of assistance can be available to the Langham Centre to ensure that it is open.

MR. KEMPF: I listened very closely to the debate that has gone on this morning, and it raises some questions in my mind as well, and in listening I don't think the minister really answered. I'm interested in this ministry of state business. I don't think the minister answered the question of what contracts he signs. The minister said he signs contracts. What contracts has he signed since becoming Minister of State for Thompson-Okanagan and Kootenay, and what were the dollar figures of these contracts? I think it's only right, the subject of contracts having been brought up and the minister saying yes, that he signed contracts, that he tell this House what contracts he does sign, what contracts he has signed, and for what dollar value these contracts were. I'll give staff a little time to find the answers to that.

This brings up a lot of other questions with respect to the minister's responsibility as the Minister of State for Thompson-Okanagan. In the estimates he has a budget of nearly $1.5 million for offices or whatever in that particular state. I guess the question that arises in my mind as well and that I'd like to ask the minister this morning is what that $1.47 million is spent on in his state. I want to compare that to the minister responsible for the state in which my constituency lies. I think it's incumbent upon this minister to tell this House what it is he's spending $1.47 million of the taxpayers' money on in this fiscal year. Perhaps that will give me some idea of what kind of questions to ask his colleague the Minister of State for Nechako and Northeast (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber).

HON. MR. DIRKS: Yesterday the member for Omineca said something about becoming a raving socialist. I'm rather interested to hear him carry on with their line and parody their questions.

Let me give you some examples of contracts that were signed in the Kootenay region last year. One was a feasibility study for a tourist-oriented streetcar system in Nelson; another was business opportunities and infrastructure requirements; another was to provide occasional secretarial support to a regional development officer; another was to produce camera-ready advertisements and coordinate ad placements; and another was a snow-based recreational opportunity study. They vary as to their range and what was done.

Another was a study of the East Kootenay ranching and wildlife conflict. The study we did on the agricultural land reserve was another one that we hired a consulting firm to help us with. We also helped fund one on regional health care programs with the Ministry of Health and the regional districts. The contracts vary.

As far as the expenditure of that $1.47 million is concerned, that is for the Thompson-Okanagan and Kootenay regions combined. I would say that salaries and benefits of staff make up approximately one quarter of that, when you take into consideration the two regional development liaison officers in Victoria and the support staff required for them. Professional services would take up a little better than a quarter of that, and the professional services would be the various contracts we might sign for studies and so on.

I would say one other big item there is publications and advertising — letting people know when our task forces are meeting, where they're meeting

[ Page 7937 ]

and the results of those meetings. That would take up about one-fourteenth of that budget. The B.C. business network that we're installing is taking up a bit of the money as well.

It's a wide variety of expenditures, but it's basically involved in people — the people we have employed who are moving throughout the region, and having these task forces meet, getting input from the task forces and putting that into a meaningful context and transmitting it to the various line ministries involved.

MR. KEMPF: We're starting to get some answers, and that's good. But I'm amused at the minister's statement that my very quiet and subdued questions this morning were socialist questions. I think the members opposite have that word "socialist" on the brain. Everything, in their eyes, is socialist. Asking where tax money — money taken from the taxpayer of British Columbia — is going to be spent can hardly, in my mind, be considered socialist questions. However, I leave that to the members opposite.

The minister only answered half of my question, though. I asked the question on behalf of the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) about which contracts the minister signed. I also asked the dollar values of those contracts and didn't get that part of the answer. Perhaps the minister would be so good as to provide that for me.

[11:45]

In talking about staff, the minister brought up another question that perhaps it would be interesting for the members of this House to know. How much staff? How many individuals are we talking about as far as staff is concerned in these two particular offices that you're spending $1.47 million of the taxpayers' money on? What is the staff? How many are we talking about?

While we're on the question of the regional development liaison officer, how much is that individual paid per annum? What sort of expense account in the state of Thompson-Okanagan and Kootenay does the regional development liaison officer have? While you're on that particular subject, is that individual provided with a vehicle? What expenses are provided for the operation of that vehicle in a particular fiscal year — let's say in this fiscal year?

HON. MR. DIRKS: We have two RDOs, two RDLOs, and three secretaries in support; they are public servants and they are governed by the same rules as govern the rest of the public service.

MR. KEMPF: But wait. The Minister of State for Nechako and Northeast is going to give you a little note as to what his economic development liaison officer is paid, so that you can get together on this.

But you didn't answer that question: what do you pay the regional development liaison officer in the state of Thompson-Okanagan and Kootenay, and how much of an expense account is that individual provided with? Is that individual provided with a vehicle? If so, what expenses are paid in a fiscal year respecting that vehicle operation?

I think all these questions — socialist or not — are the very key to the operation of your ministry of state, Mr. Minister, and I really think that members of the House should know the answers to them.

MR. PERRY: I'd just like to change the subject briefly and ask the minister in his capacity as Minister of Crown Lands some questions about a subject we visited here several times and I expect we'll visit more often again, which is the future of the Jericho Hill School lands in Vancouver; provincial Crown lands for which the minister has jurisdiction and may have jurisdiction in a more controversial aspect in future.

The first member for Vancouver-Point Grey and I and many others are concerned about the future of those lands, because we know that, as I've said before, the Ministry of Education is considering for legitimate and genuine reasons the removal of the Jericho Hill School to another site in Burnaby. We therefore know that the lands will become vacant, and my understanding is that the transfer may occur in the year 1991.

We also know — it's common knowledge — that the city of Vancouver faces a housing crisis and that at this very moment as we speak some 12 buildings in the neighbourhood of Kerrisdale have received at least conditional demolition approvals, and some 1,000 elderly residents are facing evictions. Some of those people, I learned last weekend, are as old as over 100 years of age, and are in buildings that may be demolished in the near future — buildings that are in perfectly good condition, by the way. I have visited them, and I have seen the condition.

I think the public expects that people of that age or who are longtime residents of the neighbourhood should not simply become economic refugees and are looking for solutions to meet the housing needs of those people if the buildings in which they live are demolished.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If I can interrupt the member for a moment to remind him that this particular minister's estimates are not the appropriate ministry to canvass housing problems. While the Jericho land may or may not be the responsibility of this ministry, once we get on to housing requirements in Vancouver and other things, they would be much better placed under the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond). So if I could ask the member to make his debate a little more relevant.

MR. PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I've completed the preamble, which was to point out the potential need for the Jericho Hill lands to provide some of the solutions to the housing problems in Vancouver.

Clearly a debate is raging in British Columbia over the proper disposition of Crown-owned lands. The government has taken the position heretofore that, as a matter of principle, Crown-owned lands should be

[ Page 7938 ]

divested from the Crown — which has held them for 118 years now in British Columbia — and brought into the private sector. My colleague the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey and I have taken the opposite position: that Crown lands, in particular the Jericho lands, ought to remain in public hands so that the public and its instruments — the municipal and provincial governments — can best determine how to use those lands to meet the most pressing needs of people in Vancouver.

I'd like to ask the minister what his views are on these particular Jericho lands. Does he have plans to privatize them? If so, will the Legislature know about it before the privatization is accomplished? Will there be a public tender process or will we see the same process that was faced recently with the Expo lands and the Westwood lands, where there has been great controversy over whether the province received fair value for the land? When does he see a decision being made? Will the decision be made before the Jericho Hill School is removed, or can we expect that a decision on the disposition of the Jericho lands will be delayed until the school is moved, which effectively will probably be after the next provincial election? That was about five questions. I don't know, Mr. Chairman, if the minister would like me to reiterate them separately. I'm not sure if I can remember them all myself.

HON. MR. DIRKS: It's okay. It's not necessary to remember them, because basically, if you're talking about the Jericho lands, to my knowledge, they have not been transferred to Crown Lands yet. They are still under the Solicitor-General or the Attorney-General's office — I'm not sure which — so it would be better canvassed under one of those two ministries rather than under Crown Lands.

MR. PERRY: Maybe I can just explore that; it's quite an important point. If I'm misinformed or mistaken on the ownership, I'd like to have the facts on the record clearly, so that not only I but the general public know the status. Could the minister explain to me the present status of the lands between 8th Avenue and 4th Avenue in Vancouver, and between the Department of National Defence lands on the east and Trimble Park and Queen Mary Elementary School on the west, which is what I refer to as the Jericho Hill School lands or the Jericho lands? Are those in fact not the property of the Crown at the moment?

HON. MR. DIRKS: We'll certainly look it up to verify that we are correct, but it's my understanding that they still are under the control of the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General and have not been transferred to Crown Lands.

MR. PERRY: I see. I guess it's a point of semantics. The land is owned by the Crown but is not under the jurisdiction of this ministry. Is that the point he's making, Mr. Chairman?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Although the property may well be owned — and I'm sure it is owned — by the Crown, we do have agreements whereby we transfer the administration and control of certain parks and properties that are owned by the Crown to the various ministries and are controlled by those ministries until they no longer find a use for them, and then they end up being transferred back to Crown Lands for disposition.

MR. PERRY: I'd just like, then, to ask the minister if he could clarify for me what process will be followed or would he expect to be followed in the event the school is transferred and the justice Institute presumably relocated so that a new use inevitably will be sought for those lands. What process will be followed in the disposition of the land?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I'd really like to help the member out, but I certainly don't want to speculate what process would be in place at the time — should that time arrive when they are transferred. I don't know; we are talking about something that's very hypothetical at this point in time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the minister suggesting this is future policy?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Very correct. I thank you for that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It would be of assistance to the Chair if the members of the executive council would acquaint themselves with the proper terminology for debate in the House.

MR. PERRY: I'd just like to clarify that point and make sure I've understood correctly. Can the minister confirm that the cabinet has not discussed the disposition of the Jericho lands?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister has just advised the committee that that's future policy, but the Chair recognizes the minister.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I will neither confirm nor deny. Basically I can't say what goes on in cabinet.

MR. PERRY: I want to be fairly precise in exploring this question. I think it's quite important, because I've asked similar questions of various ministers — the Minister of Government Management Services (Hon. Mr. Michael) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) — at different points in the estimates and the question period. I am trying to determine on behalf of the public whether or not this minister and his ministry and the government have entertained proposals or considered a possible sale to the private market of the Jericho lands. I saw him shaking his head. He then rose to say that he would neither confirm nor deny. I can only take that as an indication that in fact the cabinet is considering the privatization of the Jericho lands, particularly in

[ Page 7939 ]

terms of what we, the elected representatives of that riding, hear from real estate developers.

I would ask the minister one more time whether he would like to reassure us that the cabinet or his ministry do not have plans at the moment to privatize the lands. Otherwise, I can only conclude from what he said that he is in fact proceeding with the privatization of the Jericho lands.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I'm sure the member opposite will make his own conclusions and his own assumptions based on whatever he generally makes his assumptions and conclusions on. I certainly would not indicate that it would arise from anything said in this chamber.

MR. PERRY: In my former life I was used to attempting to make decisions and conclusions based on facts. What I would simply like is a straightforward answer from the minister, because this is an issue of major public importance. I think it would not be an exaggeration to say that the community which I represent would be alarmed if they were to learn that the minister or the government intends to privatize the Jericho lands without any public input into what the future of those lands should be. I'd like to ask him again very simply, very clearly: has the government decided to privatize the Jericho lands?

HON. MR. DIRKS: The member opposite really wants to keep talking about future policy. I think we've got to leave it at that. I would move the committee rise and report progress.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Weisgerber moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12 noon.