[ Page 1817 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

LRB denial of vote to Cominco employees. Mr. Chabot — 1817

Funds for development of artificial kidney. Mr. Wallace — 1817

T-4 slips for MLAs. Mr. Richter — 1817

Prosecutions under Consumer Protection Act. Mr. Brousson — 1817

Restrictions on supplying of packaged milk. Mrs. Jordan — 1817

Duties of V.J. Parker. Mr. McClelland — 1818

Discrimination against female civil servants. Mr. Williams — 1818

Administration of Green Belt Protection Fund. Mr. Phillips — 1818

B.C. Hydro interim report. Mr. McGeer — 1819

Cattle grazing at high altitudes. Mr. Fraser — 1819

Restrictions on shipping of packaged milk. Mrs. Jordan — 1819

Committee of supply: Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources estimates.

Mr. McClelland — 1820

Mr. Smith — 1826

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1827

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1828

Mr. Brousson — 1830

Mr. Fraser — 1834

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1836

Mrs. Jordan — 1838

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1844

Mrs. Jordan — 1846

Mr. McGeer — 1848

Land Commission Act (Bill No. 42). Amendments.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 1850

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 1973

The House met at 2:15 p.m.; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Introduction of bills.

Oral questions.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

LRB DENIAL OF VOTE TO
COMINCO EMPLOYEES

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A question to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker: will the Minister examine the decision of the Labour Relations Board which has denied the employees of Cominco a representative vote?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I have received a copy of the reasons for the adjudication which the Labour Relations Board made in respect to the certification application by the Canadian Workers Union in Trail. I have it under study at the moment. I presume that answers the Member's questions.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: has the Minister of Labour heard from the CCU on this question and, if so, has he given a reply to them?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have received a number of telegrams today regarding this matter. At this point I haven't replied to any of them. They just came in this morning.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

FUNDS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF
ARTIFICIAL KIDNEY

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Industrial Trade and Commerce: in light of the fact that here in British Columbia one of our Canadian medical teams has perfected a much improved artificial kidney and is having great difficulty finding anyone who will finance the marketing of this improved kidney — they are talking about going to the States to gain financial backing and marketing arrangements — could the Minister comment on whether he will take any action? We take a lot of credit in B.C. for what these doctors have done.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): Well, Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Member raised this subject. I wish he would give me a little memorandum on it so that I may refer it to the department. It may be that they have already received some request which hasn't come to my attention. If not, I would like that kind of thing to be thoroughly investigated, because it is the kind of scientific secondary manufacturing that wherever possible we should encourage in the province.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen.

T4 SLIPS FOR MLAs

MR. FX RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Provincial Secretary: when will the Members of the Legislature be receiving their T-4 slips for income tax purposes covering the spring session and the fall session of 1972?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): I'll take that as notice for the Speaker, if I may, Mr. Member. I take my advice from the Speaker and perhaps will be in a position to tell you. I'll certainly look into it with the Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

PROSECUTIONS UNDER
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, a question for the Hon. Attorney General: have there been any prosecutions and, if so, how many under the Consumer Protection Act?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll have to take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Member for North Okanagan have a question?

RESTRICTIONS ON SHIPPING
OF PACKAGED MILK

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Minister of Agriculture: has the Minister himself looked into or has he instructed any of his staff to look into the matter of restricting of shipping of packaged milk in the

[ Page 1818 ]

Province of British Columbia?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, one item of legislation that is being considered would be dealing with that problem but whether we will be able to bring that in, in this session, I am not sure at this time.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary: would the Minister of Agriculture be prepared at a future date to elaborate on what he has in mind?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think he needs to answer that one, in that form.

MRS. JORDAN: I would just be asking him to take it as notice.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Acting Minister of Health, if I may.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think the practice should be followed of asking other Ministers to deal with the department not under their direct administration. This question period is to ask the Minister responsible.

MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this matter has come up in this House three times. On one occasion it was myself; on two other occasions you allowed the questions to be directed to the Acting Ministers. When I asked the same privilege you refused. I'm trying to ask it again.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm trying to create some order in this matter and I don't think it is a proper practice to ask other Ministers questions not to do with their portfolio. If it happened twice because two Ministers stood up and answered, really I can't take all the blame.

MR. McCLELLAND: I would just like some clarification, with your leave, of course, Mr. Speaker. I just felt that I wanted to ask the question because it is a matter of some urgency to my constituency.

MR. SPEAKER: I would suggest you withhold your question until the Minister is in the House.

DUTIES OF V.J. PARKER

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question then to the Minister of Municipal Affairs — another question. I would like to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs whether Mr. Victor J. Parker, who was the director of transit in your department, has been loaned to any other department since his time of employment.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): No, he is working in my department and is responsible to me.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
FEMALE CIVIL SERVANTS

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Hon. Provincial Secretary: is the Hon. Provincial Secretary aware that women employees in the civil service are being discriminated against and that they must provide birth and marriage certificates, while this is not a requirement of male employees? Is it the intention of the Minister to have this practice discontinued?

HON. MR. HALL: I'm not aware of that, Mr. Member, and I would be pleased if you would send that material to me. I simply say that the policy of the Government is to do away with every single case of differentiation we can find. We have already done away with a lot; we are still finding a lot. We need the encouragement and the assistance of every Member in the House in finding out those things over a multitude of statutes.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: A different subject or the same subject?

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): A point of information, Mr. Speaker. I also received the letter concerning this discrimination against women. I investigated it and found that it wasn't a case of discrimination in the civil service. The reason that the question…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member may be giving us valuable information but unfortunately she is out of order.

MS. BROWN: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. Can I reply to that question?

MR. SPEAKER: I'm afraid not. The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

ADMINISTRATION OF
GREEN BELT PROTECTION FUND

[ Page 1819 ]

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer a question to the Hon. Premier with regard to the Green Belt Protection Fund Act. Would the Premier advise me as to what cabinet Minister is in charge of this fund and who the officials are?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): As I said in the budget speech, the whole matter of funds is under review. I would take your question as notice.

MR. PHILLIPS: At the present time, Mr. Premier, can applications be directed to anybody? Are applications not being received? If they can be directed to somebody, to whom should they be directed?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams).

MR. PHILLIPS: Is there money left in the fund and will applications just run up into a blank wall or are they going to be seriously…?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, there is money in the fund and the provincial revenues have never been better in the history of this province.

MR. PHILLIPS: Then applications, Mr. Premier, are going to be seriously considered.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Then the Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary on the same subject to the Premier: could the Premier tell the House whether any money has in fact been spent from the fund this year?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, if you put the question on the order paper, I will give you the details.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's on the order paper.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, it is not. I have answered every one of the questions asked of the finance department. And I will continue to do so.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

B.C. HYDRO INTERIM REPORT

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier if he has had an opportunity to study the interim report of the B.C. Hydro brought by the Comptroller General and whether he would be prepared to table that in the House?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have not had the opportunity to study it, Mr. Member — I have been too busy here in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

CATTLE GRAZING
AT HIGH ALTITUDES

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Thank you, Mr. speaker. I have a question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Were there recently representations made to the Government to eliminate cattle grazing from higher elevations?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): We have many representations with respect to cattle and higher elevations from various parts of the province and with respect to watersheds. We are reviewing all of them, and have amended some policies in relation to those problems.

MR. FRASER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. What elevation will be the line of demarcation and will grazing rights above that elevation be revoked?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I am afraid it is not as simple as that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

EROSION OF
CLIFFS AT POINT GREY

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): To the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources: have you yet received the report from the expert you hired re the erosive problem in the Point Grey cliffs and, if so, will you table it?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The report has been received, Mr. Speaker, but I haven't yet seen it myself.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

RESTRICTIONS ON SHIPPING
OF PACKAGED MILK

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, this is actually a supplementary to the Minister of Agriculture: has the Minister of Agriculture instructed or spoken to the Milk Board regarding the curtailing or shipping of

[ Page 1820 ]

packaged milk in the Province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Yes.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: has the Minister asked for a report from the Milk Board on this situation?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, there have been discussions leading to possible legislation and I can't say at this time whether the legislation will come in in this session.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: whether the legislation comes into the Legislature at this session or not, will the Minister of Agriculture discuss this matter with the various cooperative shipping groups in the province before the legislation is drafted?

HON. MR. STUPICH: There have been discussions with various cooperative shipping groups already, Mr. Speaker, and there will be further discussions.

MRS. JORDAN: Would the Minister be prepared to advise the House which groups he's discussed the matter with?

MR. SPEAKER: I think that the questions on the supplementaries have become somewhat attenuated. Any other questions?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee of supply, Mr. Speaker.

House in committee of supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF LANDS, FORESTS AND WATER RESOURCES

On vote 131: Minister's office, $64,032.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I have a few questions I'd like to ask the Minister before we pass vote 131 — on a number of subjects all relating to his department.

First of all, I'd like to talk for a moment about dyking and drainage, particularly in the Cloverdale area, the area of the Nicomekl-Serpentine River. I note first of all, that the federal government, Mr. Chairman, has provided a further $12.5 million for improvement of dykes to prevent flooding on the Fraser River — along the length of the Fraser River in the Fraser Valley.

I wonder first of all, whether the provincial government has agreed, or is going to agree soon, to put in their share of money for that dyking programme because the money from the federal government is not available unless the provincial government participates. It's vitally important to that whole area that the provincial government participate to a much higher degree than has been.

I would also like to suggest, and I'll do it again I think later, that the provincial government has to end its insistence that the local governments take a financial part in this kind of a programme because they just don't have the money and they're not getting that money from anywhere particularly since their increase in their per capita grant was minimal this year — it makes it even worse.

I'll also be talking about the very severe tax burden on the local ratepayers, particularly those inside of the dyking district. The tax that those people are being asked to pay is growing out of all proportion to any of the other taxpayers in the province.

A question too, Mr. Chairman, about the priority with regard to dyking and drainage that this government is going to place on that whole area, the Nicomekl-Serpentine River Valley. The people in that area are quite concerned about the government's plans for the future because there has been some indication at least that the government plans to turn that area over to ducks instead of farms.

It seems that in the Mud Bay and Colebrook dyking districts, the farmers have been told to lay off for now; not to consider any further plans for drainage because the government isn't quite sure what they're about to do, and the whole drainage improvement project in that area is now in jeopardy — if we're to believe what some of the comments from the department are.

The first project was, of course, to be work on damming the rivers in that area and then improving the sea dykes and the internal drainage. What is most important is the pumping stations in that area because we're not only talking about flood water from the ocean, we are also talking about water that drains down from the uplands. Without the heavy duty pumps to take that water away, then that area is under water too often too much of the year.

The question still is that — in the letter from Mr. Raudsepp, I believe it was from Mr. Raudsepp, to the dyking districts — there's a possibility that the area may be made into a wild duck refuge. If that's the case, is it going to take in all the Colebrook and Mud Bay dyking districts, leaving only the Surrey dyking District? If that's true, we would seem to be infringing on quite a lot of valuable farm property and certainly placing the burden for dyking and drainage on an even smaller number of taxpayers — farmers in the area.

[ Page 1821 ]

The farmers are quite concerned that this indecision by the department, or what appears to be indecision by the department, will hold up the improvement of some 10,000 acres of farmland in that area. It's where the main commercial farming for that whole region is located and without the necessary dyking and drainage programmes going ahead, we have no hope of improving the farming in that area.

There was a three-phase programme in that area for drainage, all of them of course considered vital. The farmers though that we'd at least be into phase 3 by now, but because of this kind of inaction we're not even into phase 1. The farmers are quite concerned and they'd like to know when they're going to get that land drained, or what at least is the government intention in that area. Is it going to be kept for farming, or is it going to be turned into some kind of a water fowl refuge?

In general, Mr. Chairman, that area is probably the most important area to the Province — that flood plain area in there — in relation to its potential for supplying all of western Canada with probably the finest vegetables that can be found in western Canada, and some of them that are unique to the whole of western Canada. They grow cauliflower in that area that is grown nowhere else and can't be grown anywhere else as well as in this area.

I think we can all recognize that it can be far more productive than it is now by the simple matter of a few million dollars, maybe $3 million at the moment to improve that drainage area. It could supply all of western Canada with fresh vegetables all through the growing season, rather than at interrupted periods now because of the area being covered with flood water — with no drainage.

That problem in that area has become much more acute in the past few years because of the upland development. On the hills all around that valley there has been considerable development. Of course, as we lay blacktop on those residential areas then we increase the run-off so that we have water on the flatland far more times of the year than we now do. The run-off water is being channeled right into the farmland areas where the drainage facilities have always been inadequate and overtaxed.

Last July when we had those unusually heavy rains, that whole area was under water for a long period of time — right in the middle of their peak growing season. Some of us who visited the area during that period would have noticed that on a couple of farms, where the farmers had installed heavy-duty pumps on their own, the crops were not impaired to as large a degree as the other crops. So we know the solution. All we need is some action in that area and we can certainly improve the growing procedure there.

Whether it's a freak of nature or not, I don't know, Mr. Chairman, but certainly the magnitude and the frequency of flooding in that area is increased dramatically in the spring and fall. I suppose that that's primarily due to that upland situation again. But whatever the reasons, it is causing pretty heavy direct crop losses in the area and more importantly, as I mentioned before, the interruption of the flow of products.

Not through any fault of the farmers, the area is developing a reputation as being not a steady and reliable supplier. The major wholesalers, the major purchasers are sometimes reluctant to buy from those farmers in that area now because they haven't got that steady flow of product. So, the whole of the reliability of the area is being jeopardized because of the need for adequate drainage, which is in fact urgent at this time. It doesn't require short-term solutions; it requires long-term solutions to the problem, and as quickly as possible.

Last summer there were, as I mentioned, very heavy rains in that area. Probably the most intensive storm we've ever had at that time of year happened just at the time that harvesting was getting under way. All of the vegetable crops in that area were flooded. Crops in other areas suffered as well because of the inability of drainage ditches to handle run-off water from the uplands.

What happened was that the water stood in the fields for five or six days and that then sealed of the oxygen from the soil and once again another reason for heavy crop losses.

The total losses, just for the record, Mr. Chairman, were a $1.5 million and that's out of a total crop of only about $3 million — so you can see that 50 per cent of the crop in that area was effectively lost. Annual losses in that area, even without that kind of heavy and unusual rainstorm in the middle of the summer, average about $160,000 a year which represents about $65 an acre for the vegetable lands in that area. Similar losses occur on pasture lands although these generally come in the winter and the fall months, rather than in summer.

It could, Mr. Chairman, with proper drainage in that area… There have been some projections given from the Cloverdale Lettuce and Vegetable Cooperative which sees that by 1980, with the proper kind of drainage in that area, we could be seeing crops of almost $4 million being produced there; by 1990, up to $5 million; by the year 2000, up to $6 million — on the same land with just an adequate drainage programme. So I think that just from those statements it is vitally important that we do get on with some kind of a programme in that area.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to ask — I realize there has never been a policy here — but the government has a policy for compensation for crop losses to farmers in certain conditions with varying

[ Page 1822 ]

methods of arriving at those losses and the amount of the compensation. Nevertheless, we do have that policy.

I would like to ask the Minister, Mr. Chairman, to consider the possibility of also developing a policy for those individuals who suffer losses from floods in their areas. I am thinking of the individual homeowner. The last flood in the Surrey area, for instance, caused untold damage probably running up into the millions of dollars for such things as flooded basements and flooded furnaces and flooded farm areas of their own, garden areas, damage to private property.

I wonder why we don't treat those people exactly the same as we do the farmers for their crop losses and why we couldn't — and I've mentioned this in the House before — why we couldn't set up some kind of receiving centres throughout the flooded areas, so that the people who have suffered substantial losses could come into these receiving or information centres and detail their losses.

The department could then investigate those losses to find out if they're valid and perhaps make some kind of compensation settlement with those people. Insurance generally doesn't cover those kind of losses. In fact it hardly ever does as I understand it.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move on to some problems with regard to pollution control at this time.

I mentioned during the estimates of the highway department a particular problem we have at Trinity Western College in Fort Langley. It has had a pollution sewage disposal problem for some time and they've worked very hard to come up with an acceptable solution to that problem, We feel that they have now come up with that acceptable solution. Not only will they be getting rid of their sewage disposal problem but they will, in the process, be developing a park area around there in cooperation with the municipality.

We seem to have run into a bit of a stumbling block with the highways department who want to run a road through there and aren't going to allow Trinity Western and the municipality to proceed with that solution which we felt — a lot of us felt — was an ideal solution.

Perhaps there's been more study on that since that time. I haven't been home for a while. But I understand it is still a problem in the community. A bit of criticism, Mr. Chairman, in that a letter was sent to Victoria from the municipality asking for a meeting with the Minister. The Minister's reply was that the Minister could find no real advantage in a meeting at this time.

That's really, Mr. Chairman, not the kind of reply that a municipal council would expect from a Minister of the Crown. I think they would expect at least to be given the courtesy to meet with him and to talk about their problems and perhaps come up with some acceptable solution — not, "I can see no advantage to a meeting at this time." That is certainly not the kind of answer that we need or expect from the Minister.

There was an application recently, in the month of January I believe, Mr. Chairman, from a private concern in the Aldergrove area to dump as much as 1.8 million gallons of untreated human sewage on a piece of land in the Aldergrove area. On Highway 13 — the Bellingham Highway — right adjacent to the highway on a piece of private land there, the application was that the people who empty septic tanks in the area would then dump the wastes from these septic tanks on this property — as much as 1.8 million gallons a year.

Now the farmers in that area can't even dump that kind of waste on their own property from their own cattle operations. They have to haul their waste away somewhere else because if they were allowed to dump that much on the land there would be a serious pollution problem.

The residents in that area have expressed extreme concern about this much untreated human waste going on that property for a number of reasons: first, because of the possibility of severe land pollution in that area; secondly, its proximity to a rather major public highway leading from the United States and to the United States, to a border crossing in that area; also, because of the possibility of pollution of a creek that runs right through that property and then runs through a school property on the other side of the road.

The danger, it would seem to me, of hepatitis with this kind of situation occurring would be severe. For that reason the people in that area are terribly concerned about this problem. Not only are they concerned about this problem but there is, I suppose, the minor problem of the stench that will obviously be created in the hot summer months. I realize that isn't a health problem, but it certainly could get uncomfortable at times.

Now, I know that the Minister and the Pollution Control Branch have heard about this problem on a number of occasions. I believe that this application constitutes a potential health hazard. The name of the brook, incidentally, that, we are talking about is Chard Brook — C-H-A-R-D. The school is the Patricia School.

I was a little concerned Mr. Chairman. I sent a letter to the Pollution Control Branch outlining my concern about this as the MLA for the area — which I think is perfectly within my rights and certainly in my duties, and I'd be negligent of my duties, I think, if I hadn't done this — particularly once I'd received the concern of the people in the area. I got a letter back, or a form letter, from the Pollution Control Branch addressed to me making reference to the application saying it wasn't really my business to be

[ Page 1823 ]

prying into this matter because I didn't live next door.

Any person, it says, who qualifies as an objector under the Pollution Control Act may file with the director an objection in writing to the granting of a permit stating the manner in which he is affected.

The way that you qualify as an objector: it's not good enough to just live in the area or be a citizen of the municipality or be an MLA representative in the area; you have to hold a proprietary right in any land in which the discharge takes place or in that land on which a portion or all of the works are located; or be the applicant for or the holder of a permit or a license issued under the Pollution Control Act 1967 or the Water Act and who claims that any interest under such permit or license would be affected by the granting of a permit.

The letter goes on to say: "It should be noted that unless you qualify as indicated above, the director of pollution control has no authority to accept your letter as an objection." Mr. Chairman, I found that objectionable. I felt that as an MLA in the area I certainly had the duty to bring the concerns of the many people in that area to the attention of the Pollution Control Branch.

I also felt that those people who have children going to that school certainly should have had the right to bring their concerns to the director of the Pollution Control Branch. If that's the case, if that is the way that the branch operates and if those are the rules under which the branch operates I'd certainly like to see them changed.

I think that any person who lives in the area or has a direct concern or, in fact, is only concerned in protecting a natural environment, should have the right to make their voice known not only in the newspapers or on the radio or anywhere else, but also to make their representations to the Pollution Control Branch and to have those representations heard, which is most important.

If the Pollution Control Branch will only listen to the people who are making the application or who are living next door, they are not getting a very wide representation from the community. That's what I'd like to see; if that's the way the branch operates, I'd like to see its operation changed in the future.

Mr. Chairman, another question with regard to an application for a permit, under the Pollution Control Act, has to do with the Semiahmoo Bay outfall which was applied for by the city of White Rock. I know that here too there have been representations to the Minister and to the Attorney General as a matter of fact on a point of legality.

I've been informed that, while the original point from the Attorney General's department was well taken, because of the posting that was made for this permit on the location that was in question was legally wrong, there had been another permit applied for and posted.

I'm also told from the people in that community that that permit is just as legally wrong as the other one. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister could perhaps confer again with the Attorney General just to check into that problem.

I wonder whether one of the departments of government is not trying to advise the City of White Rock about the proper procedure for them to go so that they may post a legal application for permit rather than looking into the problem of whether that application should be considered at all.

Once again, here we have an application for sewage treated, I'll admit, to be dumped into a major recreation area without asking that city to at least have a look at better ways, because most of the municipalities in that area now have joined the greater Vancouver sewage district. It seems to me that with that kind of cooperative action we can come up with a solution to our pollution problems a whole lot faster than we can by going away on our own — particularly applying for a permit to expand what in some people's minds is an outdated sewage treatment plant at the best of times, and certainly a treatment plant that doesn't have the capacity to take any more sewage.

Once again, Mr. Chairman, the people in that community are extremely concerned. In White Rock, which is not a large area, 1,400 of them have signed a petition to the effect that they'd like the B.C. Pollution Control Board to hold a public hearing on this application.

Just for the interest of the Minister, the request was initiated by the SPEC people for whom I know the Minister has a great deal of respect.

They are concerned; 1,400 people in that community are concerned enough to go to a meeting, sign a petition and ask that the Pollution Control Board ask the city to hold a public hearing first at least.

This sewage outfall, Mr. Chairman, will go right through Semiahmoo Park out to deep water. The present outfall is into Campbell River, which is another thing we've got to eliminate as quickly as possible. The new outfall would be in water, according to the application at least, 25 feet below tide. However, Mr. Chairman, the White Rock residents say that the effluent from the plant floats and it doesn't matter how deep the outfall is — the effluent is still going to end up on top of the water in that area.

They don't want to see this treatment plant expanded. They want to see the whole plant phased out and to have the city join the Greater Vancouver Regional Sewerage and Drainage District.

The president of the local SPEC unit, Mr. Chairman, has been quoted as saying that a 20 to 1 dilution of sewage is required in that area. He says that isn't possible in Campbell River. The sewage does get secondary treatment but considerable amounts of

[ Page 1824 ]

storm sewer water reach the system and this is a problem in many areas. In periods of heavy rainfall the water rushes through so fast that solids which should have settled are rushed through into the discharge pipe.

Apparently, Mr. Chairman, they had a man from Environment Canada visit that area. He came out and had a look at the whole situation and saw what was happening at the discharge pipe. It wasn't only, incidentally, during heavy rainfall, but it was also at normal peak periods at the outfall during the day when more water is used in the households themselves. I would imagine that those would be periods when washing or dishes are being done.

He claims that the treatment plant just is not working satisfactorily right now, regardless of any future use and expansion of use. He says that the whole area stinks of sewage, and as far away as Crescent Beach it stinks of sewage from that same outfall.

He also says there is evidence of raw sewage right on the beach at White Rock in many periods. That, Mr. Chairman, is one of our major recreational areas, one which all of the members of the Greater Vancouver Regional District and the other regional districts in the lower mainland are vitally concerned about saving.

I won't go into the problems about the illegality of the posting again, but I would just ask that the Minister confer with the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) just to make sure that the City of White Rock is conforming to the law, at least in posting their applications for a pollution control permit.

The other question with regard to pollution, Mr. Chairman, has to do with the Annacis Island treatment plant. Because the Minister ordered the Greater Vancouver Regional District to go into secondary treatment at that plant immediately, the Greater Vancouver Regional District has some serious fears that that's going to delay the opening of the treatment plant. If that's the effect of the order to go to secondary treatment right now, then the people in the Greater Vancouver Regional District and others outside the district who are also members of the sewage board are going to be in terrible trouble. Those areas have been gearing all of the future of their sewage disposal to joining of the Annacis Island treatment plant.

I'd just like to refer, Mr. Chairman, to a newsletter from the Greater Vancouver Regional District in which, on a split vote I must admit, the district approved a motion that it appeal the provincial government requirement to provide secondary treatment at this time and go back to the original suggestion, which was to get the plant built for primary treatment and go into secondary immediately, but at least get the plant into operation.

Tenders are already out and are returnable this month for that plant. The director of the operations for the sewage board says there aren't any technical reasons for requiring secondary treatment at this time. The additional cost is going to be about $5 million a year and they're already in the middle of what is an $80 million programme and certainly will be for more than $80 million if the plant is delayed, simply because of the inflationary effects.

There are powerful arguments for secondary treatment, Mr. Chairman, no doubt about that; but there are also powerful arguments for getting that plant on the road right now so that all of the areas who are making plans to join in with that system will be able to do it as quickly as possible.

The plant is supposed to be open by January 1, 1975. The areas which are now feeding sewage into streams all over the Fraser Valley have been told that they can no longer do this, that by 1975 they must cease. Some of the areas farther east in the Fraser Valley have elected to go the route of building expensive pipelines right to the Fraser River. However, the City of Langley, for instance, and some other areas giving consideration to it, have joined the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District at a considerable cost to the community and have a commitment to join up with that treatment facility by 1975.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, all we ask is your assurance that they'll be able to by 1975, Mr. Minister. The GVRD seems to think that if it has to provide secondary treatment before it opens, that it won't get that thing on schedule until 1977, and that's a further two-year delay.

So I just ask, Mr. Chairman, that we get some kind of assurance from the Minister that those municipalities which are waiting to come on stream with the facility in 1975 will be able to — or will have somewhere to go with their sewage.

The Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, Mr. Chairman, once again — and I'll refer to a letter sent to all of its members — says that, "We have an undertaking to have primary treatment at Annacis in operation by the end of 1974. Our present schedule to meet this requires that we advertise" — which has been done — "in 1973." It's going to take about 21 months to construct the plant. So there's a timetable here that's important to recognize. I really think that a two-year delay is going to be a severe hardship on some of the municipalities in the lower mainland.

Mr. Chairman, we have asked questions at other times about the Green Belt Protection Fund, whether it's in operation or out of operation or what it's doing. I'd like to ask just a couple of other questions since the Minister has responsibility for that fund at

[ Page 1825 ]

this time.

First of all, with regard to the Environment and Land Use Committee, I'd like to ask if that committee is active at this time and whether or not that committee has been hearing applications from either individuals or local municipalities or regional districts who have been asking for relief from the effects of the freeze, particularly in those areas in which community plans are in effect, or in areas where marginal farmland is in question, or in areas, Mr. Chairman, where it can't be totally proved that substantial commencement on a particular development had taken place prior to December but that there is enough evidence that work had gone into that development, that the municipal council had passed the development, that it was obvious that the development was given all of the proper approvals through the regional district and the municipal level of government. Have there been applications? Have there been rulings on those applications? Have there been any easements to the restrictive freeze that is in effect at the moment?

The Minister of Agriculture, (Hon. Mr. Stupich) Mr. Chairman, on March 9 in a newspaper story in the Vancouver Province indicated that there was no farmland exempted from the land freeze.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: What date was that?

MR. McCLELLAND: March 9. He denied a report that a family in the Surrey area had been exempted from the provisions by a cabinet order-in-council. He said the department has dealt with all kinds of individual cases but in no instance did it exempt any farmland from the freeze. The question again is: has any land been exempted from the freeze by the Environment and Land Use Committee? Now I am not asking this of the Minister of Agriculture because it wouldn't be within his jurisdiction, I don't think, to exempt at any rate.

However, the Minister went on to say in this article that the Government has purchased a farm for a total of $104,500 under the Green Belt Protection Fund Act because the owners were trapped in an unfavourable position. He names the owners — Mr. and Mrs. Leonard Kercher, who own a dairy farm in the Matsqui area. They had agreed to an offer by a developer for sale of the land.

Mr. Chairman, in the throne speech debate. I brought this particular problem to the attention of the Government and related the special circumstance that these people and many others found themselves in because of the arbitrary freeze imposed by order-in-council by this Government. The Kerchers, of course, had made a commitment at that time to buy a larger farm. They had committed themselves to quite a large loan at the bank, both for the farm and for a milk quota. They were really up against it.

What happened, of course, was that because of the delay they couldn't get approval through their local government and they couldn't get approval through the provincial government. The developer who had been going to buy backed out. The Kerchers found themselves in an unfortunate position. However, the Government did agree that they would help them out of this bind, one way or another. Now, as I refer to the story in the Vancouver Province, the Minister of Agriculture said on March 9 that the farmland had been purchased.

However, that wasn't correct, Mr. Chairman, because the farmland had not been purchased at that time. The order to purchase, as I understand it, was sitting on the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources' desk.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Not true.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, yes it is. Mr. Chairman, I say that that's the case. I was informed of that by a member of his Government, who said that it was all ready to be approved but it wasn't approved because it was still sitting on the Minister's desk.

All of this time, Mr. Chairman, these people were in a near panic condition because they could see their option on the new farm — and I'd like to just point out again what the problem here was. Here was a family who didn't want to go out of farming; here was a family that wanted to go into farming in a bigger way and bring their son into that farming operation. They were stymied from doing that because of the actions of this Government.

I refer again, Mr. Chairman, to the statement that that farm was bought. On March 9 that statement came out. I don't know whether the farm has been bought yet or not. I'd like to ask the Minister whether it has, under the Environment and Land Use Committee. If it hasn't, when is it going to be bought. Why was the statement made on March 9 that the farm had been bought, when it clearly hadn't? Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't like to say that the Minister was misleading the House. I'll let the House decide for itself whether we were being misled or not.

Another question, Mr. Chairman, comes up in relation to that same article. The price mentioned in that article — I'll read it exactly so that there's no misunderstanding and so that I don't misquote:

"However, the Minister said the Government has purchased the farm for a total cost of $104,500 under the Green Belt Protection Fund Act. "

The other question that I have, Mr. Chairman, is this. The developers who originally intended to buy this property from this family had offered this family $110,000, and $1,000 had been paid to seal the agreement. Now, the government is buying that land

[ Page 1826 ]

— or at least the Minister says that the government is buying that land — for $104,000. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, why is the government giving this family less money for their property than the private developers offered for that property and for which a deal had been struck and agreed upon?

It seems to me that this is part of the problem that we've been afraid of on this side of the House ever since this freeze went into effect — that there would be some kind of forced sale; that a person would have to accept the government's price rather than a negotiated price which would be fair to the parties involved. I'd like to see some answers about the discrepancy in price here between $104,500 and $110,000.

[Ms. Young in the Chair]

Also, I've been having trouble getting through on the phone to, not this Minister, but the Minister of Agriculture's Deputy, who has been negotiating with the family in question. I'd like to ask, Madam Chairman, if the Minister could assure me that this farm has been bought. If it hasn't been bought yet, I'd like an answer to the question: why was it announced that it was bought? And I'd like an answer to the question: when will it be bought?

Certainly I do know that there's another deadline coming up if the farm hasn't been purchased. That deadline is April 1. Those people will find themselves in a serious amount of trouble if they haven't got some answers at that time.

Madam Chairman, there's also some serious evidence in my mind, from the phone calls I get from municipal leaders throughout the lower mainland, that this Minister has, in effect, been in seclusion since election day. He doesn't answer his mail. He doesn't answer his telephone calls. He doesn't talk to the municipal leaders. Not one single municipal leader that I've talked to has had any success in meeting with this Minister.

Madam Chairman, when I talk about a municipal leader, I'm talking about mayors, aldermen — any of the elected officials that this Government seems to consider unnecessary to the democratic process any longer. I get calls from them at least once a week saying, "How can we get in to see the Minister? We've tried and we've tried and we've tried." We get answers like the one I related earlier: "I see no point in a meeting at this time; I see no advantage to a meeting at this time." Those people have a right to meet with the Minister and find out the directions in which he's going. I know that there have been many…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) tells me that he has three letters sitting right on his desk right now that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources and Recreation and Conservation has refused to answer. We'd like to know why he won't answer these people, and why they can't get a meeting with him to talk about their problems.

I've problems and I know other people in my constituency have had problems trying to get answers about the very thing I was talking about earlier, the Environment and Land Use Act and the Environment and Land Use Committee. What are they doing? Who are they? Are they hearing anybody? What is the future of that department? Once again there's a total vacuum there. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of any attention to the day-by-day operations of that Minister's department.

Because he has been in seclusion since August 30, hiding behind that land use curtain of his, and because he hasn't been paying any attention to the pleas of the municipal officials in British Columbia, I'd like to move, Madam Chairman, that vote 131 be reduced by $1 to read $23,999.

MS. CHAIRMAN: It is moved that vote 131 be reduced by $1 to read $23,999. All those in favour?

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Speaking to the motion, I would hope that we will be permitted to do that before you call the question on the motion. Thank you.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: Madam Chairman, in speaking to the motion before the House to reduce the salary of the Minister by $1, we show in the traditional manner the displeasure we have in the official Opposition with the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources under the chief administrative person of that department, the Minister.

Since the election in August and the appointment of this man as a Minister of the Crown to administer the forest resources of our province, we have found in that office the most uncommunicative person imaginable. This is not only to other Members of the Legislature, but also to every person within or without the forest industry who has tried to communicate with him about matters of importance.

For instance, the personnel in the Department of Lands are being subject to some sort of forces that prevent them from properly performing their duties. Not one person who has a land problem in the process or has questions to ask about leases, intended purchases or matters that should be a routine matter to deal with, has been able to get an answer.

I don't think, Madam Chairman, that it's because of any…

[ Page 1827 ]

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, Hon. Member. Would you come to order, please? I must rule this amendment out of order, inasmuch as we read that "vote 131 be reduced by $1 to read $23,999." The vote is $64,032. Therefore I must rule it out of order.

MR. SMITH: In that case, Madam Chairman, I'll move a sub-amendment to the amendment. (Laughter).

MS. CHAIRMAN: This motion is out, Hon. Member. You would have to submit another amendment.

MR. SMITH: Madam Chairman, surely within the framework of this motion can move a sub-amendment which refers specifically to the Minister's salary.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The chief Clerk advises me under the circumstances that you cannot. You would have to submit a new amendment.

MR. SMITH: Then I'm prepared to do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the slogan, "Count on us?"

MR. SMITH: I'm prepared to yield the floor in the meantime to someone else if they still want to speak on the Minister's vote. Certainly.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Madam Chairman, I have one or two questions on the vote which were raised on March 19 when this vote first came up. They were questions dealing with the purchase of Ocean Falls.

I checked the record as closely as I can, Madam Chairman, and I find that there is a good number of questions which weren't answered at that time; although as I said at the time, I did appreciate the Minister's speech. It was a good speech.

Unfortunately in his reply to my questioning, I gleaned very little. In checking the record afterwards, I gleaned even less. So I wonder whether he could give us some information on Ocean Falls.

Specifically, at what level in the price of paper does the Minister regard this as a break-even operation? He has talked about the fact it'll be break-even, it probably won't make money, but it's going to be a viable operation and break even because of the very low capitalization as far as the Government is concerned. If he's capable of coming to that conclusion, he must have based it on a certain price of paper. I can't see any other way of coming to that conclusion. I wonder whether he would give us that information.

This is not a criticism but rather a request for information.

The other questions I asked — on which the public and Members of this House deserve some information — concerned what other major expenditures might be required in future years, say in the next one, two or three years. Newspaper articles, for example, indicated, apparently erroneously, that there would have to be substantial improvements to the single men's hotel which is in the town. I believe these are incorrect, but perhaps the Minister would like to provide the House with information which is more reliable than the information I have.

I wonder if the Minister would indicate the state of the machinery itself, since it was put in in 1917, I understand, which is some time ago; although there is existing in North America as well as in Europe, machinery still producing paper which is substantially older than that — I believe some 15 years older than that. In any event, perhaps the Minister would comment on the state of what we purchased. Have we purchased a broken down jalopy or have we purchased something which is running very well?

I am particularly conscious of the age of machinery, Madam Chairman, because I just took my fine 1962 Golden Hawk Studebaker in for repairs this morning and it's probably going to set me back a fortune.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister drives a Hornet. He understands my problem.

This is the type of thing, though, that I'd like some comment upon. We are not buying up-to-date machinery for which replacement machinery can be obtained very easily.

These questions I feel are in order and I would like some comment.

I would also like comment on the work force, and perhaps it would be easier to give it now after we've had the passage of another 10 days. The Minister gave interesting remarks previously about the number of men who want to stay on. I wonder now with the passage of more than 10 days whether he could indicate whether or not the new Crown corporation yet to be passed by this House has been successful in attracting previous residents back to Ocean Falls.

On this particular question of the work force, he might want to indicate to us why there was such an apparently enormous turnover in the work force previously when Crown Zellerbach ran Ocean Falls. I'm using figures from Press statements, but I read that 90 per cent of the work force would be likely to turn over in any two-year period. People went to Ocean Falls and they got washed out of there by the rains. They came back down south somewhere else. Whether this is true or not, I don't know. I'm just

[ Page 1828 ]

wondering, though, what success the company is having in keeping a work force going at Ocean Falls.

And my final point before I sit down is: what information does he have and what can he provide this House with respect to the effect of the continued operations of Ocean Falls on expansion plans of other companies?

In Friday's business page of the Vancouver Province there was an excellent article — or at least it was an interesting article; I can't judge the quality of what was said but I did find it most interesting in terms of the fact that continuing Ocean Falls in operation does mean that expansion plans of mills elsewhere will be affected. That seems logical. No one I'm sure would criticize a company for making a change of policy resulting from the continued operation of Ocean Falls.

I wonder too if the Minister, when he is commenting upon that, could give us further information on what steps he thinks the government corporation can take to expand the overall markets of B.C. pulp and paper so that instead of simply having all the companies plus the new government company sharing the same size pie, what plans might there be for expanding the pie itself. I said that was the last point, but I've thought of another one.

With respect to source of supply, we understand that Crown Zellerbach will continue to supply raw material until 1975. Now I wonder, without revealing any great secrets of how you are leaning on Crown Zellerbach or on any other company, whether you would like to indicate what happens in 1976, or whether or not you have other arrangements for supplying this mill with raw material in future years.

There isn't a tremendous variety of sources of the raw material. I'm interested to know whether or not the limitations on raw material will affect the operations at Ocean Falls; or alternatively, whether it's going to be necessary to lean on companies and perhaps offer concessions elsewhere to insist that they continue to supply Ocean Falls. Because if that's the case, perhaps we're making a buck at Ocean Falls and losing a buck or two bucks somewhere else. I wonder whether the Minister would like to give some comment on this, because undoubtedly it's a matter which has been in his mind quite frequently during these negotiations.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I might deal with Ocean Falls first as it's just now been raised.

The question of paper price essentially rests on industrial projections with respect to paper prices. So that has been the base there. But the other factors in the cost end, of course, in terms of the viability or the profitability, whether it's a marginal operation or not, we're finding now, after 10 days or two weeks, that the management costs will be significantly less than we anticipated. That's rather encouraging. So that will be a factor as well in the equation.

On the question of capital costs at this stage, we see no significant capital costs, with possibly one exception, and that might be in terms of a sorting operation with respect to logs. But that too is fairly modest.

As to the residential areas, I think they've all been kept to a good standard. I don't believe there's any problem whatsoever with respect to the residential property at Ocean Falls.

We had a team investigate and review all of the machinery prior to the decision to acquire Ocean Falls. The reports we had were satisfactory. So I don't think we're really just buying a jalopy. I think it's a little better, maybe, than the Hon. Member's vehicle. I wouldn't call this a classic car but I think it's going to work fairly well.

The work force. I think the last figures I had were something in the category of 125 in terms of local people staying working directly in the operation. There are 125 families that formerly lived in Ocean Falls that are now interested in returning. And that's encouraging.

The top management team has all been assembled. The assistant manager is an extremely well-qualified person. I am sure he will be most helpful in terms of keeping up the kind of activity that has in fact taken place in the last 10 days. The fact that we expect to be in production April 3 is an indication, I think, of the quality of the management that we have been able to assemble in an incredibly short time. It must be encouraging for all of those who think that public enterprise has a role and those who think that the people of the community have a role to play in terms of keeping the community alive.

The turnover problem in the north is a fundamental problem for the whole northern region and one to which we intend to address ourselves to a considerable extent, both in the recreation sphere and elsewhere. It's clear that there's not to be a better urban base and a richer living experience in the north beyond what is possible now. I'm sure that other programmes will be related to that question, not only in relation to Ocean Falls but other northern communities.

The question of expansion elsewhere: I read the same article the Member read. I would be surprised if this were really a major factor in any other decision by a company in British Columbia. However, the Member asked a question earlier which was, in effect: were these new jobs? I don't think there's much doubt that these are new jobs. That is, these are jobs that would not exist had the Province not decided to take the action it did. So we

[ Page 1829 ]

are assured of this job base and of probably gross sales in the $12 million category at Ocean Falls and all that that will generate during this time period when there is unemployment.

So there is no doubt about its beneficial effect on the economy. It may well be that the impact might be in other jurisdictions, in terms of some programmes in Washington State, for example. We may, in fact, be benefiting British Columbia in this interim period by maintaining this production at a time of needed production in North America. I think those are the main points.

Regarding the earlier points made by the Hon Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), who's now not here, the $12.5 million for dykes available from the federal government will be matched by the Province of British Columbia. The municipal share generally is roughly 10 per cent.

The Hon. Member raised the question of the Nicomekl-Serpentine area at Mud Bay. That is an area that we're finding difficult to make a final decision on. It might interest the Members to know that because of the long perimeter of the farmlands in that area — what with both the rivers and the ocean being a factor — the costs of dyking are about $1,400 to $1,500 an acre. The value of the land as farmland is $2,700 an acre. So we're talking about a very significant contribution from the two senior governments on farmland that is only twice the value of the cost of the dyke. So one does have to ask the question about an optimum solution in areas like that.

There have been numerous discussions over the last couple of years with respect to wetlands in the lower mainland. Studies carried out jointly by the Fish and Wildlife people here and by federal environment people have indicated that certain areas are probably prime areas for wetland management. One of these happens to be in the Mud Bay area. Since the two senior governments would be spending this amount on the dyke, the question is: might the best use of the land finally be in terms of wetland management? That has to be resolved quite quickly.

To that end there's a tri-level governmental meeting in Vancouver on Saturday morning. The Minister of Transport, the Minister of Urban Affairs, the Minister of the Environment, plus Ministers from this Government will discuss that question, among others. I hope that we can resolve a policy with respect to wetlands, so that a decision is made fairly quickly regarding the area around Boundary Bay. It's not my intent to see the matter hang. A decision will be made one way or the other fairly quickly.

The question of flood losses in the Surrey-Langley area: we are looking at the insurance question. Some of our staff have looked at this in an initial manner As the Members are aware, there's an insurance statute before the House. It may well be that that might have a role in the future with respect to this problem. The expenditures to date in this last year have been something in the neighbourhood of $12 million with respect to drains on the major disaster fund.

That's a fairly significant drain in one year. It's clear that that really isn't an adequate approach in itself. It's going to have to be a combination of public works and the disaster fund and an insurance fund as well. The Americans have established such an insurance system at the federal level in their own country.

The Aldergrove application that the Member raised: I should make it clear that under present standards and regulations, it would not be possible to allow untreated sewage to be disposed of in such a manner. We'll investigate that. In terms of any volume such as that, as we see it, untreated sewage could not be handled in such a manner. We'll investigate that, certainly.

The question of the attitude of the Pollution Control Board: well, I suppose old attitudes die hard. The Pollution Control Board was founded by the former administration. I suppose part of it represents the former Minister's attitude with respect to that board. It also reflects the legislation that was brought in by the Social Credit administration.

I've said that these policies will be changed. That is so that interested parties, in fact, can have a say with respect to decisions that affect pollution and the environment. Our policy direction, while not finally nailed down, is becoming clear. We're moving away from the policy that the former Minister and the former administration had. We will be pleased to hear from other parties.

With respect to White Rock and the proposed outfall there: there will be a hearing, as far as this Ministry is concerned. It's clear that there's great concern and great interest. We intend to see that there is a hearing.

Regarding Annacis Island, secondary treatment: it was again the concern of the Members of this House, Members from Richmond and elsewhere, that I think brought this matter most dramatically to my attention. As a result of their concern and the concern of other groups in the region, including fishermen, the decision was made. It's very clear that the federal government was not overly concerned about the fishery resource or the particular problem that exists at this part of the Fraser River, where the tide meets the river in a major way and where you get a kind of holding action in the river itself.

That's why the decision was made. We had this concern that the federal government would not exercise the kinds of authority that they have. However, we still would be pleased to meet with representatives from the Greater Vancouver Regional District and discuss the question of interim activity pending the building of the secondary treatment plant. I understand contracts have already been let

[ Page 1830 ]

with respect to the primary treatment facility. Everything is proceeding as it would have normally in any case. Certainly we're prepared to discuss some interim solution with the board. But in terms of basic direction and basic policy with respect to secondary treatment of Annacis there's going to be no change.

With respect to the Green Belt Fund, the Environment and Land Use Committee is now meeting on a regular basis. The Green Belt Fund has been used, not in quite the kind of beautiful, scatter-yon-way along the highways that the former administration carried on. Greenbelts being little patches along the highway doesn't really strike me as a kind of grand design in terms of establishing greenbelts in British Columbia. It seems to me something like an election gimmick, in terms of having signs along the highway saying that the old administration is alive and well. Well, that turned out not to be the case.

There really was a lack of any overall concept with respect to the Green Belt Fund. As a result, expenditures did not continue on the same frantic pace that they continued prior to August 30. I might say that the major acquisitions under the Green Belt Fund since August were with respect to holdings at Thell on the northern island of the Queen Charlotte Islands. That will become part of a major provincial park. We saw greenbelt acquisition as something more than a single-shot stab at one particular piece of property. We saw it more as something that could be a catalyst in getting something better going.

The other major acquisition was the farm east of Grand Forks on the Kettle River. That was the Boothman property, which was acquired for something like…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MS. CHAIRMAN: … therefore it's out of order.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, I'm sorry. It was the Dunes Fishing Club property anyway. I may be out of order.

At any rate, we saw these questions as ones in which we might achieve something better. The Second Century Fund agreed with us. As a result, we have a major significant intensive wildlife management area near Grand Forks. I'm rather proud of that small achievement. I think those are the main questions raised.

Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, the farm. I wasn't aware of the March 9 statements that the Member raised. He never was, as I understand it, in the Department of Finance. The problem may have been that nothing ever did get to my desk. That, as I understand it, was a matter of review by the Department of Finance. The land has been acquired. I simply assume that the price was one acceptable to all parties and the difference, which seemed to me — and I'm not familiar since the negotiations took place outside my Department — the difference which seemed to me, just from a cursory look at the figures, would be the difference between a real estate commission and not having a real estate commission. But, that would remain to be seen.

The question of requests of the Environment and Land Use Committee with respect to withdrawing the freeze in particular instances is a matter that the committee has reviewed. A staff committee with several departmental groups involved — Highways who have some experience in this area, Municipal Affairs, who have some experience in this area, Agriculture and my own department through the present staff of the ELUC — have been involved in reviewing these matters.

As I recall, some seven requests from municipal jurisdictions were received as of about a week ago by the Environment and Land Use Committee. Six of the requests from such organizations, that is municipalities or regional districts, were in fact approved by the Environment and Land Use Committee. In numerous other instances the private applications that were before the committee were referred back to the municipal or regional jurisdiction involved for their recommendation prior to a decision by the Environment and Land Use Committee.

So a process has already begun in terms of cooperating with the municipalities and with the regional districts in relation to their own regional plans and their own municipal plans. I'm sure that process will continue and develop and will prove out the legislation that this House has been considering for some time.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Thank you, Madam Chairman. In the past in the discussion of the estimates of this department I think I've joined with some pleasure with the present Minister in criticism of his predecessor and the policies of his predecessor. I think perhaps, Madam Chairman, that it's a little early for major criticism of the new Minister — I said major criticism. But, I think there are some specific points we should raise and ask clarification from him.

I want first of all to raise the matter of the Skagit Valley with him. There has been no statement, Madam Chairman, in this House regarding the Government's policy — but a number of statements outside the House.

I said early in the debates of this session that I thought it was very important that the Government, within this chamber make a major, forthright and very strong statement of their policy with regard to the flooding of the Skagit.

I might say, Madam Chairman, that listening to the

[ Page 1831 ]

Premier a couple of nights ago, I began to have a real suspicion as to the knowledge of the Government regarding the matter of the Skagit Valley; perhaps a suspicion even of their sincerity in talking about preventing that flooding because the Premier made some comment about…that he was accusing myself of going around British Columbia recommending the breaking of a treaty. Madam Chairman, I'm sure you're aware, if the Government is not, that this is precisely the same nonsense that the former Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) used to talk about. This was the breaking of a federal treaty and therefore was no responsibility in any way of this government.

I want to make it very, very clear the treaty is the Boundary Waters Treaty that goes back to 1909. Under that treaty, there is an agreement signed by the Province and the City of Seattle.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): You wouldn't even break a social engagement.

MR. BROUSSON: It would depend what it was for.

But the fact is, Madam Chairman, this is a provincial agreement, signed by the former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources and the mayor of Seattle. That's the agreement that I have suggested on countless times needs to be renegotiated and discussed in many ways and in many forms. I think the Minister is well aware of this.

Earlier in the session, I spoke and explained the story of the Federal Power Commission hearings in the United States, which are scheduled for this fall. As you know, the Ross Committee and myself are individually listed as interveners before that Federal Power Commission and those hearings. I showed the Legislature the stack of books that was the Seattle City Light brief to those Federal Power Commission hearings. I showed that to try to demonstrate just how much effort and how much work and how much money the Seattle City Light is still, in early 1973, putting into this attempt to continue to raise High Ross Dam.

The problem is, Madam Chairman, that if the Federal Power Commission should approve the Seattle City Light application, it will make it that much more difficult for this renegotiation to take place. And the financial costs to Canada and to British Columbia are going to be that much higher. Seattle will have that much more to claim as potential compensation. Whether that compensation is justified or not I am not prepared to say but they will have that much more of a claim.

Our problem here is, can we count on the Federal Power Commission to give this a full and complete hearing? To give any attention, for instance, to the Canadian or the British Columbia position?

The general counsel, or the assistant general counsel of the American FPC told me personally in his office that, "Oh yes, we're going to give full consideration, we'll listen to everything the Canadians have to say and we'll give them equal time and equal consideration." Well I find that very hard to put any trust in, Madam Chairman, because basically the Federal Power Commission is charged in the United States with looking after American interests; and second, they're in the business of approving power projects. I have very little confidence in their ability to say "no" regardless of the reasons. It appears to me that we've got this very serious problem developing with the FPC hearings in Washington in this coming fall.

I want to read a letter. It was sent on March 6 from the Ross Committee to the provincial Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams), and also to the federal Minister of the Environment (Hon. Jack Davis). They both received identical letters. The Ross Committee has not received any answers from either Minister. I think, Madam Chairman, that some answer is necessary. This is dated March 6.

"Dear Sir:

"The Ross Committee was formed in 1969 to prevent the flooding of the Skagit Valley by Seattle City Light. And in the course of its opposition, Ross became registered with the Federal Power Commission as an intervener in City Light's application to the FPC.

"Following the announcement by the federal and provincial governments that they will cooperate to prevent the flooding of the valley, the committee has considered its position and has decided that its aims have been fulfilled and as a result, the committee will not prepare evidence for submission to the FPC.

"It is realized that the main problem is now one of agreeing compensation. The committee considers that if the FPC hearings take place, and if Seattle's misleading testimony is not challenged, then there is every likelihood of Seattle's application being successful. A successful application will, of course, add much credibility to their claim for compensation.

"Therefore it appears that if the negotiations for settlement with Seattle become protracted and extend beyond the start of the FPC hearings, then it will be in Canada's interests to present evidence at the FPC hearings to counter the misleading testimony on the Canadian Skagit offered by Seattle.

"The committee wishes to advise you that if the FPC hearings do take place, and if the federal and provincial governments desire a Canadian intervention to correct misleading testimony and if they are not prepared to intervene themselves, then the Ross Committee will prepare testimony,

[ Page 1832 ]

provided it is given notice of this requirement prior to May 1, 1973, and that adequate funds, information and manpower are made available by the federal and provincial governments to the committee.

"The cost of such an intervention by the Ross Committee would of course be much less than the extra compensation that Seattle might expect to receive if their application to the FPC was successful.

"The Committee thanks you for your efforts to prevent the flooding of this valuable recreation area."

That, Madam Chairman, was sent both to the provincial Minister and to the federal Minister of the Environment — identical letters.

My point here is simply that apart from at least a private answer to those letters, that this Minister, on behalf of this Government should make a major policy statement within this House to spell out exactly where we are going as far as the government is concerned in the flooding of the Skagit Valley.

I want to talk briefly about some of the logging policies of the department in the area. Last June, under the former Minister, we found that major logging was taking place in the area which was scheduled to be flooded. At that time it was found that this was a major cottonwood sale, basically to a contractor, Allwood Contractors, which is an associate or a subsidiary of Scott Paper — logging cottonwood for Scott Paper actually.

After I raised this publicly last June, I learned that the Department of Recreation and Conservation, the experts on that side of the government, had given their advice that cottonwood logging should not be done, and that if it was going to be done, they said certain special guidelines should be followed. But the forestry department at that time proceeded.

When I raised the matter publicly, the Minister, Mr. Williston, investigated, and my understanding was that he announced that the logging would be allowed to go forward but that it would be done under very special and careful guidelines which would make sure that it was only small areas, I believe, in perhaps five acre enclaves with a number of other regulations as to how it should be done. A further major sale that was pending at that time was cancelled or put off. That was the situation with the previous government early last summer.

This fall, Madam Chairman, this new government advertised a very small sale that was adjoining the class A Skagit Provincial Park. Despite protests by myself, a number of recreational groups and the ROSS Committee, considering the sensitivity of the whole area, its possibilities for many things, this sale was still allowed to go ahead. It was a small sale, granted, and out of this flooded area.

Now just recently I raised a question with the Minister as to logging that appears to be going on in the valley right now. He didn't answer at that time, he took it as notice, and said he would look into it. There has been no answer from the Minister of course. Since then I have gotten further information in regard to that logging, and I think other Members of the House have perhaps been in the valley and seen exactly what is going on within the last two weeks. It is still cottonwood logging. I don't think there is any conifer logging, which is the suspicion that I raised not knowing the facts, Mr. Minister. But it is cottonwood logging that is going on at present, I agree.

But I think, Madam Chairman, it is fair to say it is being done in a very rough manner. You know, there is neat logging and rough logging, and I don't have to define that for Members of this House, I am sure. It is being done carelessly; logs have been dragged through the stream.

I have told the House at great length before. The Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) knows what a fine spawning and fishing stream this is. It is suitable for canoeing and many other water sports of that sort. It is a very special kind of a river bottom, and here we have large logs and logging machinery actually being dragged across the river destroying some of the potential spawning areas and so on.

This is maybe not of major importance in many people's eyes, but this is not within the terms of the guidelines that in my understanding were laid down by the former Minister, and certainly this is not good logging practice in an area that has become a very sensitive area. Surely, if we are as careless as that about it, we are just giving fuel to the people in Seattle who say, "Well, let's flood it anyway."

Of course, Madam Chairman, I would personally protest any of the cottonwood logging because while the cottonwood is not perhaps a very valuable tree from many points of view, one of the problems, particularly if it is done carelessly, is what grows back afterwards. So often it is nothing but alder and willow and that sort of thing, and you don't have a very satisfactory situation from the point of view of long-term recreation in this kind of area which I think everyone in B.C. is aware now has some potential.

And further, Madam Chairman, it is my understanding that there is shortly to be advertised, by the Forest Service another cottonwood sale — the one postponed by Mr. Williston last June or July. This other sale is now about to be advertised at the request of our friends, Scott Paper and Allwood Contractors. Well, this particular area is just adjoining the meadows at the south end of the valley, and one of the prettier areas for recreational purposes.

Madam Chairman, this whole area adjoining Manning Park on the east, adjoining the North Cascades National Park to the south in the United

[ Page 1833 ]

States, has never really been studied for its park and recreation facilities by this government. The Parks Branch has just never had time to get at it. I think they'd like to take a look at it. The former government dedicated this tiny little class A park which was really designed to be a little campsite — that was about all. But because of the potential in that area, we have suggested repeatedly — myself and many other groups — of the possibilities of an international park across the border between the North Cascades and Manning.

Now, adjoining this area to the west is another valley where there are some problems that have still not been clarified — the Chilliwack Valley. Now the Chilliwack is a very beautiful valley, a very beautiful lake, and it has been an excellent source of logs for the industry. But there are new streams, new creeks where harvesting plans are about to be approved, I understand — Centre Creek, Foley Creek — and the information that I have been given, Madam Chairman, says that these new harvesting plans that are about to be approved in the Chilliwack Valley don't really meet the guidelines recently published by the department in terms of fish protection, spawning protection, elevation of logging and so on.

Immediately at the south end of Chilliwack Lake is a small area that I talked to this House about previously; I've told the story of Sapper Park. Well, Sapper Park doesn't exist. Two years ago now, a campsite, a campground and some other buildings and bridges were put up by a contingent of sappers who came all the way from Great Britain — British Army sappers. Sapper Park was dedicated two years ago; it was a centennial project for British Columbia.

Well, two years have gone by, Madam Chairman, and the Parks Branch and the Forest Service have still not been able to agree on the boundaries of this park that was dedicated two years ago. It just almost adjoins the international border, and it is a very, very beautiful campground at the south end of Chilliwack Lake.

So with all of these things in this area, we are still going ahead with logging which appears to be unsatisfactory in areas that are politically sensitive and definitely have not been examined by the parks people as to their potential for either a provincial park or as the great international playground — park — recreational area that many of us have suggested. It would be within only two hours or an hour-and-a-half of downtown Vancouver.

There are some other problems that are still around, Madam Chairman, that I have raised with the former Minister on which we have heard no pronouncements by the new Minister. I think these are policy matters that he should make an announcement on.

One of the major things that I raised the last two years with the former Minister was the matter of the Nitinat Triangle — the Tsusiat-Hobiton-Squalicum watershed — and the desirability of its inclusion in Pacific Rim National Park. Buried away in all of the things that were going on during the election last August was a quiet little announcement from Mr. Williston — most people I don't think even noticed — which said that the government had made the decision to include part of the Nitinat Triangle in Pacific Rim National Park. I haven't heard another single word, either from that former Minister or from the present Minister, with regard to the policy in that regard.

I am not going to go all through it now, but in the last speech I made in the estimates of this department I spelled out at great length the reasons why the Tsusiat-Hobiton-Squalicum watershed should be included in the Pacific Rim National Park. We arranged for slides and movie and pictures and so on to be shown across the hall in one of the committee rooms, and many of the Members saw those pictures and slides and movies.

I suggested a specific proposal to use some of the unsatisfactorily restocked areas in the lower coastal forest on Vancouver Island and the lower mainland where, from the evidence that I can accumulate, there is room for a serious negotiation between the government and the forest industry to arrange for reasonable compensation to them for the timber they would lose, and perhaps more importantly, for the future timber they would lose so that this could be negotiated.

We have never been able to learn whether anything has been done on this. The whole thing has gone into limbo, of course, with the change of government. So I ask this Minister to spell out the policy of his Government in this regard.

I think finally, Madam Chairman, my concern would be that 61/2 months have now gone by since this Minister took office with, from the point of view of industry and employment in British Columbia perhaps the most important portfolio in the Government.

[Mr. Dent in the chair]

This is the industry that claims 50 cents of every dollar in British Columbia is developed from its activities. We know that throughout the forest industry there is a feeling of uncertainty, a feeling of fear, without question because of bills that are in this House. In the mining industry, the investment industry there is a feeling of fear; they know what's being done to them.

Mr. Chairman, the forest industry simply doesn't

[ Page 1834 ]

know what's going to happen. There is certainly no track record so far and there's no performance that we can spend a lot of time criticizing. But I think my major criticism is that we've gone 61/2 months with this Minister in the Government and we've gone through two months in this session of the Legislature and there has been no major policy pronouncements as to the forest industry from this Minister.

I think the Minister has a responsibility to present those policies to this House and to British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to say a few things here today on the different jurisdictions of this Minister. First of all, to go back to his statement about the northwest part of the province. When he spoke earlier in his estimates that they pledge help for that area, I would like to congratulate him on that. They certainly do need help in the northwest part.

There has been a recent development, Mr. Chairman, and I wonder whether the help has been directed in the right way. It came to a head in Smithers where the highly-respected mayor there resigned along with one of his aldermen to get the community feeling apparently. The mayor has been re-elected by acclamation. It's all over the establishment, as I understand it, of a veneer plant in that area. Some people are opposed to it but obviously a majority are in favour of it.

My question to the Minister is: what is going to happen there? Are you negotiating with the companies that are interested to go in there and, if you are, what stage are you at?

I believe that community certainly needs something. You said earlier you'd look after the northwest part of the province overall. I think you've got a chance here. I am wondering, in other words, whether this company has applied for timber, where you are at with them and so on.

The forest industry the last speaker said, was responsible for 50 cents of every dollar of our economy. That's correct; I guess it is the most important part of the economy of the Province of British Columbia. Overall, I think the industry has done a fairly good job.

While there have been some failures — and the Minister was quite fast to show them — I'd like to relate some successes in the industry that have happened right in my own riding of Cariboo. I might say that 50 per cent of the economy of the Cariboo riding is certainly derived from forestry.

I think we have something to be very proud of. We have sawmills, plywood plants, planer mills and a pulp mill. They are using the log in the right manner; the log goes through the sawmill, on to the planer mill or the veneer plant and the waste from these operations is then consumed in the new pulp mill at Quesnel which, by the way, is now on stream and up to full capacity in short order. There is very little smell from it, Mr. Chairman. Everybody is fairly happy with it and it employs a lot of people.

The other thing that has happened with this integrated industry — and I think that this is what's wrong where they've had the trouble in Prince Rupert, for instance, and still have trouble. I don't think they'll ever be economic there until they build a new, modern pulp mill. I hope, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, that the Government realizes that until they get a mill that can exist on waste from the product of the sawmill or plywood plant or both, I don't think they can afford the economics of using round logs, taking them 400 and 500 miles as they're doing there and then converting them into chips. It seems to be that a far better use of the raw product could be made than that. And back into the Cariboo, that is exactly what's happening.

The other point concerns the operations in my hometown of Quesnel which have been successful. Last August 31, the beehive burners there went out of existence because the sawmills put hoggers in their operations and this hog fuel is now going to the pulp mill and they're generating their own steam and electricity from this other waste product from the trees. My question to the Minister — and this is one of the other hats that he wears — is what is the overall policy on beehive burners to phase them out wherever they might be in the Province of British Columbia?

In Quesnel, they've been phased out because there's no longer any need for them, but there are problems at Williams Lake,100 Mile House, and I don't think the citizens should have to put up with these too much longer. I want to know how much longer this is going to go on.

Some companies are upgrading their standards and others aren't. I think it's about time, if it hasn't already been done, that there should be some guidelines. Do you have a burner that will meet the guidelines for pollution control? I believe there is, but I would like to hear what you intend to do.

In the case of the Cariboo, we can't put hoggers on the mills at Williams Lake and take the hog fuel to Quesnel because it's just not economic to haul this hog fuel that far. It's all right where the mills are near

[ Page 1835 ]

the pulp mill but not that far away. This is something that I think we should move on a little faster.

I'd like now to go into grazing, which comes under the Forest Service. We have a lot of grazing problems in Cariboo and, I think, wherever there are cattle on Crown land. I attend many grazing meetings where they discuss their problems. Some things you hear you like and some you don't, but in some cases there seems to be overgrazing.

Lately we've had a lot of publicity about a large ranch in my riding, the Gang Ranch. There's an apparent conflict there over wildlife — but I believe it's properly discussed under the grazing division of the forestry. The Gang Ranch has some 8,000 head of cattle with 827,000 acres under lease for grazing.

In that general area they have this unique band of big horn sheep. Whether or not the cattle are eating their forage, I don't know, but I really think something should be done in there. The forestry division should get together with the wildlife and get the range back for the sheep so they can be properly looked after without too much effect on the ranch operation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Lacking coordination between government departments.

MR. FRASER: Yes. I think two government departments there should coordinate more, quit their squabbling and fighting and settle this local problem.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Attacking each other in the Press.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: Do you call that a sham battle?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. FRASER: As I said earlier, the Gang Ranch has under lease 827,000 acres of Crown land for grazing. But in the general area that was written up in the newspaper, it wasn't told that there is a further 3,679,000 of Crown land. So the Gang Ranch, while they have large holdings, are certainly only part of a very large area — that is the point I am trying to bring out. I think in view of this, through you Mr. Minister, we can get this problem resolved about the abuse — if there is abuse — of the Crown range. I doubt that there is.

Still on grazing, I heard something that I didn't like to hear going to cattlemen's grazing meetings — and the Forest Service people I might say are very good at attending these meetings. In the Cariboo, the forest rangers announced last fall to the cattlemen all over the riding that they would no longer come to meetings called on weekends and that they would even look dimly on going to evening meetings. I would like to tell the Minister that I don't think these forest rangers should be telling the people who pay their wages this sort of thing. I was wondering if this had been brought to your attention before.

It is most inconvenient for cattlemen to go to meetings in the daytime. They're working hard, they drive maybe 100 miles to go to a meeting and it's most convenient for them to go to evening meetings. But this word has been passed all over the Cariboo: "You arrange your annual meetings and meetings where the grazing permits are issued at the convenience of the forest ranger, not the citizen." I would like you to comment. Maybe you'll have to issue instructions, but I think that the procedure should be reversed. Maybe you don't know about it.

There's something that I'd like to discuss in the lands department. We always have a lot of land problems in the Cariboo that are different from the lower mainland. I'm talking about the disposal of Crown lands for any purposes.

It was recently brought to my attention that the land inspectors at Williams Lake are telling the citizens that we only have a straight lease policy for disposition of agricultural Crown land.

I realize there has been a policy change for industrial and commercial lands to straight lease, but this is being confused again by land inspectors. I would like to see, Mr. Minister, that this is clarified through the department that the citizen is given the proper information that the lease to purchase still exists where agricultural Crown land is involved.

I would like now to discuss a couple of smaller items but important to my riding. It isn't all milk and honey in the forest division of the Cariboo — I refer to the closing of a planer mill at Hixson. Hixson is the most northerly community in my riding and supports around 400 citizens. A large company, Netherlands Overseas, has timber rights in that area. They have built a large planer mill at Prince George and now instead of the lumber being planed in Hixson they have decided it is more economical to take the lumber to Prince George.

I will say that the company has said that no jobs will be lost. I think that is correct — they mean that. But who wants to commute 45 miles every day to work and back? That is what they would have to do to work in a planer mill at Prince George. I think that planer mill is still there, and I am wondering if the forestry department would see that this is re-opened, in view of the fact they hold the timber in the immediate area of this small community of Hixson.

The other community that is in trouble over different things going on is the community of Clinton, which doesn't have much of a payroll. There have been some closures there by operators that shouldn't be allowed to get away with what they did. I would like to hear from the Minister whether the

[ Page 1836 ]

forestry department is doing anything about that. This community of Clinton certainly needs the employment. The timber from that area has not left the area, but I would like to know if the forestry department is encouraging operators to get in there and put in a plant to cut it before somebody gets the bright idea that they can truck it 100 miles to another community that maybe doesn't need the uplift that old Clinton needs.

The last speaker said that the forest industry were upset and had fear. I am not so sure that that is correct, but I would like to hear, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, that there have been very few forest policy changes. I am wondering if he is ready to announce any new ones, and I think that that is what is concerning the industry — policy changes in the way they dispose of timber. There are several ways that timber is being disposed of, but I am just wondering if there are going to be any policy changes on how they do dispose of timber. It is now on a quota system and so on. I'm talking about the larger level. Are you contemplating a change in policy through disposition of this timber or not?

I think, Mr. Chairman, that timber is certainly contributing its share now to the coffers. I know you people — the new Government — are concerned with what we are getting out of it, but I see you have $100 million out of stumpage in 1972. 1 think that is quite adequate. That's good, that's fine, I hope it goes up more this year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Could we have a little more quiet in the House, please?

MR. FRASER: I really think that the timber industry generally is certainly paying its right and just price for the resource as maybe other natural resources are not. I really think the timber industry is certainly paying theirs.

We hear a lot about reforestation. I think, Mr. Chairman, that some of the citizens of the province think that no reforestation is going on in our province at all. This, of course, has not been the case. Maybe it can be stepped up — I hope it is.

I have a schedule in front of me — I don't intend to read it — on reforestation. In 1940 there were 3 million seedlings planted, covering 4,000 acres. In 1972 the number of seedlings has gone to 48 million and 111,000 acres. It is projected to go up almost double that again in the next three or four years. Between the natural reseeding and what has been done by industry and government, certainly it is not all completely a rip-off, with the forest forgotten about, as they tried to convince the public was the case.

While I am on the subject of reseeding and so on — the forest service side — I would like to hear from the Minister whether university people will be hired as they were in the past under the stepped-up reforestation programme, because a lot of young people enjoy this outdoor work and they are, I think, excellent working people.

I have asked you a few questions now so I will sit down and see how you answer those.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Maybe we can start at the end and work back. On the question of employment of students this coming summer, it is our expectation — these are young people, generally — that we will be employing 1,000 young people this summer to work in this sector in the forest service.

With respect to the question of Hixson in the northern end of the Cariboo riding, the sawmill will certainly remain. Pretty well everything else was in motion some time ago. I have been contacted by the Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler) regarding the same problem and there is every expectation that the sawmill will continue. That employment base, at least, will remain.

As to the question of policy with respect to agricultural lands, if the inspector in the area indicates that leasehold only is the policy, then he is incorrect. The policy will allow indefeasible title to such agricultural lands as are acquired. The title, however, from here on in, I think — a release was made yesterday or might have been processed today — in effect will align with the Land Commission Act. As a result the title to those lands will be affected in the sense that the use shall be for agricultural purposes. So, in effect, the development rights beyond agricultural use will remain with the Province of British Columbia.

The question of the Gang Ranch and grazing: The differences expressed in public by some of the civil servants is a kind of change in this province. You never used to hear it before. Some of the young biologists and so on who have been concerned about inadequate practices of the past have kept their mouths shut in the past. They are not afraid to speak now, so I am not disturbed. I think it is a fairly healthy interim situation.

They are a group on the whole that I think have been repressed in the past and I think they have had a real input to make in terms of integrated resource management plans. They haven't really in the past had a chance of having an input. We are changing that, we are increasing the staffing in that section, we think, to the point where we are hiring as many as we can assimilate in a year. I think there are limitations in terms of assimilation.

I am a little disappointed that that particular one was raised because the whole question was in motion.

[ Page 1837 ]

We have had inquiries with respect to the Gang Ranch as to whether there would be any new policies with respect to transfer of the Crown leases and permits with respect to the ranch. We have reviewed the question and had determined a policy which we announced a week or so ago, with respect to transfer of these assets to non-resident non-nationals. We indicated that we would not approve the transfer of these major land assets to non-resident non-nationals.

Beyond that, the staff were again working jointly with the Fish and Wildlife people and the Lands Branch regarding some kind of rationalization of the situation. As a result, right in process, and it has been for a couple of months, is a proposed programme of shifting the land ownership or lease ownership pattern. The key lands that are used by the sheep would, in fact, be separated and would become an area of management for wildlife purposes. That has never been attempted before that I am aware of in these situations. It is a rationalizing of the situation.

What is anticipated at this stage is a 7,000 acre trade. That is, some of the Crown's holdings in the northerly part of the ranch would be shifted. The sheep area to the south and the west would, in fact, become an intensive management area for that purpose. A 7,000 acre tract would be preserved along the river, in the higher elevations in the canyon for that purpose. I think that's a major, worthwhile step, carried out again by staff in a couple of departments getting together and working out a good solution.

I frankly think that it will be a good solution for the ranchers too. I think we'll end up with some smaller ranches. I'm not convinced that bigness is automatically better. Maybe three ranches or whatever as presently proposed — the northerly one is Risky Creek, is it? That might well be a smaller ranch and might be a viable and useful ranching unit, as well as other parts of the Gang Ranch. So we might well have a good integrated solution in terms of ranching and wildlife management. I commend the staff for their work in that regard.

The question of north-western British Columbia is one that concerns us very much. I indicated that when we started on the estimates eight days ago or something like that. I think the major study that the Forest Service has carried out under my jurisdiction, at least as I see it, is with respect to northwestern British Columbia and the resource base. That's essentially the resource along the Canadian National Railroad line between Prince George and Prince Rupert.

As I indicated earlier, throughout the last six months we've looked at this area quite intensively.The Forest Service report is only now complete. I think it's an excellent piece of work and a base for new policy and decision-making in the immediate or near future. Indelibly intertwined is the whole question of transportation. I think the previous administration really proved that out, in terms of linking B.C. Rail policy with respect to resource policy. They really have to be looked at together.

The problem in north-western B.C. has been that there hasn't been quite that approach with respect to the Canadian National Rail line. That doesn't mean to say that that in itself will solve the problems of that area, but it's a beginning. I'm hopeful that, again in the reasonably near future, some announcements can be made with respect to changes in policy by Canadian National with respect to the forest resource.

The question of Smithers and the Richmond Plywood proposal with respect to a veneer plant initially: I think the firm feasibility study and proposal was received about two weeks ago. I'm not close to the internal politics of Smithers. I've received communications from various people in the community. The decision will be made with respect to Richmond Plywood, along with other applications in the area, in relation to this overall study that has been carried out by the Forest Service. We hope to resolve most of these questions soon after the session prorogues or earlier, depending on the session of course.

The problems of the mills in Prince Rupert and Kitimat are similar. The need for residual supply for the mills at Watson Island and in Kitimat is a major problem for the north-west. There's no question that sawmill capacity along the Canadian National line has to be increased substantially, so that there is a substantially increased residual supply for the mills in those two communities.

There's no question that the future of those mills is entirely dependent upon residual supply and transportation improvements in the region. If those two things don't go hand in hand, the mills in both locations are in trouble. I think that's been apparent for some time. It's unfortunate that the problem was not perceived at an earlier stage. It is appreciated as one of the major problems facing this administration and it's one that we intend to pursue seriously and take action on, again in the immediate and near future.

The future of those towns and that region is dependent upon action by this Government, the federal government and the companies involved, including the national railway. It's a kind of grand problem and one in which all the pieces have to be linked. I hope that it can be resolved in the reasonably near future. It's extremely serious and the future of those towns is dependent upon a bold plan of action for the northwest.

The question of beehive burners — this is sort of a laundry list — the standards have been established. The date for the new standards is 1975. There are burners that can meet the standards. That's the programme that's underway.

The question of hog fuel is a difficult one. I'm

[ Page 1838 ]

aware that it's a real concern among the Cariboo lumbermen. It's one that I certainly want to spend some time on, again in the reasonably near future. B.C. Hydro have carried out some studies of their own with respect to the use of hog fuel as a power source on Vancouver Island. All studies to date have indicated that it's not economic. I think further study would be worthwhile. Some questioning of the assumptions and other policies of Hydro might well be deserved in this area, so that we might jointly solve the problem. But I see that as taking a period of time.

The question of the Nitinat Triangle raised by the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson): I don't think there's much disagreement about the park potential of the lake basin at the southern end of the Pacific Rim National Park. However, it is complex and there are tenures and tree farm licenses in the area, as the Member knows. We're not prepared, therefore, to move right in on that particular question. However, we want to keep the option open. The matter will be reviewed pretty closely, I think, in the fall.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The deadline has been extended one year, as a matter of fact. There was a deadline of this spring. I believe that the deadline has either been extended or is in the process of being extended. So I think we have some leeway, and I appreciate the concern with respect to that particular wilderness area so close to this part of Vancouver Island.

The question of the Chilliwack Valley that the Member raised: at the south end of Chilliwack Lake — those are simply company proposals. They have not been reviewed by the Forest Service staff. We'll certainly keep our eye on that area. I'm familiar with the north end of Chilliwack Lake and appreciate the quality of the area.

With respect to the Sapper Park: it was established, I understand, by the army engineers at Chilliwack. I was unfamiliar with it until the Member raised it. It's something I'll check into further.

The question of Skagit Valley: there's no question, Mr. Chairman, that we're most serious about the decisions made to date by this Government. We're determined to see that the Skagit is preserved from flooding. I think it must be fairly clear to all Members that these decisions aren't made lightly. The decision was made and the announcement was made. It was when this House was not in session but I would reaffirm everything that has been said outside this House by the Members of this administration. We have no intent of changing our position with respect to added flooding of the Skagit.

With respect to the ROSS Committee letter: I hadn't seen the letter till the Member raised it. I will pursue it and see that we respond to it. Of course, discussions are still going on with our own federal government with respect to the Skagit. They will continue and I'm rather optimistic regarding our relationship with the federal government.

The point is that this Government is serious about the question. The kind of compensation that was acceptable in the past by the former administration for the destruction of valleys such as this shows it up, I think, for what it really is, when you hear the kind of talk by some parties in the United States at this time. That is that compensation to British Columbia for the flooding of the valley was acceptable at a $32,000 a year figure. Yet, some Americans are talking about — now, this is not looking at the legalities involved, in terms of the agreement, which we have some doubts about, as we indicated earlier — but some Americans are saying the compensation should be in the realm of $10 million to $40 million. Yet the deal made by the former Minister and the former administration was $32,000 a year. That's the kind of slick horse trader that that former administration had. Compensation of $32,000 a year, and yet Americans talking about $10 million to $40 million in terms of the assets.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, but they're businessmen.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, that's it. You know, it's an indication I think, Mr. Chairman, of the kind of colonial cooperation that the former administration was willing to live with. This administration will not tolerate that kind of colonial cooperation. I think those are the main things.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will stifle any thoughts I might have of answering the Minister's last comments because I want to get on with the future.

I would like to again bring to the Minister's attention, and ask him some questions with regard to the Youngstrom property acquisition in the North Okanagan. This land, which was acquired by a person of considerable concern to the people — and that isn't really relevant in the debate — but has caused a lot of concern.

This land is 230 acres of what is considered by the Minister's department to be some to the prime winter grazing land in the whole of the Okanagan. It's on the Shuswap River, between Shuswap and about 10 miles down the road. It's right in the centre of what they call the Byers Range which runs from Shuswap up past Cherryville, just off Highway 6, in behind Lumby.

It's a piece of land, this particular 320 acres, part

[ Page 1839 ]

of which was cleared a number of years ago as a farm. It's prime grouse area, and as I mentioned, it's prime winter feeding area for deer. About three years ago there was one piece of Crown land in that area which the Department of Conservation recommended be declared winter grazing for deer and this was done.

This land adjoins that and forms part of another major area well over 1,000 acres which would, I believe, be recommended by the Minister's department as a reserve for winter grazing of deer.

The land itself has changed hands twice in the last few years; out of an estate into other hands and is now in the hands of an individual who may not even be allowed into Canada.

But the point is, the amount of money that we're discussing is between $35,000 and $40,000. I understand that the parties involved would be amenable to negotiation.

My question to the Minister is: would he, or would he designate some member of his department or the greenbelt protection committee to at least examine (1) The Department of Conservation's recommendation as to the advisability of this piece of land as a winter grazing area. (2) If they substantiate what I said very briefly in this House, would the Minister consider entering into negotiations with a view to acquiring that land for this purpose, taking one more step into the preservation of one of the most ideal winter grazing areas in British Columbia?

I'm sure that the Minister is aware that in the Okanagan we're moving up the mountainsides — very much so — bordering on our forestry areas and our park areas. And as such, the deer are moving further and further into the back lands and the problem of winter grazing is becoming increasingly difficult.

There is more acreage right in the Byers Range which is for sale, but this is a matter which I'm sure those people can discuss individually with the Minister's department.

There is conflict around this purchase. The Minister himself has said that he is going to take action regarding the acquisition of lands in British Columbia on a large basis. As I mentioned before, I think some consideration should be given to whether or not people with an indictable offence against them — who are aliens and who may not even be allowed into the country — should have the right to purchase lands in British Columbia, particularly agricultural or grazing lands. I would ask if he would take this matter under advisement if he is drafting legislation.

It takes five years to become a Canadian citizen and that is certainly a very suitable time for someone who moves to British Columbia or Canada to declare their intention of being a good citizen or not, as the case may be.

Another matter that I would like to ask the Minister about — with regard to the Green Belt Protection Fund — and that's in relation to the exceptions that have been made to the land freeze in British Columbia.

It involves a piece of property known as the Kawana property, in the area of Winfield, which was agricultural land. It was prime fruit production land and this man had subdivided before the freeze came on, or he had undertaken a lot of work.

As I understand it, an exception was made and I wonder if these pieces of land did come before the multi-land-use committee, or whatever committee is designated to handle the Green Belt Fund. And was any consideration given to purchasing this land on a fair basis?

His costs had been established before the freeze took place and a fair and equitable settlement could have been made to preserve this land. If it did come before, and it was turned down, would the Minister please give the reasons as to why it was turned down as a possible purchase under the Green Belt Protection Fund, and kept in agriculture?

I'd like to talk to the Minister about an area which I think he knows very well. It's involved in the Coldstream Ranch, and it's Cousins Bay. I've tried to contact the Minister on this on several occasions and have not been successful. This is a unique piece of property in British Columbia. It's approximately 2,000 acres of some of the most extraordinary dryland in B.C. It has a vast volume of bird species and wildlife, as well as being a prime recreational area. It has a marvelous collection of what could be called flora and fauna and it's used extensively in the summertime for hiking and horseback riding and general picnicking.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I don't know that I want to get into nude bathing. If I was 21 and had a better figure, I might be willing to enter the discussion.

But I would like to quote to the Minister from a report called "A Planning Study for Coldstream" by one Robert Williams and Associates. Yes, Mr. Minister, it is good stuff and I hope that the Minister will respond to this report. I am sure it was dealt with in all sincerity, and it has some very strong recommendations. But the report describes in its introduction:

"Coldstream, a pleasant agricultural valley south and east of Vernon, comprising the valley bottom and adjacent slopes drained by Coldstream Creek.

"The municipality historically has been devoted to agricultural use both on a large scale with the famous Coldstream Ranch, and on a smaller scale with ten and twenty-acre holdings. The growth of the municipality over the years has been relatively slow and the natural character and charm has evolved.

"In recent years growth has been much more

[ Page 1840 ]

substantial with Coldstream absorbing much of the new residential growth generated by the city of Vernon. Development on the whole has been in keeping with the character of the earlier municipality and in some respects has continued to add to the charm of the area."

And I think generally this is true, Mr. Minister, with some exceptions, and you always have these. But I'd like to quote a little bit more in this report. "In a developing pattern" — under this heading the report says:

"The land area comprises approximately 1,000 acres and is an area that could support a population of 9,000 people."

I think this is true, Mr. Minister. I think it was a projected figure by the company and could very well take place in reality if proper planning is evolved. As the Minister knows full well, Marathon Realty is very interested in the famed Coldstream Ranch. I'd like to come back to that, but in relation to this 2,000 acres, I would like to just fill the Minister in with some of the history.

This has been traditionally, through the generosity of the Aberdeen family descendents, used by the public — and through the generosity of management, because the public haven't always treated the land as well as the land has treated them. Cleaning it up is a problem.

I don't know whether the Minister's aware — there are a lot of people in this area who are interested in nature, who go out in boats once a day and clean up the garbage that's left by the people enjoying the area.

As far back as the early 1950s an effort was made by the then provincial government to negotiate with the family in England, through Government House. At that time they showed no inclination to part with the land. But, they did suggest that if this should happen, the Crown provincial should have first opportunity to purchase and first somebody talked about 1984 in our Land Act, Mr. Speaker. Here's the real 1984 and right of refusal.

Well, they didn't. But now, Mr. Minister, you have an opportunity to do what you believe in and what's in your report. Numerous contacts were made in the ensuing years.

When I came into government I went to the Department of Recreation and Conservation and found the report. At that time the Department of Recreation had recommended just the purchase of certain waterfront areas and bay areas. We worked and the citizens of the area worked and the Department worked to examine the area fully to find out if, in fact, this was a sound recommendation.

They came to the conclusion, some three years ago, after a great deal of study, that the whole 2,000 acres should be included as a recreational or park area — whatever you want to call it. At that time further efforts were made to negotiate with the family, both directly and through the directors in British Columbia, and it was my understanding that a letter of first refusal was lodged in that file, as far as sale is concerned.

I say quite frankly — I have said it to the directors right to their face, so I have no hesitation in saying it in this House — that I feel they haven't played fair and square with the people of this area in relation to the future of that land. It is no secret that if the whole ranch is to be sold, then the key to the retrieving of that value is in that approximately 2,000 acres.

The Minister may now well be aware that lodged in his department is a very sound report recommending that it should be retained as a recreation area. The people of the area believe that it should be retained as a recreation area. In case the Minister is having a lapse of memory, I would read him another section of the report — the "Planning study for Coldstream by Robert Williams and associates."

"The third area of concern with respect to shoreline policy is Cousins Bay and Twin Bay. Cousins Bay and the small Twin Bays or Juniper Bay together comprise what must be some of the most beautiful shoreline in British Columbia.

"We believe that every effort should be made to ensure that these areas will be preserved for the public in the future. There is no equal in the Okanagan region to the shoreline in this part of the municipality. Since the Okanagan region offers possibly the greatest future in recreation in the province, the Cousins Bay area takes on a province-wide significance.

"We believe, therefore, that the municipality should recognize the fact that this is potentially the finest recreation space in the region, and designate the area for park use. This could be done through zoning which would allow the present ranch use but would make it clear…"

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm reading the report, Mr. Minister.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, is the Minister willing to listen or does he want to get into a sparring debate? Because if he does I can dish it out just as well as you can, Mr. Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member continue with her speech, please?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

[ Page 1841 ]

MRS. JORDAN: I'm glad to hear the Premier say that and if he will just listen on…

"This could be done through zoning which would allow the present ranch use but would make it clear that the future intent is the preservation of this magnificent land for the public. We believe that every effort should be made to have the province acquire this land as a provincial park site."

I am very pleased to see the Premier of this province…

AN HON. MEMBER: Author?

MRS. JORDAN: The author is Mr. Robert Williams and Associates, the present Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources and Minister of Recreation and Conservation, and I agree with him.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You agree with him?

MRS. JORDAN: On this point.

HON. MR. BARRETT: One of you has got to quit.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Premier, if you make that a provincial park I'd almost be inclined to say that I will quit. (Laughter).

Will you give it to me in writing?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: If the Premier and the Minister will put it in writing today, that that 2,000 acres would be preserved as a recreational area or a park area essentially in its natural state, then… Would you give it to me in writing?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Will you support the land commission if I write it?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Member, one of the things that I didn't agree with in the report was the fact that the Minister or the author of this report suggested that zoning should be used as a tool of confiscation. I don't approve of that and neither does this side of the House and that is part of the issue in the land commission bill.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Waffle, waffle.

MRS. JORDAN: No waffle, we don't believe in zoning down to cheat people, that's all. We believe that they should get a fair price. I feel in asking the Minister to stand by his own recommendation and preserve this natural area which is a benefit not only to the Okanagan…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Has the Premier got problems?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I don't have any problems — you're the one that's got them.

MRS. JORDAN: I don't have any problems. I'm reading from the report of the Minister, and I am hoping he'll stand by his own recommendation. If he doesn't he is likely to have problems.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're walking on a fence with both ears on the ground.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, at least I don't have a long left ear.

Mr. Minister, adjacent to this land is a large forestry reserve which has great potential for recreational use and minimum potential as a forestry production area. We made application to the federal government to examine this area as part of a national part complex to work in cooperation with the province to help defray the costs so that a fair price would be given. They turned it down as being too small. They didn't look at the adjoining forest reserve, but there are areas in there which I am sure the Minister hasn't visited, because you can't get up there unless you go in the winter time or hike very vigorously in the summer.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, then that's all the more reason why you would be interested in preserving it. But the whole area offers a wonderful opportunity for possibly the new term, which you hope you will elaborate for us, of the recreation area.

One of the things that is missing in the report, Mr. Minister, and one of the things that I think is missing in the whole debate of that area, is that the emphasis is put on the shoreline. I don't detract from the beauty of the shoreline nor the need to preserve this, but what is missing is that it is the land itself that is attractive to people, whether it is winter or summer.

People like to go out there in the winter. I was out there myself in January and there were people hiking all over the place in the snow — some with snowshoes on, some just with boots on. There were young people, children and families out there with skis, practising cross-country skiing, not in a highly sophisticated way but in a way that appeals to families.

There is another factor that comes into play and that is the Okanagan water basin study — the $2 million study that is going on between the federal government, the provincial government and the people in the Okanagan. I must say that it was the first time that there was any opportunity to hope-

[ Page 1842 ]

fully be able to point out to administration or people some of the facts about Kalamalka Lake. It is considered one of the most beautiful lakes in North America but we never could say why. It had lovely colours, it was fresh, but in trying to put forth a position of care for this lake at any level of government or even to local people there just weren't the facts to deal with.

Hopefully these are coming forth now. It is certainly in part from that study. If you look at that lake and you look at the area around it, it is a very small lake, only 15 miles long. Surely without a study one can appreciate that if there is too much human pressure put on that lake it is going to have a destructive effect. If we allow development in the Cousins Bay area, this is going to enhance the human pressure on the lake. In fact, Mr. Minister, I wouldn't even mind if you made it a quiet lake and kept the big motors off. This may be necessary.

Marathon Realty are interested in purchasing part or all of the ranch and the ranch is interested in selling part of all of the ranch. Mr. Minister, when you look at the land around there and you appreciate the great things that can be done by proper planning surely we can accept the fact that the land adjacent to that 2,000 acres can offer every bit as great a potential for high quality, not necessarily high cost living and recreation.

Marathon has been very good about coming to the people and they are preparing a slide presentation, but what is at issued here is whether or not that is to be a cultivated recreation area or whether it is to be more of a natural area.

Mr. Minister, I speak with confidence when I say that the people in this area would like a natural area or as nearly natural as it can be. We would like this to be a provincial park not only on the basis of the recommendation of your own report but on the basis of looking at the province as a whole, looking at the preservation of Kalamalka Lake and looking at the projections as they are in your own report. If there are to be 9,000 people living in that Coldstream valley area, then there is going to be a great need for natural types of reserves.

I don't know whether the Minister has been into what is called the "gorge area" of the park — hopefully — but here are two little lakes where you can cast a line and get a bite every time, even though you can't get the fish out. It is almost like being 100 miles from any civilization at all. No matter how carefully it is planned, this natural environment is going to be destroyed.

So I would ask the Minister, through you Mr. Chairman: (1) will he adhere to his own report, which I highly endorse? (2) will he, in dealing with Marathon, and Marathon has to have his consent for this, point out to them the potential for a high quality development adjacent to this 2,000 acres?

Will he give us a commitment to consider the first priority of that land to be — I hate to say a natural area because it isn't a natural area, people are in there, but some type of more natural recreational area?

If we get planning in there and you get a golf club in there and you get a country club and you get this club and that club…the very reason that people like them — and they do because it is so close to a populated area, the very reason that people ride there, the very reason that the naturalists go there, and the very reason that people who like to watch birds — ornithologists — go there — would be destroyed. The Minister knows that it has a lot of natural pine which is not too common in this area.

Will he, Mr. Chairman, give us a commitment that this is his preference? We don't ask him to confiscate this land from the owners. I think they should have a fair price. There is a guesstimate evaluation in the Minister's department which is reasonable and fair. Marathon, I think, would be amenable to this type of arrangement if the Minister would put it forward. I will be looking forward with great interest to the Minister's comments.

I would ask him, in leaving this subject, that he recognize that it is not only, and I repeat it, not only waterfront — this is used — but mostly in the summertime and a few times in the winter and fall. But, it is the land itself and just the very naturalness of the land.

If the north Okanagan is to grow — as predicted not only in the Minister's report, but other in reports that have been done in this area — there is going to be a tremendous need for this type of natural area, picnic area, walking area, within the close proximity. And also by having it well organized and not a cluster of people in it — we do not see how it can help but be beneficial for Kalamalka Lake itself.

The Crown was in on the 200 acres and the forest reserve that goes right down to what is called the Ellison property which was Crown grant land away back when Pryce Ellison sat in this Legislature. But other than that, Mr. Minister, that is all the public land there is on Kalamalka Lake. As he knows, the other side is the railway. We don't object to that because as long as the railway is there development isn't going to take place and that leaves a fair amount of beach when the water is low in late July and August.

I would point out as strongly as I can, and I would offer the Minister every cooperation of the people and myself, if he would follow the recommendation of his department, would follow his own report and look at the 2,000 acres and the forestry reserve. I don't suggest that there can't be logging in the forest reserve — they could practise good forestry management — but, essentially consider it a recreational area. I am sure he would have the undying gratitude of

[ Page 1843 ]

everybody, including myself, in that area. When I suggest offering you sincerest cooperation — I think the Minister knows, he has had talks with some of the people from the area, and I believe that he can recognize that they are willing to offer him every cooperation and every help in bringing this about.

In speaking of the Okanagan water basin study — I don't intend to go into it, but the Minister has made some conflicting statements. I won't go into them in detail.

He has at last, and for this the people thank him, put up money for a weed harvester. There is some concern that this, in effect, is the best weed harvester to do the job, and that there is enough scientific knowledge behind this particular model to suggest that it was a wise purchase.

In putting up provincial government funds for this purchase I would hope that the Minister through his department — and I am sure his director of water resources will be there — will see that this harvesting is done under the most rigid conditions. When it was first started it was pointed out by very knowledgeable people that it was playing with fire. It was entered into with this knowledge; it was also entered into with the knowledge that it would have to continue over a period of years if there was to be any sound scientific or practical knowledge gained from it.

In spite of the fact that the Minister describes the Okanagan basin area as a rich man's yacht basin, the people say thank you.

But, in providing this machine there is… Do you want the letter? …there are problems, because this weed has to be harvested, as we understand it, at certain times. And because it is Crown provincial property, there will be other demands on this harvester and it will require the utmost assistance from the department that we don't transfer the hassle over the weeks to the hassle over the harvester. We would also hope that there would be enough evidence gathered from this study to move the harvester to Woods Lake where there has been a serious problem in weed control.

Rather than going on to the Okanagan basin study, perhaps the Minister would elaborate as to what he feels will be the future of the reports that come from the Okanagan basin study. There is a great deal of public input going on, and will go on for the next few months. We feel sure that there will be a lot of recommendations and evidence come out of this study.

I would not suggest for a minute that the people of the Okanagan are willing to pay any amount to have the most pure water or environmental area in the world. I think this just isn't realistic. But, I do believe that if there are some sound recommendations that come forth in this report, and if it is put to them on a basis of benefit to themselves and to the province, and in a democratic way, that the people will respond.

They are concerned about the future of the Okanagan Water Basin Board. These are volunteer citizens who have served very well. They are devoted to the betterment of the Okanagan Valley in its entirety whether it is land management, or water management, or air management. There is no one in the Okanagan who would want the board to remain simply for its own sake. But, our general impression is that this board could provide a very useful vehicle to perhaps carry out some of the recommendations that come from the report, also to better manage the water resources and perhaps eventually the land resources in the Okanagan, and to better coordinate one such simple thing as water licenses.

I wouldn't for a minute suggest that they should have total control. I feel that water licences should be issued, essentially, at the provincial area in light of a provincial picture of water management and water resource usage. But they can give a great deal of helpful advice. They can make the Minister's department aware of local feelings, and I think offer some useful and constructive input. So I would ask, rather than going into more questions, for the Minister's impressions of what he thinks the future is with the Okanagan basin board.

I haven't finished yet.

Another matter, and these are essentially local matters, is in regard to the compatibility of independent small operators working in timber licence areas or lands that are leased or controlled by private companies.

I have a specific case in mind where a small man started a small shake mill in the Lumby-Monashee area. In 1967 he got into difficulties because he had the use of a piece of land after it had been logged over, in which he could pick up the decadent cedar or the disregarded cedar. It was this he used to operate his mill with, and to make cedar shakes.

He got into a crunch because of the regulations by the forestry department in regard to fire prevention and reforestation and cleaning up — this certainly has a lot of justification. It was put to him at the time that if he could get permission — from the various companies that had the timber licences and took out the good timber — to have more than a six month period in which to clean up the area, this would be acceptable to the forestry department. This worked fairly well for the last two years.

But, now he is in a position where he is independent, he is employing 18 people, but he can't get a supply of the cedar that is suitable for shakes. As the Minister knows, you can use decadent cedar — providing it's decadent in the right way.

What we need is a policy whereby there can be an agreement between the companies and the individual operator and the department where operators such as this can go in and use this material which otherwise

[ Page 1844 ]

would be burned or wasted. In the land that he is using now, he pays $16 per cubic inch for the material that he uses, and $8 of this goes to the forestry for stumpage and royalties. Then he pays another $8 for other usage. So he is paying $16 in order to help meet the regulations of the Forestry Branch in proper forest management. The new regulations that the Minister's department issued recently have made this an intolerable situation, and he just can't continue operating.

In this area we also have an industry called Howard industry which is for the rehabilitation of ex-drug addicts and ex-convicts and people who have this problem. It's a self-help industry. It's certainly not an economic unit in terms of dollars but it's certainly economic in terms of helping to rehabilitate people who otherwise would have very poor work patterns. In a way, I think they've been doing a service to the province, in that they can utilize this decadent material for fence posts and such things as kindling.

I would ask the Minister if he is prepared to have his department investigate and bring in a policy whereby a small operator can operate for longer than a three or four-month period on these lands which are under licence to various companies. They just cannot clear them off in the time required by the forestry department at this time, and especially now under the new regulations.

This one little company, as I mentioned, is employing 18 people now. It can employ another 18 people on a second shift if they can be assured of a supply of wood. They can't get their own timber licences because they are not big enough nor do they wish to be involved in major logging operations. They are, in part, a salvage company but producing a very useful and a very profitable material. I wonder if the Minister could answer that, please.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, with respect to salvaging operations. This is something that we would be pleased to pursue in detail, if we can get more details. I'm basically in sympathy with that kind of further use of the resource.

Insofar as the water basin study is concerned, I guess we really just have to wait and see at this stage, in terms of what kind of instrument we might use at a later stage in the basin, and whether this itself might develop or evolve in that regard. I think the small regional districts might be a bit of a problem in the Okanagan, but that's in terms of water management. That may be a matter for municipal affairs.

Cousins Bay and Kalamalka Lake and Coldstream: well, it is a delightful, beautiful part of British Columbia. It should have been a high priority consideration a long time ago. Well, how do you measure these priorities? I think only by decisions and action. There weren't any decisions and there wasn't any action in the last half-dozen years, while the Hon. Member was a member of the Executive Council.

The Okanagan is one of the unique parts of this province. It does have a potential and it already has a development that is most significant, in terms of tourism and recreation. Cousins Bay, Twin Bays and Juniper Bays are the most important in the Okanagan, bar none. I suggest that they may be more important than the water frontages in Kelowna and Penticton themselves, right in the major communities in the south. The valley of Coldstream is also delightful. It's really one of the great things about the north Okanagan. The ranch is one of the historic long-time ranches of this province and one of the long-time absentee-owned ranches of British Columbia.

The owners are resident in — what are they, some distillers in London? Anyway, the Minister said they made that kind of agreement with the province — that first refusal would reside with the Province of British Columbia. What happened? First refusal was obviously with the CPR subsidiary, Marathon Realty. So instead of the owners of those lands coming to the province, the province having sent people to British Columbia House over the last two decades to try and discuss and negotiate with them, instead they deal with CPR's subsidiary, Marathon.

That's the situation now. They didn't come to the Minister. They didn't come to this Government and say, "We're now interested in leaving our absentee ownership situation and we think the people should speak first with respect to this beautiful chunk of the landscape of the north Okanagan." They discussed the matter with others.

The shoreline there is significant and it should be preserved. One way of so doing is to zone the land and to designate the land. The zoning category could be much the same as a farmland zoning category, for it is a ranch and they get the tax advantages of being a ranch and being in a farmland category. It's hardly unreasonable that they should be designated in that same way.

So all of the noise and fury that we've had over the last dozen days in this House gets flipped right around later in the afternoon. We talk about preserving this area and how can we preserve this important area. We've had an instrument before this House that would have showed us how. You know it's just a little hard to take. The means of preserving the magnificent parts of the landscape of this province have been before you. We're just lucky, in this particular instance that the area wasn't under the axe at an earlier stage. We're just lucky because the former administration did not, in fact, take action.

[ Page 1845 ]

As soon as the proposals with respect to the development of that area were made public, I phoned Marathon Realty and advised them of my concern. A meeting took place in my office within a matter of a week or so after that phone call.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's it, you know. There are some 12,000 acres in total on the ranch, if I remember correctly. It is magnificent and it should be preserved. The first step would be through zoning. As I recall, I think the municipality actually did zone the land for farm purposes or ranch purposes. So that's fortunate — the municipality took a step in terms of designating, in terms of a lower zoning category. That is, they didn't zone it for housing development or whatever, as has happened in so many parts of the Okanagan basin. It's certainly to the district municipality's credit, in terms of the various steps they've taken in recent years.

Not only did I meet with Marathon Realty, Mr. Chairman, but I met with the representatives of the Municipality of Coldstream. I think there were five or six from the municipality. I met with them in the fall, as I recall.

There are these human pressures on beautiful parts of the province like this. It's understandable. There is a need for proper planning and we sure never got it in the past from the provincial administration.

MRS. JORDAN: Read your own report.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, that was the municipality and myself. I don't think the Social Credit administration can take very much credit for that. What I said in that report, I stand by today. That land is too important to go under the developer's axe. It is simply too important. It's important to the north Okanagan. It's important to the whole basin. It is important to the Province of British Columbia.

I think it's interesting, Mr. Chairman, that the first real steps probably took place this fall with respect to that land. There has been a meeting with Marathon and Marathon are now aware of the province's concern with respect to that land. It isn't just the shoreline, I would agree. It's the land behind as well, so that the watershed area down to the lake is critical. Certainly from the pass to the southeast and to the shoreline, it's critical. Much of that land must be preserved because it is the finest property left in the Okanagan that hasn't gone under the axe.

I think it's amazing that the former administration was never able to come to grips with the question of absentee land ownership, when this was obviously a high priority site for British Columbia. The file that I looked at goes back to 1952. Twenty years of that former administration; the prime site in the Okanagan and it remained in absentee ownership and not, in fact, really used for ranching purposes in any significant way at all. Twenty years, when something could have been done. Twenty years, when that land could have been purchased at the value it was 20 years ago, instead of at today's inflated values. Twenty lost years.

We're just lucky that the land was not cut up. Because now, with the new administration, we can preserve it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Under the land commission? Oh, oh, oh!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Certainly. It can be preserved under the land commission statute that's been before this House. Of course it can.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Shocking! shocking!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It can be preserved in other ways. There has been direct negotiation with both the owners and the possible owners. But one thing has been made abundantly clear already, both to the municipal officials — the members of that council and their staff — and to Marathon: that is that it is a priority area; that we will not see it go under the developer's axe; that the whole land area back of the shoreline must, in fact, be preserved.

Any development must take place at least 1,500 acres back of the shoreline in order to protect both the magnificent landscape and the lake itself from the very human pressures that the Member talked about.

HON. MR. BARRETT: But what about their freedom?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: What about their freedom? The problem of absentee ownership of land in this province has only begun to be grappled with by this administration. But this particular area of absentee landownership is one that's of high priority. The absentee owners aren't going to have their way.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What about their rights?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Their rights and their freedom in Great Britain are one thing; our rights and our freedom as citizens of this province are another. I think the collective concern of the people in the Okanagan basin and in the north Okanagan in the Coldstream is far more significant than the concern, either of the lord in London or Marathon Realty.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, that's a terrible statement.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's just a change in

[ Page 1846 ]

attitude on the part of government.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What about the almighty dollar?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You had the right to acquire. The former administration had the right to acquire that land and they never did. They never exerted the power that was in their hands to preserve and save that land for future generations. We do intend to do so. We've made that abundantly clear to Marathon Realty and they understand that.

Do you know, Mr. Chairman, I think that that land can be preserved. I think that some development can take place on the ranch. I think they can still make money. And I think we can have in effect the best of all worlds in that area by simply understanding that there's so much that can be achieved by simply using the powers that we have to the advantage of the people in these regions for their collective purposes.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The heavy hand of government?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's a great opportunity that we have, this administration.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The heavy hand? The heavy hand?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The heavy hand? It's been such a light hand in the past that these areas have not been preserved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's shocking!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: So we've lost them. This is one area that can in fact be preserved. This one important spot on that beautiful Kalamalka Lake will in fact be preserved. It can be preserved in a manner that will be economic and advantageous for everybody.

I think it's kind of sad, Mr. Chairman, that we should have had a cabinet Minister from the north Okanagan for some six years who was unable to achieve this one goal for her riding. One thing is for sure; that this administration will preserve that land, even though in the time they had before, with a cabinet Minister and all, they were unable to achieve it.

AN HON. MEMBER: And a Premier next door.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I guarantee, Mr. Chairman, that this administration will preserve all of the Cousins Bay area for future generations and for the benefit of the people of the north Okanagan and all of British Columbia.

It's rather telling that in 20 years of the former administration they were unable to do anything — six years with a cabinet Minister. We tackled the question within six months of the new administration.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Okanagan for a further question.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, if ever there had been any doubt of the sincerity of that Minister and of the sincerity of this Government or the ability of this Government to stick to the facts, that Minister's statements would have washed it down the drain.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, dear!

MRS. JORDAN: The lord hasn't moved. The lord is no longer in London, he's been dead for years. But the lord has moved to that chair over there. And it's a disgrace.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a baron.

MRS. JORDAN: He talks about absentee landowners.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What did you accomplish?

MRS. JORDAN: If that Minister would get off his high horse of intellectual vacuumism and recognize that that family, good, bad or indifferent, came to the Okanagan and are largely responsible for the early development of the Okanagan. They encouraged many of the families whose descendents live there now to come to British Columbia and to come to Canada.

It may interest that Minister to know that that land didn't lie there as prime agricultural land on the Coldstream Ranch. Those people, including Lady Aberdeen who got out in her knickers and helped till that soil and helped form organizations in that community and helped those people settle down and become part of the community, made that land productive.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Who's a knicker knocker? Nobody. (Laughter).

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, our side divides on an issue like this because we don't hate people for success the way that Minister does, Mr. Chairman. We respect those who work and achieve success. We don't ride on their backs until the success is there and then knife them as that Minister constantly advocates.

This land was never for sale. The former Social Credit government had all the mechanisms there to buy that land when it came up for sale from a willing

[ Page 1847 ]

buyer for a fair price. I stand here today, Mr. Minister, asking you to use that mechanism, not your Government's confiscation mechanism.

The people of the Okanagan are fair. They don't want you to zone them out of that land; they want you to acquire that land legally and fairly.

The former administration was committed by the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Mr. W.K. Kiernan) and the Minister of Finance (Hon. W.A.C. Bennett) to me to purchase that land at a fair, equitable and negotiated price. That again is where this House divides.

That is why, Mr. Chairman, when that Minister gets up and speaks a cold fear runs through one's heart…

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh! (Laughter).

MRS. JORDAN: …because of his hunger for power and his penchant with not being fair. Certainly they are now absentee landowners, but the Minister seems to forget that many families through the years have lived on that land and made their living from that land. The manager of that ranch had his children in the Okanagan, is part of the Okanagan and is part of that ranch. He's managed that ranch I would say as well as any agriculturalist in the world could do it and it still can't be economically viable.

That 2,000 acres of parkland — and not once did the Minister commit himself to 2,000 acres; he talks about "some" development — that 2,000 acres has been used by the people in the area, and it has been used for agricultural purposes — for grazing. For him to stand up and suggest that it's been lying idle in the hot little clutches of an absentee owner is absolutely wrong. It's the reason why we have to look with a jaundiced eye on anything that this Minister says.

The Minister says that the previous administration could have bought it from Marathon. Where was the Minister when Marathon came to the surface and said they were going to buy it? Why is he negotiating now? Why is he waiting for the Land Commission Act? Why isn't he sitting down there with counsel and Marathon and saying, "The provincial government is going to buy that property and make it public lands"?

That again is where this House divides because that Minister is going to use the powers of the Land Commission Act to confiscate that land through zoning or any other means that he finds in that Act — and there are plenty of means.

Mr. Minister, I'm not embarrassed with my record in trying to achieve that land. If he was honest and fair he'd know very well through his own department that I have spent a lot of time with a lot of other people to preserve that land.

But we don't believe in confiscation. We know the land is going to come up for sale. We know that there are courts where people can appeal. We knew if necessary that we could go to fair expropriation, not confiscation.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Fair expropriation? Oh!

MRS. JORDAN: That's what the Minister should do.

AN HON. MEMBER: First refusal, eh?

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's expropriation.

MRS. JORDAN: All he can do is swing around on his little hang-ups.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Fair expropriation!

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, I ask you again. The people of the Okanagan and, I am sure if they are aware of it, the people of the province would like to see that 2,000 acres preserved for public use. It should be preserved. It's in your own department. But they want to see it done in a fair way.

We don't hate the previous landowners as that Minister does. They've been very fair to the people in the Okanagan. And so has the manager of the ranch. If the Minister is going to preserve that as an agricultural ranch, then he'd better come up with some pretty smart planning as to how it can be made economically viable. Because that is the problem.

The report is here. The Minister stands up and damns the Coldstream, damns the planning; and yet his own report, written and paid for by the citizens of the Coldstream to the tune of $7,000, complimented them on the planning.

Mr. Chairman, those people have planned for their area and are through the mechanics set up by the Social Credit administration, through their municipality and through the regional district. They've done it willingly. They've zoned themselves into agriculture and they've zoned themselves into small acreage and into whatever else was necessary on a voluntary basis — not because some tsar or laird of the manor came along and told them what to do; but because they're responsible citizens and because they want to do the right thing.

If that Minister wanted to do the right thing and prove his sincerity, he wouldn't give us this song and dance. He would get down to business and see that that 2,000 acres or more becomes a provincial acquisition on a fair and equitable basis.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't you think six years is enough time?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, I would work for 20 years or 30 years or

[ Page 1848 ]

40 years to acquire that for public use, to do it on a fair basis.

I don't believe that the means justifies the end, as this Minister does. I don't believe in confiscation and I don't believe in the suppression of democratic rights. The Minister has the Green Belt Protection Fund at his disposal. There is the Park Acquisition Fund, if need be, if he doesn't feel it's worth a whole provincial investment.

All I tried to do in this House, Mr. Chairman, was give him a reasonable estimate of the value of this land to the public, to repeat to him his own report, and he certainly shouldn't be embarrassed about that…

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not at all.

MRS. JORDAN: …and asked for a reasonable and fair answer.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You got it.

MRS. JORDAN: And what do I get and what do the people of the Okanagan get? You can't buy them, Mr. Minister, and the people will not stand for confiscation. Be fair about it and do something. You've had six months. It's been on your desk.

Mr. Chairman, the land was not for sale before. That's where we part again. It was not for sale before. Your department were the first people to know about it being for sale because of the work that had been done.

If the Minister feels that in order to preserve that land for the public, he's got to do this tippy-toe lord-of-the-manor act, then all I can say is, go ahead. Dance all you want but acquire that land fairly and acquire it for the public of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to raise a few brief points with the Minister on a variety of topics.

The first of these is with respect to power development on Vancouver Island. The basic question that I would like him to answer is: what source of power will be used, when the requirements come in 1982? We know that the Premier can give us ample quantities of hot air. He's demonstrated that in the last few days. But whether it will keep all the generators on Vancouver Island spinning through 1982 is very questionable indeed.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: Oh, yes. That's right. You've got a lot of gas over there, but 1982 is 10 years away, Mr. Premier, and you may be back in a social work centre by then.

Mr. Chairman, whether the Premier is returned to his profession in a few years or not, the planning will nevertheless have to commence for some power facility that can sustain itself over a longer period of time to generate enough kilowatts over here. This is the question that we're addressing to the Minister of Lands and Forests, who we hope does not have a hang-up on this nuclear power question.

Mr. Chairman, a report states here flatly — and I hope that the information can be communicated to the public:

" 1. Nuclear power" — according to the Atomic Energy Commission report — "will provide energy for Vancouver Island at a cheaper cost than any other alternative."

That's the first flat definitive statement. The second is that the effects on the environment of a nuclear power station will be less than for any alternative source of power.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How about the wastes?

MR. McGEER: The Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson) gave the House a very splendid account after a personal tour of the Pickering plant, explaining the waste disposal problem, how minimal it was, and really how unfortunate we were in this province to be captivated by the hysterical fears of people who are not scientists and don't understand the methods of handling nuclear wastes.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm a social worker and I understand you.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the breakthrough that has really been a world accomplishment for Canada in the matter of nuclear power stations has, of course, been recently recognized by Argentina, which has been a major purchaser of the new Canadian reactor. It's only because it's the best in world and has overcome all of the technological drawbacks that lead to hesitation in other countries and, indeed, in Canada in the past. It's on the basis of the Pickering plant that these flat and unequivocal statements are made regarding the prospects for power on southern Vancouver Island. Vancouver Island would largely go to local provincial labour in the supplying of materials and the manufacture…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would just post a question to the Hon. Member. That is, could you indicate to which responsibility of the Minister your remarks are related?

MR. McGEER: His responsibility as the chief

[ Page 1849 ]

representative of the cabinet, Mr. Chairman, on the board of directors of the B.C. Hydro. Although you weren't present at the meeting of the public accounts committee, the Minister appeared on behalf of the chairman and all the board of directors and the officers of the corporation. So there's no question about his ability to front for the B.C. Hydro. He did it very successfully.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we proceed, Hon. Member, I think that we should ask the Hon. Minister whether he is prepared to answer questions on behalf of Hydro. Then I would just caution him not to canvass any subject which has already been canvassed under the previous estimates.

MR. McGEER: I'm glad that we've got the cooperation of the Minister in answering questions today. I'm very pleased to have him nod his head. I was going to ask the questions anyway, Mr. Chairman. May I say as well that it's very nice to see so many assistants there with the Minister. I hope that when the B.C. Hydro appears before the public accounts committee, we'll have a similarly good turnout.

Now, Mr. Chairman, before we get into this little discussion between ourselves, I was asking the Minister if he would give us some indication of how the B.C. Hydro…We know that the Government has some hang-ups. We're also reasonably certain that there is not one single engineer in the B.C. Hydro who does not feel that nuclear power is going to be an important component of the future capital development of that corporation. We also know that the chairman of the B.C. Hydro has spoken glowingly about nuclear power when he was on the prairies. He spoke favorably when he first took on his role as chairman of the B.C. Hydro shortly after arriving in British Columbia. More recently, he spoke a little wistfully of nuclear power, predicting its entry in the very distant future. So the top official of the B.C. Hydro seems to be waving farewell to nuclear power, at least in his public statements. We're not quite certain of the reason for that, but we hope that the Minister will shed some light this afternoon when he gives us an account of what his plans are for southern Vancouver Island.

The other question that I would like to place to the Minister with regard to the B.C. Hydro is whether or not there is an annual budget for that corporation. We've been given the statement of the first nine months, so we know what the expenditures have been. But we have no idea of whether or not they draw up an annual budget, both for capital and operating. Mr. Chairman, if they do draw up a budget, what is that budget for the coming fiscal year? Will the B.C. Hydro need to borrow money? If the B.C. Hydro will need to borrow money, how much, Mr. Chairman, and who from?

Next, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Minister whether there are policies in the B.C. Hydro regarding return on investment in various aspects of the operation. I note in the confidential document that was tabled in the House — and, Mr. Chairman, we do really appreciate the fact that the Minister and the Government have seen fit to allow us into this top-secret realm. For many years it was easier to get the Pentagon Papers than it was to learn anything about the financial operations of this mystical corporation.

We are told in that confidential document that the return on gas is 13.2 per cent of the capital investment in gas.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: Yes, that's income. Whereas, with the electric portion of the service it is only six per cent. What this implies, at least to me, is that the B.C. Hydro is gouging gas customers, charging a price for gas which brings a profit out of line with the profits in the electrical part of the operation. And if this is true, my question to the Minister is: why should the profit on gas be so much larger than the profit on electricity, and if there is no defensible reason for this discrepancy in profit, would the Minister be prepared to consider a break for those who use natural gas and reduce the rates to bring them in line with the electricity profits?

Mr. Chairman, while I am on my feet, I would like to ask a question or two about some of the aspects of the Minister's responsibility. He has got a rack of hats on the wall. They tell the story about Bobby Kennedy when he first took over as Attorney General in his brother Jack's administration. Someone came in and talked to him for a minute and he said, "Now I just forget. I've got so many jobs; which one was I doing when you walked through the door?" And indeed the Minister has taken on many portfolios — pollution, Hydro, condominiums, lands, forests and so on. Could I just ask a couple of questions for the Minister to consider over the dinner hour?

I would just like to ask who the economic consultants were with regard to Crown Zellerbach? Was the opinion of the economic consultants unanimous regarding the advisability of the government getting into this operation? What is the long-range outlook of the Government? In other words, does the Government believe that it is possible to continue long term in Ocean Falls? Is the Government considering further capital investment at that site to diversify the operation? And finally, Mr. Chairman, will the Government convert it all into a box factory as in Saskatchewan?

[ Page 1850 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

LAND COMMISSION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits herewith amendments to Bill No. 42 intituled Land Commission Act enclosed herewith and recommends the same to the, Legislative Assembly, Government House, March 28, 1973.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I move that the said message and the amendments accompanying the same be referred to the Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

House in committee; Mr. Dent in the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee will come to order.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report, recommending…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There is no debate during this procedure. I would ask the Hon. Member to be seated.

HON. MR. STUPICH: …recommending the said amendments be referred to Committee of the Whole House having in charge Bill No. 42.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member to be seated, please.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the Hon. Member wishes to…I am making a ruling that there will be no discussion. Will the Hon. Member be seated? Order, please. If the Hon. Member wishes to appeal my ruling, he may do so. But I would ask him to be seated.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member be seated, please? It has been the pro forma practice of this House and of other parliaments to not allow discussion during the introduction of a message bill's committee stage. I have made a ruling; if the Hon. Member wishes to appeal on a point of order… I recognize the Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I move the committee rise and report, recommending the said amendments be referred to the Committee of the House having in charge Bill No. 42.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker…

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I move the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would the Hon. Minister of Agriculture be in a position to tell the House whether these amendments to a message bill have been caucused by his caucus prior to coming into the House?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:50 p.m.