[ Page 1871 ]

CONTENTS

Morning sitting Privilege Amendments to bills. Mr. Phillips — 1871

Mr. Speaker — 1871

Routine proceedings

Mineral Property Taxation Act Repeal Act (Bill No. 47). Hon. Mr. Nimsick. Introduction and first reading — 1872

Mineral Land Tax Act (Bill No. 64). Hon. Mr. Nirnsick. Introduction and first reading — 1872

An Act to Amend the Trade Union Act (Bill No. 158). Mr. McGeer.

Introduction and first reading — 1872

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

Mr. Richter — 1872 Mrs. Jordan — 1881 Mr. McGeer — 1889

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1872 Mr. Fraser — 1881 Mr. Smith — 1889

Mr. Fraser — 1872 Hon. Mr. Williams — 1881 Hon. Mr. Williams — 1890

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1872 Mr. Smith — 1882 Mr. Fraser — 1890

Mrs. Jordan — 1873 Hon. Mr. Williams — 1882 Hon. Mr. Williams — 1890

Mr. Williams — 1873 Mr. Smith — 1882 Mr. Nicolson — 1891

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1873 Hon. Mr. Williams — 1882 Hon. Mr. Williams — 1891

Mr. Williams — 1873 Mr. Lockstead — 1883 Mr. Chabot — 1891

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1874 Hon. Mr. Williams — 1883 Hon. Mr. Williams — 1891

Mr. Phillips — 1874 Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1883 Mr. Chabot — 1891

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1874 Hon. Mr. Williams — 1883 Mr. Williams — 1892

Mr. Phillips — 1874 Mr. Kelly — 1883 Mr. Smith — 1892

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1875 Hon. Mr. Williams — 1884 Mr. Fraser — 1892

Mr. Curtis — 1875 Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1884 Hon. Mr. Williams — 1893

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1875 Hon. Mr. Williams — 1884 Mr. Williams — 1893

Mr. Chabot — 1875 Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1884 Hon. Mr. Williams — 1894

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1875 Mr. Smith — 1885 Mr. Smith — 1894

Mr. Chabot — 1876 Hon. Mr. Williams — 1885 Hon. Mr. Williams — 1894

Mr. Williams — 1876 Mr. Smith — 1885 Mr. McClelland — 1894

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1876 Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1885 Hon. Mr. Williams — 1895

Mr. Kelly — 1876 Mr. Williams — 1885 Mr. Phillips — 1895

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1876 Hon. Mr. Williams — 1886 Hon. Mr. Williams — 1895

Mr. Fraser — 1877 Mr. Williams — 1886 Mr. Gardom — 1896

Mr. Chabot — 1877 Mr. McGeer — 1887 Mr. McClelland — 1896

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1877 Hon. Mr. Williams — 1887 Hon. Mr. Williams — 1896

Mr. Chabot — 1877 Mr. Morrison — 1887 Mrs. Jordan — 1897

Mr. McGeer — 1877 Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1888 Mr. Wallace — 1898

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1878 Mr. Williams — 1888 Hon. Mr. Williams — 1898

Mrs. Jordan — 1879 Hon. Mr. Williams — 1888 Mr. Chabot — 1898

Mr. McGeer — 1880 Mr. McGeer — 1888 Hon. Mr. Williams — 1898

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1880 Hon. Mr. Williams — 1888 Mr. Chabot — 1898

Privilege Meeting of Social Education and Welfare committee. Mrs. Jordan .— 1899

Mr. Speaker — 1899

THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 1973

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on a point of privilege. I would like to find out from you, Mr. Speaker, when the debates in this House have started to be judged in terms of dollars and cents. The Attorney General alleged in a recent article — Lorne Parton's column — that debates in this House cost $1,000 an hour and therefore the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) and myself cost this Legislature $20,000 in debate on Bill 42. If that is the case, the entire debate cost this Legislature $45,400 on debate 42 and the whole thing could have been saved by pulling the bill, Mr. Speaker.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): You just wasted another $75. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise another point of order. Can we somehow, Mr. Speaker, get our matter of semantics straightened out so that when amendments come out to bills or bills come out — we are still not getting them on time. I realize last evening you were very kind…and went down to the repeating room or the Xerox room …

MR. SPEAKER: You mean your printing room.

MR. PHILLIPS: Printing room, yes. At about 6:30 p.m. finally a lovely lady from the Press and myself got copies of this amendment run off and I was late getting home to my lunch. Surely to goodness…

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know whether I should have left you alone with her.

MR. PHILLIPS: What's that?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know whether I should have left you alone with her. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm quite safe, Mr. Speaker, quite safe.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I'll vouch for that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a point that we have discussed in this Legislature before — getting copies of the bills. Here is a case — I would pray, Mr. Speaker, that you will do something in your power to see that when amendments are introduced that the Opposition and the Government Members as well can get copies immediately. Thank you very much, I'll leave the matter rest in your very capable hands, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: May I tell the Hon. Members that the amendments to Bill 42 are not known, of course, to the Speaker's staff until they are printed up and brought in by message. So, immediately after the House adjourned we had copies made on the Xerox from the only copy that was in the possession of the Clerk's Table. They were supplied to the members of each group.

I've asked the Legislative Council today to make up, as soon as they possibly can, a reconciled version with the amendments, not for official use, but for the aid of Members — that will show the bill as it would be if it were amended. That's for the purpose of helping you and in fact at your request, I understand. So that will be done as quickly as possible.

I'll take up the other very important points of privilege the Hon. Member has raised and perhaps some time report on that, if it doesn't cost the House too much by the number of minutes used.

The Hon. Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House I'd like to withdraw Bill 114 and the amendment to Bill 114 on the order paper.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask leave of the House for the Committee on Social Welfare and Education to meet at 11:00 a.m. this morning to consider the matter of tobacco and alcohol advertising.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted? Well, I take it the House does not agree. Now there's nothing in the standing orders that I can see that deals with the question of committees meeting while the House is in session, but there is a general custom that it does not take place. I can only say that you have not got the permission of the House.

Introduction of bills.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the

[ Page 1872 ]

Lieutenant-Governor.

MINERAL PROPERTY TAXATION
ACT REPEAL ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor transmits herewith a bill intituled Mineral Property Taxation Act Repeal Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government House, February 28, 1973.

Bill No. 47 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

MINERAL LAND TAX ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor transmits herewith a bill intituled Mineral Land Tax Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government House, February 28, 1973.

Bill No. 64 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE TRADE
UNION ACT

Mr. McGeer moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 15 8 intituled An Act to Amend the Trade Union Act Motion approved.

Bill No. 158 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF LANDS,
FORESTS AND WATER RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 132: Environment and Land Use Committee, $50,924.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Who are the personnel on the Environmental and Land Use Committee now?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources): The personnel, Mr. Chairman, are the coordinator's secretary, Mr. Kinnear, who has been I think since the committee was formed. He now has a senior clerical aid and a stenographer or secretarial help. That's all the…

MR. RICHTER: The committee members?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, I'm sorry. The members of the committee itself include the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke), the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources and (Minister of) Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Williams), and the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick).

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

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Through you, Mr. Chairman, would the Minister put this out in some form of a Press release or something? I mentioned it yesterday but the citizens don't know who these people are giving their address. With the land freeze on and with the appeals that have to go, they don't know where to start. I think something in writing should be sent, certainly to all the regional districts, municipal councils and so on in the province, and a Press release as well from you.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We'd certainly be pleased to do that. We've had numerous communications. We now have something over 100 appeals, for example, subsequent to the order-in-council. I might further report that the Environment and Land Use Committee met this morning and reviewed further appeals. As I noted yesterday, these appeals have been processed at an earlier stage by an interdepartmental committee that advises the staff of the Environment and Land Use Committee.

As a result, some 30 appeals have been approved. Most of these are in conformity with local or regional plans and will include such areas as industrial areas, for example, that were already indicated under regional plans such as some of those in the lower mainland region.

Similarly, other areas were approved in which a servicing programme and residential development programme was considerably underway by the municipality involved. So a total of 30 have now been approved. We'd be pleased to send a circular to

[ Page 1873 ]

municipalities and other interested parties.

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

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Chairman, in relation to the statements that the Minister has just made, would he be prepared to have the committee make their decisions and the reasons for their decisions public, upon request, to municipalities and regional districts and Members of the Legislature?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, without doubt.

MRS. JORDAN: And just in relation to a question I asked the Minister yesterday that he didn't answer; did the Kiwana property in Winfield go through this committee? I ask for the decision and the reasons for the decision.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, I haven't been aware of that particular property around Cherryville in the Monashee. I will certainly follow it up. It hasn't come to the attention of the committee itself directly.

MRS. JORDAN: I appreciate the Minister's comment on that property. That's the Youngstrom property at Cherryville.

The other question I asked yesterday was in relation to the Mel Kiwana property in Winfield. I appreciate the Minister can't know the details of every transaction, but if I could be advised of the decision on the Kiwana property and the reason for the decision and also, in time, the action that may or may not be taken on the Youngstrom property.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if the Minister would indicate the extent to which the Environment and Land Use Committee or its staff may itself initiate inquiries into the land use in British Columbia? I notice that the staff is quite thin. It looks as if it is only, as the first position indicates, a coordinating job.

My concern is, in view of the evisceration of Bill 42 by the amendments that came in last night, there are large segments of this province which will need to have some environment and land use attention. I would ask the Minister if it is the intention of this committee to expand its personnel under its control so that they may be in a better position to know in advance or at least keep up with changes in land use policy that arise out of actions of various regional districts. I am thinking in particular of those outlying areas in my constituency. The Squamish-Lillooet is one, which causes great concern, I am sure, to the Minister and to many others as well.

Unless we have an ongoing programme under the auspices of this committee, I doubt that we're going to make any significant inroads in the prevention of what may prove to be serious wasteful use of the land resource and of the environment.

Also, Mr. Chairman, could the Minister indicate to what extent requests to the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources for acquisition by purchase or lease of Crown lands are made known to the staff of this committee, so that again it might be possible to have some better coordinated use of Crown lands that has been the case in the past.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I think the points raised by the Hon. Member are quite valid. The committee has been reviewing its own role. It's very clear that there is a need for further increases, so that's actively under consideration at the moment. It's certainly my own judgment at this stage that there's a need for a director, for example, who would be of a very senior level in the civil service so that there could be coordination between departments, that there could be a highly technical, able group advising the director  and possibly on various problems bringing people out of the individual departments to work on them in a coordinated manner.

There is a need for developing the staff level here, I would agree. In that sense the committee's got that actively under consideration at the moment.

With respect to Crown lands themselves, I am familiar with some of the problems certainly in the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District and they are quite significant. There is a need for coordination. Servicing problems and land development problems in the Alta Lake-Whistler Mountain area are such that a fair amount of technical work is needed. I suspect probably there's need for evolution of some kind of local government as well.

Insofar as the Crown lands generally are concerned, there are included in the budget increases with respect to adding an engineer, planner, biologist and so on. So in the Lands Branch itself there will be an increased staff that can deal with some of the problems more creatively. I think there's also going to have to be closer liaison with an improved environmental land use staff as well. It's something that is evolving at this stage.

MR. WILLIAMS: One further question on the same point, Mr. Chairman. What is the relationship between the Environment and Land Use Committee and the committee which was set up with the centennial grant moneys from the federal Crown —

[ Page 1874 ]

it's called the Second Century Fund? Has there been close working relationship with that committee and is the Minister satisfied with the way in which any of those federal moneys may have been expended?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, it's only an informal relationship at this stage, Mr. Chairman. I met this week with Mr. Hoffmeister, the British Columbia representative, with respect to the Second Century Fund.

There has been coordination, as I indicated, with respect to the Gilpin Range east of Grand Forks where there was greenbelt money, existing provincial Crown and forest lands, plus the Second Century Fund. The group together in effect has established what will become one of the fine wildlife management areas in the province. I think there will be more of that as we carry on. It's only informal at this stage, but I think we can develop quite a worthwhile working relationship.

There has been some discussion with Mr. Hoffmeister about other possible sites where there might be joint involvement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Minister if he would explain a couple of things to me. We have the Environment and Land Use Committee; we're in the process of setting up under Bill 42 a land commission; we have below the next vote the Deputy Minister of Lands and the Director of Lands; we have somebody looking after the Green Belt Protection Fund; and under the Department of Agriculture we have the Land Clearing Act.

I'm afraid that we might be developing in British Columbia a nightmare of bureaucracy. I don't understand myself what the areas of responsibility are going to be and I'm afraid that many of the civic governments and regional districts are not aware of what the areas of responsibility are going to be. Who's going to be the kingpin of this? Who's going to make the final decision? I realize the Minister is, but the Minister is not always going to be available.

I know if Bill 42 is passed there's going to be an all-powerful land commission. Who's going to have responsibility over what? Where do the designated areas of responsibility lie? Who's going to make the final decisions? Are you going to put out some sort of memorandum outlining what the duties of each department are? Are you going to do away with the Department of Lands?

Would you explain to me just how this thing is going to function so that we don't get all tangled up in red tape?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I think it will function very well.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to vote 132.

MR. PHILLIPS: I think this has to do with vote 132.

All right, I'll ask then: where does the Environment and Land Use Committee fit into all of these other committees, and the Department of Lands and so forth. Please explain it to me.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, as we see it at this stage, the Environment and Land Use Committee is a senior coordinating body of cabinet and there's obviously a range of things that must be brought together. We have these various land oriented ministries…

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I see.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The Lands Branch is essentially responsible for Crown lands under its jurisdiction, and the Forest Service, for example, is responsible for provincial forests under its jurisdictions and so on. There is frequently an interrelationship with Mines, say, for surface rights; a relationship between the Lands Branch and the mines department with respect to commercial transport of pipeline questions that again have implications for the Lands Branch. There is a need for the ministries to get together to coordinate policies. I think that was established by the former government; I think it was a good start.

Now it is clear that the committee is going to have more and more work. The jurisdiction of the land commission has been covered in the debate on the bill, and I think it is clear that the prime concern there is the preservation of agricultural land, most of which is in the private sector.

Now I think that the Environment and Land Use Committee can have a growing role in terms of coordinating policies at the pre-cabinet level, and the intent is to extend the committee's activities so that there is a greater degree of coordination.

I think some recent examples with respect to Crown land and the sale of Crown land for agricultural purposes reflect the coordination in relation to the goals of the land commission, for example.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just one supplementary question. I am to gather, Mr. Chairman, from the Minister that

[ Page 1875 ]

the Environment and Land Use Committee is the over-seeing body, and I would hope that in cabinet all the cabinet Ministers who are land conscious…

Is the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) on the land use committee? Well, he should be, because we had a case not too long ago where he's involved in land. Now the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) is involved in land. But all the Ministers in the cabinet who really have anything to do with land should be on this land use committee and they should meet, because sometimes we have trouble getting you fellows together for a decision.

So I would recommend, Mr. Minister, that you get the Minister of Highways in because certainly he's got a lot to say about the use of land — we've heard him talk about blacktop. I think he should be on the land use committee. I'm to gather that they're going to be the overall governing body that's going to look after all these other groups. Is that right? So if we really want a decision then we are going to go to the land use committee, right?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There's no question that it's a senior body and it's going to be a policy formulating body that will include these Members in cabinet. So it is a senior body and I think the statute clearly indicates that.

The question of the highways department is well worth consideration.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Chairman, to the Minister with respect to the committee. The last few moments have been spent mainly on coordination at the provincial or cabinet level. I wonder if he could just take a few minutes to outline more clearly the coordination and consultation process with local government, and by "local" I mean municipal and regional — the manner by which municipalities at the elected or professional level could give an input to decisions or deliberations by the Environment and Land Use Committee, and frankly, vice versa.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I think again it's a good point, Mr. Chairman. The committee at this stage sees as a first step a senior director. We don't see any major staff grouping, but an able senior staff grouping and co-opting people from the departments as I mentioned. It might well be that there could be some liaison — I think that's a reasonable idea — with the regional districts in particular, where so many of the provincial regulations and policies have implications for the regions, particularly in the resource field.

I certainly hope in the longer haul that there will be a considerable flow back and forth between the regional districts and the committee and government in terms of modifying or improving provincial policies insofar as they affect the regions.

I don't think there is much doubt that, in the past, resource policies have been somewhat in isolation from the regions and I don't think that has been healthy either for the province or for the region. There is an obvious role there to be played and I think it will evolve in the reasonably near future.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 132 pass?

Vote 132 approved.

On vote 133: Lands Service, $343,282.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Vote 133, general administration of the Land Service Branch.

I see the coordinator's salary here has been reduced and it is customary for salaries to increase. It has been for the past several years, and I am wondering whether the coordinator of the Lands Branch for some unknown reason has possibly angered the Minister and has brought on this reduction in salary? The Minister if bringing about punitive financial measures against the coordinator.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right.

MR. CHABOT: Is that the reason why his salary is being reduced while all other salaries are being increased?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, I wouldn't allow him to tamper with my salary. (Laughter).

MR. CHABOT: So, we'll see whether the coordinator will get a salary increase like everyone else. I can't understand why his salary is being decreased from $18,360 to $17,520.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Right. I might say, Mr. Chairman, there is no coordinator of the Lands Service and nobody has been getting paid in that position. Really, it is a clerical error. There is nobody and the salary is not being paid.

I might just say that Mr. Kinnear, the former coordinator of the Lands Service, is now with the Environment and Land Use Committee. That's the explanation.

MR. CHABOT: That's right. Then why leave his

[ Page 1876 ]

salary if there's no one there and he's not getting a salary? Why leave his salary in the estimates? What are you going to use that money for?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Have you got any suggestions?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the Hon. Member have any further questions?

MR. CHABOT: Oh, yes. I have more questions, yes. Now we're talking about the general administration of the Lands Service. We have to relate it to the Land Commission Act because it's going to be that big, powerful body. We talked about that Environment and Land Use Committee just a few moments ago and that's the big umbrella body. Now we are having another big umbrella body, the Land Commission Act.

Is it going to absorb the function of the administration of the Land Services; or is there going to be duplication of services between the Land Commission Act and the Lands Branch? Is there going to be duplication? Or is there going to be some form of coordination between the two?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We'd better hire that coordinator.

MR. CHABOT: Well, you said you don't need him. But is there going to be some coordination or is it going to be just another little bureaucracy set up to tinker around with land — the Land Commission Act?

Over the years I think the Lands Branch has played a very important role and a very active role in land management in the Province of British Columbia. I would hope that these people who are trained and knowledgeable in the matters of land continue to play an important role. I'm sure they would have had, no doubt, a lot of ideas on the Land Commission Act and maybe these are the people who did prepare it, I don't know. But I'm wondering whether there has been any relationship or any communication with the Lands Branch on the establishment of the Land Commission Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, if maybe the Minister would indicate if he is going to fill the position of coordinator of Land Services; and if he is not, would he consider amending this vote?

May I direct the attention of the Minister to the last item under general administration, code number 031: ecological reserves, $20,000. Would the Minister indicate if that is an administrative expense with regard to ecological reserves, or how is that money used in this particular case?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The ecological reserves vote there is essentially for field work in relation to investigating potential ecological reserves within the province.

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

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): Mr. Chairman, just a couple of short questions: In my riding for some time now — over a year I would suggest — there has been a land freeze on for some people. I'm wondering if the Minister would be able to tell me if there is going to be a lifting of the moratorium on land in Omineca or in sections of Omineca.

Although there are sections where a person who is already a bona fide farmer and is operating a farm is allowed to apply for their land in many eases we have people moving into the area who are prospective citizens of my area and are unable to obtain land because of this moratorium. I'm wondering when the moratorium will be lifted and if any other surveys have been made concerning that.

I also have another problem. I think it's rampant throughout the interior. People have in the past obtained land but the government has said when they obtained this land that they are not liable for access. In many cases, it's just impossible for these people to make their own access or the access actually has to be made through other private lands. In many cases this is denied to these landholders.

Some of them have moved onto these lands and have been making access through other private lands. In the meantime, the absentee owners of these lands that they were using to make access to their property, have returned and refused them access. There they are, bottled into their properties with no way of getting in and out. Usually they have to make some form of road through some other Crown land. If this land were to be occupied, they would be cut off once again. I'd like to know if anything is being done in this area.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: One, the question of the farmland policy: there has been a moratorium with respect to new farmers acquiring land in that area. It's limited to the existing farmers and it's limited to sites that are at least 50 per cent arable. I think there is a need for review in terms of looking at the feasibility of opening up the area for new people. That hasn't been undertaken yet. I think it should be.

The question of access problems is a very difficult one. It may well be that there's a need for some

[ Page 1877 ]

statutory changes in highways statutes. It may be that we should reconsider our highway standards in relation to rural land development. That again may be something the Environment and Land Use Committees could discuss, if the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) were present.

It's a complex problem. I know that there are a lot of blockages now as a result of the present situation. It's quite a bit of staff work to just go through the whole process of searches and analysis with respect to the status of old rights-of-way and that sort of thing. But it's something that we should have more of an input on from the staff. I'd be pleased to go into the specific areas in detail with the Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 133 pass?

Vote 133 approved.

Vote 134: Lands Branch, $1,123,216 — approved.

On vote 135: Pre-servicing Crown lands for sale or t lease, $500,000.

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

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): On vote 135, Mr. Chairman, is there going to be any policy change in the pre-servicing of Crown lands? A fairly good job has been done before in it being put up to open tender. Do you contemplate any changes?

The other thing — I hope they're looking at garbage sites and so on more consciously in these new areas that…

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: What kind of things?

MR. FRASER: Well, disposal of garbage and so on. In prior years those were left out. What I'd really like to know is whether any policy change is contemplated in the disposal of these lands after they're serviced.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Not at the moment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. CHABOT: On vote 135, there's been a tremendous increase — from $300,000 to $500,000 — allocated in the vote. I'm wondering if the Minister would elaborate and tell us why he needs this additional $200,000; what specific projects he considers undertaking this year and the location of these projects — whether it's lakeshore he's looking at or subdivisions. If they are subdivisions, just where will these take place?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We have some 13 areas underway. This includes areas like Port Hardy, for example, where there are serviced Crown subdivisions, and potential new town sites in the north. It's hardly a tremendous increase. Part of it is just an increase in standards in terms of servicing for the town subdivisions. As I indicated, there are some 13 sites. In terms of developing Crown land, $500,000…

MR. CHABOT: Well, the Minister might say it's not very much, but when one looks at the increase in he amount allocated for this purpose, one sees it's a two-thirds increase. So it's a substantial increase. The Minister can say $500,000 isn't very much money if he wants to. I'm not going to say that myself.

I'm wondering. You have 13 sites. I would presume that these are leasehold sites with a 20-year lease. I'm wondering how many of these 13 sites will be for sale. How many of these Crown lands that are being serviced by the Crown at the moment are going to be lease development and purchase. The vote specifically says "pre-servicing Crown land for sale or lease." How many are going to be for sale?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In terms of the ones underway, most of them will be for sale. A relatively small portion will be for lease.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 135 pass?

Vote 135 approved.

Vote 136: Surveys and Mapping Branch,

$2,841,754 — approved.

On vote 137: University Endowment Lands Administration Act, $10.

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

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Conflict of interest. (Laughter). I'd like to address a few questions to the Minister regarding the university endowment lands. As the Minister well knows, this unique area was set aside by this provincial Legislature to provide a financial endowment to the University of British Columbia.

Two-thirds of a century has passed without there having been any endowment of any kind from these lands to the University of British Columbia. Indeed, the lands do not even belong to the University but are still in complete and total charge of the provincial government.

Mr. Chairman, in my view the name of the university endowment lands should be lived up to in two ways. The first of these is to turn the university

[ Page 1878 ]

endowment lands over to the University of British Columbia. Then they would be indeed university lands. That would still not satisfy the criterion of endowment. Unless one were to try and do the grotesque thing of converting this into a high-rise area, I think it would be impossible really to provide any reasonable financial endowment to our universities from such lands.

The lands can serve to provide something far richer than that and ultimately of greater value. This is an intellectual endowment to the university and to the Province of British Columbia. The campus of the university will need, at one time, to be expanded to look after the coming generations who will want to participate in the skills that that institution will have to offer.

More than that, if we are to get on with the job of building a new industry in British Columbia that will stand in partnership with our resource industries, we're going to have to have a means for developing those skills which are essential to modern sophisticated industry around the world. The centrepiece for this already exists in the Province of British Columbia's own research council. It's never received the nourishment it should have had, so it remains a dwarf compared to what it should be. Indeed, the contribution of the provincial government to the B.C. Research Council has not grown for many years. A pity, but we can hope for a change of philosophy.

In the meantime, many people think of these endowment lands as providing a situation where that catalyst would come for the development of a thriving, sophisticated secondary industrial climate here in British Columbia. It wouldn't take all or even a large part of the lands, only that little nest that now exists in the area of the B.C. Research Council.

The important thing is not to leave the endowment lands in their present dismal state. The area has been logged off. It's swampy and, really, it's an unused and unattractive area. At the very least, if you wanted to leave it as a park, you should plant some decent trees there and drain off the swamps.

I would hope that the Minister would see fit to turn the endowment lands over to the University of British Columbia. Perhaps he'd give us some indication of his long-range philosophy in that regard.

Mr. Chairman, while the Government tries to make its mind up as to what should be done with those endowment lands, they're gradually disappearing at the rate of about a foot a year, starting with the Point Grey cliffs and working back towards my own home in the Point Grey district. Something needs to be done to shore those cliffs up. This has been said over many years, but every time a scheme comes forward a Minister vetoes it. It seemed to me that we were getting very close when the new Minister took over. He spoke very encouragingly about plans that his department had to see that those cliffs would be protected. And then, lo and behold, it all stopped. So what we'd like to know is: when will the Minister do something to protect those cliffs? Just when? Let's forget about the scheme, but when will we stop the erosion?

Finally, this is perhaps a trivial item, but the Minister knows what I am referring to. It's the "uglification" of the endowment lands. Mr. Chairman, some nitwit got the idea a year or two ago that it would be a bright thing to fence the golf course in the university endowment lands. A very ugly fence has been put up at a considerable cost to the provincial government. When one inquired as to why this fence had to be put up — because it's not usual to fence golf courses — reasons were offered such as there were too many rapes on the golf course and the fence was going to stop it. But it wasn't stopped by building the fence — it was stopped by catching the rapist.

There were suggestions that there was horseback riding on the course at night. People do horseback ride but not on the course and certainly not at night.

So really the case for building this ugly fence around the golf course didn't seem terribly strong and the fence did cost the taxpayers a considerable amount of money.

The fence didn't get up all the way around the course because the local residents raised hob when they first saw the fence posts going in. On the north side, of course, it's a little cul-de-sac — I doubt if even a rapist could find it. It's away off in one corner. They put the fence posts up and then they just left them. So, Mr. Chairman, for a year-and-a-half these ugly sticks have been standing there on the north side of the university endowment lands and the red tape of the government and so on are just leaving them there with nothing being done.

We talk a lot about aesthetics in the province, but it just shows you how impossible, when one has bungling bureaucracy, it is even to get the simple things of life done.

My question is: will the Minister take these ugly posts down, please?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): With all the need of the use of that land, all you've got to talk about is some fence posts.

MR. McGEER: You weren't listening to what I said.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With respect to the endowment lands overall, Mr. Chairman, the 1,700 acres outside of the university grounds represent a

[ Page 1879 ]

considerable potential and a potential that has just never been harnessed, as the Member indicated, for 70 years or something like that. There's no question but that that land should be put to use. That land, as close as it is to the city and the services of the city — the water utility, the sewage utilities and so on that are available for the endowment lands are, in effect, partly wasted because they're not put to use on the endowment lands.

The lands do have an open-space potential as well, and that should be considered. It's my intent to have a design team commence work this spring and look at the potential and prepare recommendations for the Government with respect to the full use of the endowment lands, so that they don't lie there and waste, as they've done for so many decades.

It's a unique potential among the large cities of Canada. We intend to seize that potential and make the best use of the opportunity that we have at our hands now. So we're going to need outsiders to help us in terms of determining the future potential of those lands.

Regarding the university itself, it's my own personal judgment — and I can't really separate that from my Ministerial responsibilities — that the university has probably suffered from having too much land and that in fact a sprawled-out campus is a result of having as much land as they have, so much of it in parking lots and so much unattractive as a result. They have a lot of land to the south that they are simply not using at all, part of which the research council enclave is within. So that the university has already been advised that there is no intent on the part of this Government to see the university campus expanded onto the endowment lands. That simply wouldn't be considered. At this time when the university enrolment in fact is declining there can be no rational argument, despite a dean's committee and everything else, with respect to expanding the campus of that university.

Some of the great campuses of this continent are in downtown, limited areas. The University of B.C., I genuinely believe, has suffered from having too much land.

On the question of the erosion problem at the cliffs, we have now had the first report from Dr. Weger from Berkeley, the University of California. He recommends some modifications with respect to the Swan-Wooster recommendations. The funds are available in the budget for the protecting of the Point Grey cliffs. Dr. Weger is making some minor amendments to his own work and will advise the city parks board as soon as those final modifications are complete. We expect that quite shortly.

With respect to the fence on the golf course, I am afraid I can't quite see it in the perspective that the Member does. I intend to spend some time on the endowment lands after the House prorogues and I'll have a look at the fence. I gather it's been painted green, which really doesn't…

MR. McGEER: The fence posts have been painted green?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I think the fence itself has been.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Green plastic? O.K.

I am afraid I can't see it as quite the great problem that the Member does, but I'll certainly look at those posts and have a review committee and a design panel and an aesthetic analysis. We'll see what we can do about that "massive" problem.

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

MRS. JORDAN: Just further to the Minister's comments and those of the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), which are very well taken, I would just like to throw in my own on the university endowment lands. I make no attempt to suggest I know anything about landscaping, but without being overly critical when the Minister said that the university has probably suffered from too much land, I would suggest that certainly up until the last year or two they've probably suffered from too much licence in the development of the campus. It's very disappointing to me as a citizen in British Columbia to look at some of the original architecture out there and some of the buildings that have been put up, particularly up until the last year or two. There's certainly been a great deal of money spent on them and yet one feels that there's been no continuity of thought probably between the years of 1945 and 1964. While I wouldn't advocate for a minute that the Government interfere too much in the functioning of the university and in the direction of its development, I would hope that with the Minister's own training and past experience there are ways to economize but still enhance the environment and atmosphere of such a major area.

I recognize that the new library is a marvellous experiment and I hope it's a successful one. It's going to take time for it to settle in, I'm sure the Minister would agree, as a taxpayer and someone who's interested in the university, that the very well intentioned thoughts that have gone into the campus during those years have not reflected what the people would like to see.

As I say, I wouldn't encourage him in any way to interfere too directly and take over the control of the campus, but I hope that there will be more effort to create the environment that it should have. In so

[ Page 1880 ]

doing, I also hope that an overall plan will be drawn up that will recognize that that area is one of the most beautiful natural sites in perhaps the world. There is danger of over cultivation, I think, in creating our environment, and I would hope that attention will be given to tidying up or creating some natural areas so that it doesn't become a planner's dream rather than a place that really responds to the various needs of the people, and that there will be a lot of emphasis given to reasonable natural areas, or semi-natural areas.

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

MR. McGEER: I'd just like to ask the Minister if he talked about this design team that he's having come in to evaluate the potential of the university endowment lands.

I wonder if the Minister would care to elaborate on just what kind of a design it is. Is it a design for low-cost housing? Is it a design for golf courses? You might bring in Robert Trent Jones as your design expert if you had one thing in mind. If it were low-cost housing, you'd bring in that fellow from Habitat — Moishe — whatever his name is.

The question is: just exactly what is the orientation of this design team? What is their leaning? Is it towards golf courses or is it towards low-cost housing?

Mr. Chairman, if I could agree and yet disagree with the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), the University campus is an architectural omelette. It's a complete mess. One of the very typical areas, quite apart from the university campus, has been spoiled because of that. The reason has been the penury of the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no.

MR. McGEER: Yes, Hon. Member, it's perfectly true that you cannot build in expanding areas. Due to demand, you haven't the money to do it. You throw up cheap buildings. This has been the tragedy.

Having said that about the former government, let me remind the present government that they've cut the capital budget down even further.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, I would…

MR. McGEER: …you're going to put up further crummy buildings on the endowment lands…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would draw it to the attention of the Hon. Member that we're discussing the endowment lands, not the education system. I'd just ask you to relate your remarks to the endowment lands.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'm striving to do that and as quickly as I can. What I'm saying is that if you don't have sufficient money in the budget to put up nice buildings on the university endowment lands, then what you do is put up tatty buildings. That's been the tragedy. The budget in the past has been so bad that the buildings have been tatty. We want to see an end to that.

We want to see handsome buildings, which, of course, requires the co-operation of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett). He's frowning there and obviously feels very unhappy about spending money at the University of British Columbia. But, Mr. Chairman, I only want to ask the Minister, having made this point which I hope will be…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: Conflict of interest? Mr. Chairman, I deeply resent any suggestion that there's a conflict of interest here. I do not live on the university endowment lands. I live within the city limits of Vancouver. The constituency is Point Grey and the university endowment lands are part of that constituency which I am happy to try and represent.

It's the Minister's responsibility. He's the one who would have a conflict of interest. He knows how much money should be spent on those endowment lands and here he's having difficulty with the Minister of Finance, who apparently doesn't agree.

Mr. Chairman, I'm merely asking for the orientation of this design committee. Who will they be? Housing experts, golf course architects, university designers? It might give us just a little hint of the plan that the Minister evidently has for that magnificent tract of land.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 137 pass?

MR. McGEER: I was on my feet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Do you have a point of order?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you want to go back to the vote?

MR. McGEER: Yes, I'd like to go back to the vote. The Minister was standing up to answer the question and, Mr. Chairman, the Premier was on his feet and the chairman couldn't see him. (Laughter).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We'll be glad to oblige the Hon. Member. If the Minister would like to answer, he may do so.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There's times people stand tall but I don't think that was one of them.

[ Page 1881 ]

(Laughter).

The question of a design group with respect to the endowment lands: that's simply a goal at this stage. We haven't considered a team at all. We haven't considered terms of reference as of yet. Once the House has prorogued, we'll have the time to spend on that kind of worthwhile endeavour.

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

MRS. JORDAN: I think the Hon. First Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) is a classic example of why we need intellectuals in certain areas, but certainly not in the handling of money. I disagree, Mr. Minister. I think there has been a lot of money spent on the university campus and there will be on the university endowment lands.

What has happened is that there hasn't been the proper value and the proper concept of that money in its utilization, I hope that the Minister recognizes that money is not the be-all and end-all. It's what one does with that money and how the use of that money relates to a functional aspect of its purpose and its relation to people. There isn't going to be a limitless amount of money, I'm sure, to spend on those endowment lands. We charge you with this, Mr. Minister, and we ask you — there's much in what the Member says — to recognize that there will be a limit and that that money is well spent in relation, as I say, to its functional purpose and its people orientation, and not too highly a cultivated manner.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 137 pass?

Vote 137 approved.

On vote 138: Forest Service — general administration, protection and management of forests, $28,370,434.

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

MR. FRASER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this is the right vote to take it up on — development of campsites in the forests. I believe that last year 300 were worked on, either improved or new ones created. My concern is that in my large riding of Cariboo, we haven't very many facilities from Williams Lake to Bella Coola, a distance of 300 miles. Your department has a lot under reserve but there's no development there. I was wondering if there's any plan or any money in the budget to look after this large recreational area. There are lots of people. Campsites aren't available and private enterprise doesn't seem to want to go ahead either. There are a few of them but not enough.

I'm also concerned about one other thing in the grazing division. I think this comes in here; it's regarding your agronomists and the inventory of grass. It seems to me that they've been taking inventories now for five years. They still haven't got any answers. I was wondering where they think they're going. The cattlemen are trying to increase their herds. The beef prices are better. They depend on Crown range lands. When they apply for an increase, they're constantly rejected on the basis that the forestry doesn't know what grass is available and they're advised that they are still taking an inventory.

The cattlemen aren't very happy about this situation. I think it's about time that some inventory figures were available, and that they don't keep holding the cattlemen down at the herd levels they had even five years ago. It's the feeling of the cattlemen that the grass is available but the agronomists say it isn't. Those are two items I'd like to hear from the Minister about.

HON. MR WILLIAMS: With respect to the recreation areas, as I recall the amount budgeted is approximately $300,000 for recreation facilities within provincial forests. I know that there is a need on the road from Williams Lake to Bella Coola. I can't advise now, with respect to the breakdown, whether there are any funds for that area. I am convinced there is a case for it. We'll review it in relation to that problem.

The question with respect to grazing: it is under another vote actually — 150 I think. The problem of increasing head and more intensive use of range land is one that I'm not as familiar with as I should be at this stage. Again, it's something that I will spend some further time on. I think there's a need for more of a biological sciences input with the grazing division. There's also a need for some sort of cross-department activity with respect to grassland management generally.

The whole question of a kind of a grasslands administration is something that I think deserves attention, rather than just a grazing division per se. I hope that I can give you a more productive answer at a later stage.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could have a breakdown on three votes: 015, 017 and 042? three votes: 015, 017 and 042?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: If there are any further questions, I might just check the details.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace River.

[ Page 1882 ]

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): With regard to the general management of the forestry resource within the province, Mr. Minister. One of the largest uncommitted areas at the present time of timber within the whole Province lies in the Fort Nelson area; between the Fort Nelson and the Liard Rivers there is a tremendous quantity of unharvested and uncommitted timber, Would the Minister give me an indication of what the future plans might be for that area? At the present time the Fort Nelson Lumber Company has timber which they are working on in the immediate Fort Nelson area. There's certainly ample room up there for a viable pulpwood industry, although it may be a few years down the road.

I would like to know if the Minister has laid out a plan for the harvesting of that timber and whether it will result in tree farm licences being issued in there or some other type of licence to cut. The general management of that area: will it be on the same basis as the management procedures in the rest of the province or in the Vancouver forest district, or do you have plans of a special nature for the committing of that timber that is available? We should be looking at that in future years, if not immediately, in the Fort Nelson area.

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With respect to code 015, Mr. Chairman, 31 aircraft were retained on contract during the fire season to provide the basic requirements for detection, supplies and control of forest fires. Six light aircraft were under contract for fire detection. The total was distributed as follows: Prince Rupert, 2; Prince George, 2; Cariboo, 1; and Kamloops, 1.

Three aircraft are under contract for patrol and administrative flying. These aircraft are located at Vancouver, one — a Beaver; Kamloops, one — a Cessna 337; Nelson, one — a Cessna 337. All other forest districts were allotted funds to charter local aircraft as required. Fifteen air tankers are under contract for initial attack.

The distribution of the tanker craft was as follows: Vancouver, one — a Canso; Prince Rupert, two — Cansos; Prince George, four — 826's; Kamloops, five — Avengers; Nelson, three — Avengers.

Six bird-dog aircraft were under contract to direct the air attack operation. The bases for these aircraft were as follows: Vancouver, one — Aero Commander; Prince Rupert, one — Cessna 337; Prince George, one — Cessna 210; Kamloops, one — Cessna 2 10; Nelson, one — Cessna 337. One Cessna 210 alternated between Prince George and Williams Lake. One Hillier 12E Helicopter was under contract to the Vancouver forest district. All other forest districts were allotted funds for local charter as required.

Two new air tankers made their appearance last summer, the P2V7 Neptune and the Douglas DC 6. The P2V7 Neptune was used operationally on a limited number of fires and the DC6, which was not operational until late August was only able to demonstrate its effectiveness in demonstration drops. I think that gives an idea of the range with respect to that code.

I think the further one was 017 — purchase and maintenance of radio equipment, an increase of $63,000.

The capital assets of the radio section have a replacement value now of approximately $4 million. The cost of annual replacements to maintain the equipment at a serviceable level is approximately 10 per cent of that. In addition, maintenance costs are increasing due to an increase of about 12 per cent in the current year for parts and an increase in outside maintenance to supplement our own crews as well.

Leased lines for radio and telephone have increased 3 per cent in relation to circuitry requirements and there are further requirements with respect to northern development along the Cassiar Highway.

Harvesting licences, fire-fighting stand-by crews, vote 042: that is an amount that we get back, actually from the holders of the timber sale harvesting licences. It is simply a change in the bookkeeping arrangements and it was essentially there before but wasn't reported.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Supplementary for North Peace River.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I realize the Minister was busy looking up those votes when I addressed a question to him, so I'll put it to him again.

It's a matter of the uncommitted timber in the Fort Nelson area and the plans of the department as to the harvesting of this wood at some future date. There's only one company operating there right now, the Fort Nelson Lumber Company, and I know that they probably at this time have adequate timber for their requirements and needs.

But we do have a tremendously large available cut in that area. What are the plans of the department regarding harvesting of timber in the Fort Nelson area? Will you issue tree farm licences up there, or do you have some other plan of forest management in the process?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, as I understand it, Mr. Chairman, it is not something that I have investigated in detail. But one of the problems is the deciduous level in the terms of forest cover and aspen, of course, is one of the main components. So,

[ Page 1883 ]

something like 30 per cent of the available resource is in that category, and that's a factor in terms of the economics of the mill. I gather that's not entirely settled in terms of the economic feasibility of a mill in that location. It's something that is being studied by the staff.

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

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): A brief question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister. In my constituency of Mackenzie there are many areas that are under tree farm licences or timber leases. While the private companies build roads into these areas the public is, in many instances, denied access on these roads and what I thought was Crown land. Part of the reason is that the companies claim vandalism and/or fire protection in summer time. However, many of these areas are not being actively logged at the moment and yet the gates are still shut, denying some of our people access to these areas for recreational purposes.

I was wondering whether the Minister could answer or find out for me why this is so, and if these gates should be or could be opened for the use of the public.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It certainly varies with different circumstances. I think that in many instances the roads could in fact be opened up so that there could be more genuine multiple use of these areas. But there are problems, of course, in terms of where there is logging activity and the use of the road and the danger. Nevertheless, my sympathy is with respect to greater access to all Crown lands in the province and the single TFL tenure is one area that really does have to be opened up.

The government did make some changes with respect to the road to the northern end of Vancouver Island north of Gold River, particularly with respect to commercial vehicle access to the communities at the north end of the island. So, I am certainly sympathetic to greater public access to the Crown lands and I'd be pleased to review the individual ones that the Member is concerned about.

MR, CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Supplementary to the remarks the Minister made about the north end of the island. Certainly one appreciates the fact that tolls are now a thing of the past. We thank the Minister for that. However, the hours of operation are still a source of considerable concern and I wonder whether he has been having continuing discussions with the companies concerned on this question to try and give a little better access in terms of hours. This matter has not been mentioned by him for some time since his announcement regarding tolls, and I wonder whether he has got anything further to report?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I think that part of what was agreed to earlier that the companies accepted was commercial vehicle access throughout the day, as I recall. As to hours, that is something I'd be willing to review further. We haven't had discussions of late with respect to that question. However, the highways department is in the process of building a public route as well to the north end of the island, a fully public route. I'll certainly look into the hours question.

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

MR. KELLY: I would like to direct a couple of short questions. Just recently the Department of Forestry has conducted a survey through the northern region, and north-western region — central regions I should say — of the province. Because, of course, the lifeblood of my riding is forest-related I am very anxious to know if and when the report would be made available. You know that I need to really have some idea as to what the Minister is prepared to do for these small operators in my riding.

Question number two is that apparently last year the Department of Recreation and Conservation and the forestry department saw fit to do some clearing of the Whitesail Lake, which was drowned by the Kemano project. This is a massive operation and I am wondering whether the department is prepared to give aid to the people who are now doing some of that clearing, and whether it's possible that the project could be enlarged, because at the present rate of clearing there is no doubt it would take many, many years before these two lakes are cleared out. I know there are other lakes in the province that suffer from the same problems. It looks like it will have to be something that the department will have to go into in a big style in the near future.

The present operator is taking out mainly select timber, but there are thousands of acres of timber that are dead in that lake that will never be a good product.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to know what the Minister would do about some of the departments of which he is the head. I feel that these departments are not co-operating with one another. Although this might come under Recreation and Conservation, it relates to forestry, too, and so I bring it up at this time. I think that the Wildlife Branch is not getting the complete co-operation of the Forest Branch. In my particular riding this is most obvious. In recent

[ Page 1884 ]

meetings that we've had I think it has also been shown. I think it's just a matter of getting those departments together. I hope it won't take too long before this is accomplished. Thank you.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. On the question of the staff report with respect to the north-west, it is an in-staff document at this stage. It's really a matter of developing policy from the factual base that's been established. It's really at that stage. It's not intended to be a public report, at least not at this stage.

I'd be pleased to discuss the individual potential or problems in each of the ridings affected, however, and make arrangements in that regard. It is our hope that we can establish smaller independent operations in the region to a greater extent than has been the case in other parts of the province.

Regarding the Whitesail Lake area, there is a need for us to spend some time with the private operator that has been salvaging in the lake and I think doing quite a good job, but doing it with either marginal or no return in comparison with the contract that was agreed upon between the former Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Mr. Kiernan) and the former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Mr. Williston) — a contract in which there was no departmental or staff input whatsoever. It was simply determined by the Ministers jointly, with no input from the people who were really most familiar with the problem.

It's rather ironic that the more successful activity has been that by Bond Bros. where there has been no aid whatsoever compared to this previous example where there was a substantial public underwriting of the operation and rather limited or no success. So the question of the best way of dealing with the problems on that lake is a matter of economic analysis and one in which we would involve ourselves with the private company that has been successful. We do expect to meet with the private company in the reasonably near future to discuss their end of the operation.

With respect to the third point — co-operation between the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Branch — I think there has been more co-operation in recent months between the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife than there has been in a long time. We've had regular meetings with respect to specific areas and I'm rather encouraged by the steps taken so far and the kind of relationship that's evolving.

I think it's become clear that there's a need for a more neutral group to work with the two departments. In that sense some senior staffing in the Environment and Land Use Committee could be the kind of catalyst that's necessary to resolve conflicts between the various resource agencies. That will be developed throughout this year so that we have an integrating agency in the ELUC that works with the two departments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, I'm rather interested in the amount of preparation being made to hire temporary summer workers, particularly students, by the Forest Service, as this was an area that was indicated to us would be one of the major areas for the Government to take steps. Yet I see that the amount of money being voted for temporary assistance is actually reduced over last year. This appears to be quite contradictory to what was my understanding of what the Premier said in answers to questions in this House about job opportunities for students in British Columbia in the coming summer. I wonder whether this is simply a printing oversight or a mistake of some sort or whether we're going to have supplementary estimates to deal with summer students' work or things of that nature.

It seems pretty strange that the one department singled out by the Premier as being the one that's going to bear the burden of providing summer employment to students happens to be in the process of cutting down on the amount of money available.

Well, there are a number of conclusions: either you can pay them a lot less or you're not going to hire as many or whatever it might be. But I would like his comments on why this has been cut back and how we're going to employ more students if we're not going to vote more money for the purpose.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, that is before the House and so it's really a joint funding between the bill and the department. It will be the Accelerated Reforestation Fund. It's a joint pooling of resources, in effect, from both the bill and the estimates.

The actual funding that we have is $2.8 million for youth employment through the Forest Service in the summer. There will be 1,000 people employed in this activity, and there will be the joint pooling of these funds and the bill that's before the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I checked the book and I don't think the bill is in yet, is it? I may be wrong, but I understand that this is going to be done by a separate bill funding specially and that the number of jobs will be 1,000. Could the Minister indicate how many more this is as compared to last year?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There were about 800 plus or minus last year; there will be 1,000 plus or minus this year, in this kind of summer activity for youth employment in the Forest Service.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I take the Minister's

[ Page 1885 ]

comments then as indicating that the basic thrust of youth employment will be within his department and the major programme under youth employment for the summer will be this one which increases the number from roughly 800 to roughly 1,000?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There are funds in Recreation and Conservation as well with respect to summer youth employment and that will be covered under the separate department. Any additional funding is a matter of Government policy and for the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) to consider.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have another question to the Minister concerning this matter of employment, in this case not employment of students but employment of people already in the logging industry.

I have before me a copy of an article from the Campbell River Courier dated March 19. The essence of the article is that if the Tsitika-Schoen area, which is in M&B's TFL (tree farm licence), is taken out, it will result in the loss of jobs for almost 700 people, most of them living in the Campbell River community.

I know that the area is presently under a study reserve which we have been told will last for two years. The article indicates that M&B did not plan to log the area that is of major concern in the main valley for a period of 10 years, but they were preparing roads to go into that area and so on, They do indicate from the report they gave this newspaper that there could be up to 300 people directly involved in the logging business laid off if that area is taken out of their TFL, and that another 400 people who are dependent upon the loggers for their income could lose their jobs. Would the Minister give us an indication of what thoughts he has on this matter?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The Schoen Lake-Tsitika area is, as the Member indicates, one of the areas that is under interdepartmental study so that we can develop an integrated resource management plan for the area. The Schoen Lakes, for example, were highly recommended by the Parks Branch at the time the TFL itself was considered. The former Minister chose to totally ignore the recreational recommendations at the time that he allocated the tree farm licence.

It's unfortunate that in many of these instances, when these long-term tenures were established, the recommendations of a significant staff, group and interest group were ignored. That's why we have these kinds of problems at the moment.

The Tsitika is the last drainage area on the eastern side of the island that has not been affected very much by logging. It's also an important area in terms of wildlife, with the elk herd that is in that valley. What's going on now is simply a study, an interdepartmental study. It's not affecting the short term plans of the logging companies, so that employment is not affected at all during the duration of the study. The employment level will remain exactly the same.

The question of a programme, with respect to both industrial and wildlife and recreational activities, is something that will end up as the final product of the study. At this stage there's no reason to expect that employment will be adversely affected.

MR. SMITH: A further question on the same subject, Mr. Chairman. What disturbs me is the fact that in a direct quote a Mr. Hemmingson, who is really in charge of the area, has said: "No logging is planned in the main part of the valley for at least 10 years. This should give adequate time for any group to carry out scientific studies without interference in their present programme." Yet a logging road into that area was stopped, which was of a long-term nature.

So there is a conflict between the position of the Minister and the position of a top representative of M & B as to what constitutes an interference into a long-range project and study that could be well carried out, according to his direct quotation, without taking that area out of their TFL. This seems to be the whole crux of the matter as they see it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sure there will be many occasions when Mr. Hemmingson and I disagree, but we do so on a friendly basis.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A point of clarification on Tsitika: do I understand the Minister correctly that at the moment there is simply a study going on? He shakes his head affirmatively. That's good. But no change in terms of company activity in the area? He shakes his head and looks rather doubtful.

What I'm interested in is road building. Are they constructing roads at this time in preparation for any future activity? This obviously is preliminary to any other work. So at the moment, this is completely frozen? Nothing is happening at Tsitika? Thanks very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to direct the Minister's attention back to the matter of

[ Page 1886 ]

reforestation and the accelerated programme. Could the Minister indicate what permanent establishment has been created in the sense of nursery stock producing areas throughout the province?

It's always been my understanding that one of the serious drawbacks to a reforestation programme in the public areas was the lack of a sufficient quantity of nursery stock. If the accelerated reforestation programme is to really carry out the job needed to be done in this province, we must have nurseries established in various regions of the province capable of producing stock which can be used in reforestation in those particular regions, taking into account the different elevations, the changing climatic conditions and so on.

I would like to know the extent to which this permanent establishment has been created. Without that, the summertime employment of students in reforestation projects is going to be interfered with. That's one matter on which I'd like the Minister to indicate what the position of the department will be.

Secondly, on another matter, Mr. Chairman — in connection with the management of forests and the proper realization of the highest and best value from the forest resource, it has always been my understanding that appropriate sorting and utilization of the various qualities of wood was essential. In this province we have seen developed a system approaching the time when saw logs will go to sawmills; logs capable of being used for plywood production will go to plywoods; logs capable of being used only for pulp will go to pulp. In the newsprint field, those logs which are needed to provide about 85 per cent of the raw product for the newsprint plants would go there.

I wonder if the Minister could indicate whether there is, in the Forest Service, any check made on the utilization of logs at this level. Once they have been severed from the ground and turned into logs and brought to the manufacturing plants, is any examination made to determine how well we approach the optimum use of the timber resource in this regard?

Could I also ask him a question regarding the Ocean Falls operation, where the Government has indicated that there will be a sorting operation carried on? Will the saw logs which may be produced in that area be removed during that sorting process and continue to flow to sawmill operations? Can we be certain that only logs not capable of being used for sawmills will eventually find themselves in the groundwood operation at Ocean Falls and then into newsprint production?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With respect to reforestation, Mr. Chairman, we are ahead of the goals with respect to seedling production by a year to a year-and-a-half, something like that. That is the 75 million production level. The new nurseries are at Campbell River, Red Rock — which is in the north — Chilliwack and Surrey. There's a new nursery now under development in the Salmon Arm area known as Skimikan. Its first crop will be down next year at Skimikan.

In addition, there's a container seedling production being expanded at Duncan, Red Rock and Surrey. The production level in 1973-1974 will be that 75 million level. I think it is proceeding as fast as is probably feasible at this stage.

The question of the use of the resource in terms of optimizing the use of the timber is something that is probably further advanced in the interior than it is on the coast. The further allocation of the resource is dependent upon the kind of optimizing of the use itself in the interior.

Some fairly good analyses are underway or just about complete with respect to some of the interior forest districts. Further allocations or handling of the resource in relation to industry will be dependent upon those analyses. That is, if they are optimizing the full potential of the wood resource, then that kind of performance will be rewarded. That's essentially what we're working toward in the interior.

The coast requires considerably more work. We have situations in which the wood is not being allocated in an adequate way because there really isn't the sawmill base, as was indicated in the north-west. The mills in the north-west are using material that could well be used for lumber or for veneer or other purposes. It's going into pulp and that's a waste and a loss. It's a matter of building up the industrial base generally in the region in order to maximize our return from the wood itself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the success in this activity in the interior is largely because the manufacturing plants in production there can utilize virtually all by-product chips. We get the problem in most of our coastal operations. I was wondering because we are going to have the opportunity to look at this through a government — controlled operation at Ocean Falls.

Is it the Minister's suggestion that there may be some attention paid to the way in which the round wood is being used at some of these coast operations? Can we assume from this and from what the Minister says about the inadequacy of sawmills for the utilization of this wood on the coast that maybe at Ocean Falls we might see a sawmill? Obviously, a considerable number of saw logs will be passing through that sorting operation and where are they going to go?

[ Page 1887 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, they can always sell them I guess. I have directed the staff that with respect to the coast, third-band allocation would be dependant upon this kind of analysis and study and other factors as well. So there has been no third-band allocation on the coast, pending this kind of study and review.

As to Ocean Falls: it is going to depend upon the recommendations of management at Ocean Falls.

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

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could have your indulgence for just a moment to ask the Members to extend a welcome to some students from the Eric Hamber School who have just arrived in Victoria and are in the galleries now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's out of order, but they are welcome.

MR. McGEER: I would like to ask the Minister a question now. Regarding reforestation: the Minister made many, many speeches in the past about the necessity for reforestation, and from the Liberal benches we did too. Mr. Chairman, the problem was that figures were presented about the numbers of acres in British Columbia that were not satisfactorily stocked and would therefore require reforestation before the cycle of bringing them back into production could commence.

My question to the Minister is: what is the acreage in British Columbia today that is not satisfactorily restocked: And at the present rate of production of seedlings, how many years will it take to restock those areas? Will it be 1,000 … 100 or how many years?

The second question I would like to ask is whether we are doing experimental work in this reforestation to get out better and faster-growing trees — so that we restock with the good ones…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Mr. Member, I believe we are still on vote 138. Perhaps if we pass vote 138, then we can discuss vote 139 on reforestation and forest nurseries.

MR. McGEER: O.K. fine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 138 pass?

Vote 138 approved.

On vote 139: reforestation and forest nursery, $5,490,660.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member can proceed.

MR. McGEER: I am glad to know I'm in order. Could the Minister just give us some indication as to what sort of targets we are setting in order to take the unproductive forest lands in British Columbia and get them back into production again?

The other complaint, Mr. Chairman, that has continually been made is that the seedlings that are available are being preferentially given to the private tree farm licence holders and that there hasn't been a comparably aggressive reforestation programme going in the public-sustained units. So the big operators are doing well, and the poor little independent is stuck with what seedlings are left over, if any. What can the Minister tell us about the fairness in the availability of seedlings, that is, does the little man get as good a shake as the big man in having access to the seedlings?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Chairman, the amount that is being planted is 28 million…with respect to industry — that is the majors in the industry. The amount being planted publicly is 43 million in terms of…43 versus 28 million.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, seedlings — not acres. The problem is a massive one and we do have considerable amounts of work going on in terms of setting priorities and that sort of thing — seeing to it that this does take place on the better, more productive lands. For example, the not satisfactorily restocked lands are considerable. I think I have documented them in the past from the other side of the House.

The steps we propose to take with respect to the old tenures: for example, in terms of requiring reforestation activities on the old tenure is one step forward. Similarly, the increased production in these nurseries is another step forward and increased activity in the public sector, in the PSY uses, is another step forward.

There is much to be done and I don't deny that. I think we are moving at a reasonable pace and I hope that it can be accelerated further.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, could I have a breakdown, please, of vote 016 — equipment and machinery — on 139?

[ Page 1888 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Meanwhile, I will recognize the Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: While that is being looked up, I would just like an explanation, a quick one I am sure, of the two first lines of the vote — 001 and 006 — where office expense, heat, light and power and water have gone up 25 times what they were last year. This seems a little out of line in view of the fact that section 031 — forest nurseries and planting, which is the guts of this whole vote has only gone up about 5 per cent. I wonder if the Minister could explain why he has had such a fantastic increase in administrative costs?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With respect to the heat, light, power and water expense, vote 006 — it is a transfer from another account actually, so I don't think the differences are very significant in fact.

Equipment and machinery breakdown: I'm afraid we don't have that at hand but I'll request the Deputy to provide the details for the Member by memo.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 139 pass?

Vote 139 approved.

On vote 140: forestry and correction camp programme, $30,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I wonder if the Minister would care to indicate whether he has had an opportunity to assess the value of this particular programme. There hasn't been much published about it and perhaps it is understandable in some respects that not too much publicity has been given. But, it has always been my view that this programme was one of the forward-looking and perhaps one of the most exciting programmes that the previous administration adopted under this department, and joining as it does, was a serious responsibility of one of the other departments of government.

Does the Minister wish to comment upon this? Has there been some assessment or should it be raised under the estimates of the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi)?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I think certainly from our department's point of view, it is extremely successful and worthwhile. I am sure, well in fact I know, the Minister of Rehabilitation feels the same way. I haven't visited the camps yet myself but I plan on spending a considerable amount of time in the field once the weather improves and once the opportunity is provided.

They are continuing work at Campbell River, Haney, Chilliwack and also a 300-acre seed orchard at Red Rock in the Prince George area. Other benefits have included lumber supplied to some five sawmills and a range of other use of the wood. They are producing shakes, survey stakes, fence posts and working with fire suppression crews, on range management improvement and the like. So it is a most productive programme and while I haven't made any field inspections, I expect to this summer.

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

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the largest item in this forest research is just "projects." I'm sorry, I'm on the wrong vote again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We'll just pass the vote and then we will go on to that.

Shall vote 140 pass?

Vote 140 approved.

On vote 141: forest research, $330,650.

MR. McGEER: I'm very successful in being in order. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but I know the House will be pleased that we are sort of pressing ahead here — even keeping one vote ahead of the debate.

We are on to forest research, Mr. Chairman, and the big item here is "projects." Not much detail beyond that, so I wonder if the Minister could just give us an indication of what those projects are.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The main research activity that is going on at the moment is the work of the productivity committee which is carrying out…Their hope is to establish some 200 plots, as I remember correctly…500. We are proceeding fairly well with respect to these sample plots.

There are most detailed analyses going on with respect to the plots in terms of what fertilization does, what thinning does, what various activity does with respect to the production of the wood resource. So that's really the main research activity that is going on. That's funding also from bill funds in addition to those in the main budget itself.

I might say the University is closely involved with respect to this work. Dr. Munro from UBC spent some time in Scandinavia and Germany and elsewhere looking at exactly what they were doing in the productivity field. It's my understanding that while we're late in terms of moving into

[ Page 1889 ]

this work, the quality of the work done is probably of world calibre. While it's unfortunate we're as late as we are, we're able to take advantage of the work done elsewhere, so that the analyses and activity will be on a world scale.

The other kinds of things that are going on cover a range of matters from land classification to tree breeding, plant ecology, silviculture systems, natural regeneration, choice and trial of species, nursery practice, direct seeding, planting, spacing, forest fertilization, tending of stands and so on.

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

MR. McGEER: Just to pursue this, I'm so pleased, Mr. Chairman, to know that we're getting along well. Of course I would think we'd want to take it for granted that what we would do here in the forestry field would be of world calibre; indeed one would like to think that the people from Scandinavia would be coming here to learn every bit as much as our going there.

Mr. Chairman, if I can make a little plea to the Minister, it would be to jack this vote up maybe ten-fold. You can't do very much in the way of effective research projects on a budget of $215,000 a year. You're looking at maybe three, four, five scientists and their very small number of research assistants. We could very well stand, in my view, an aggressive contract research programme with the universities as well as a very large in-house scientific staff belonging to the Forest Service itself.

Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister if he would entertain the idea at some future time — hopefully not too far in the future — of establishing a proper research division within the department of forestry complete with field laboratories, generous financing from the handsome revenues that come in from the producing forest companies, designed specifically to promote the development of new forest species that grow faster, to learn how to get better production out of the species that are already in existence, and to hunt for new uses for wood.

Just to make a comment if I can, Mr. Chairman, I might say that the forest companies in British Columbia today are conducting research at an unacceptably low level. The laboratories are too small, the commitment to research as a percentage of sales must be one of the lowest of any major industry in existence. The forestry industry of course has a reputation for being a low-technology industry.

When one goes to high-technology industries such as pharmaceuticals, fine chemicals, electronics and so on, you're looking at expenditures on research that run 5 to 15 per cent of gross sales. So that for an industry with sales of perhaps $1.5 billion, by aggressive research standards something in the order of $150 million a year might be spent. If one were to go to the very lowest technology industries, you might be looking at $15 million a year.

But I dare say the forest industry wouldn't even spend a tenth of that — I'd stand to be corrected — but certainly they wouldn't compare even with the lowest major industries in expenditure on research.

When the industry itself is showing such little interest in improved technology, then the government really should move into that vacuum by taking revenues from the forest industry, sponsoring its own research laboratories within the civil service, contracting out to the industry itself; but doing something so that our number one industry here in British Columbia is not trouping around the world trying to find out what technology is taking place in countries where forest is not number one, but maybe number five, six or seven.

Really, an ordinary state of affairs would be to have the people from an area that relies to a large extent on its forest industry flocking around us to find out how to grow the trees.

Vote 141 approved.

Vote 142: public information and education, $94,750.

On vote 143: Forest Service training school, $177,234.

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

MR. McGEER: I wonder if the Minister could just tell us what this forest training school involves.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I think basically the ranger training school at Green Timbers. It's the training of staff within the Forest Service.

Vote 143 approved.

Vote 144: grant to Canadian Forestry Association, $25,000 — approved.

On vote 145: engineering services and forest development roads, $3,132,250.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, under this vote, forest development roads, would the Minister indicate if there are any plans this year for the department to

[ Page 1890 ]

construct a road beyond the bridge that was built by the forestry department on the Halfway River at mile 95 on the Alaska Highway? There's a road from mile 95 on the Alaska Highway to the Halfway bridge, which is a Department of Highways road. It goes into a forest area about 30 miles back into the Halfway River region. The bridge itself was built by the forestry department and the road beyond that, which is used by the forest industry almost exclusively, is in very, very poor condition. It's not much more than a trail.

Does Forestry have any intentions to spend any money upgrading that particular road this year?

There's another road that I'd like to mention briefly and this is one that runs north-east from Fort St. James, a forestry road, basically built I think with the intention of giving you access to fires in a hurry. You've been working on this for a number of years; you're up as far as Johanson Lake right now. You've passed a number of other lakes and you are as far as Johanson with the road. What is the eventual destination of that road? Is it the intention of the forestry department to go on through to Watson Lake or out towards Muncho Lake or over into the Dease Lake country with that road? It's a road that comes probably 250 miles now north-east of Fort St. James. My question would be: what is the final destination of that road?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I am afraid with respect to the second road I don't have the details and my staff don't have the details either. I am sure we would be pleased to dig into that question.

The other one, however, the bridge was built by the Forest Service and that's part of an ongoing policy, namely in terms of handling some of the difficult costs in opening up an area and then leaving it up to the companies themselves to handle the extension. That is the intent in that particular instance. We would be pleased to follow up the other one.

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

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask the Minister why the difference in maintenance of forestry roads after they're built? In some forest districts they do a good job and in others they do a lousy job. I refer to the Cariboo Forest District. It seems to be pretty good on maintenance; but in the Prince George Forest District you see a grader about once every three years. I am wondering what the difference there is.

I would like to ask one specific question: is there money in this vote for a new bridge across the Nazko River? The highways department is rebuilding the road. It is my understanding that the forestry department is going to supply the funds to do the work. If they are, when do they intend to have the bridge completed?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, we do intend to proceed with respect to the bridge and funding will be provided. The actual details of the timing aren't established but it's expected in this fiscal year, as I understand it.

With respect to quality of maintenance, that's something that I might get some feeling for out in the field. We have decentralization and regionalization of activities and there are somewhat different attitudes in the different districts. I'll have more of an appreciation of them after this summer, I think.

MR. FRASER: If you look me up I'll take you and show you some.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is vote 145 passed?

Vote 145 approved.

On vote 146: fire suppression, $3,750,000.

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

MR. FRASER: This is for fighting forest fires, I assume. What is the wage scale paid for fire-fighters?

[Ms. Young in the chair]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It was increased by order-in-council some two or three weeks ago and as I recall the basic wage is something over $4 an hour. It was $1.75 plus board before. Now the board provisions have been reduced but the hourly income has been increased substantially.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 146 pass:

Vote 146 approved.

Vote 147: forest inventory, $1,900,000 — approved.

Vote 148: scaling fund, $10 — approved.

Vote 149: — silviculture, $2,022,600 — approved.

On vote 150: grazing range improvement fund, $250,000

MR. FRASER: Vote 150. Thank you, Madam Chairman. For the Minister on the grazing again. Now this is the vote where I believe seed is purchased and given out. I'm not very happy, or clear, or both, on

[ Page 1891 ]

how this is given out. I've seen forest rangers asking cattlemen to beg for the seed. What kind of a policy is that? Is that the only way they can get it — beg for it? I think we should be encouraging them to get all they can. You supply the seed and they'll gladly plant the seed, but I don't see why they have to beg for it. I wonder what the real policy is on it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The policy certainly isn't what the Member suggests. The question of funding with respect to seeding and priorities with respect to seeding are something that I haven't reviewed and I will do that.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 150 pass?

Vote 150 approved.

Vote 151: Peace River community pastures, $20,000 — approved.

Vote 15 2: reservoir waterway improvements, $10.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member from Nelson-Creston.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'm looking at the portion here, "reservoir waterway improvements, Duncan reservoir, $300,000" and I'd like to have some idea of how that is to be spent? Is it to be spent in clearing?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We've been faced with a massive job by the former administration for cleanup and clearing in the Duncan reservoir. Again, I want to spend some time in the field looking at these operations.

The Forest Service has been carrying them out and it has developed a good staff ability with respect to mopping up the mess and making use of the resource as well.

The funding, however, has been shifted essentially to B.C. Hydro. For the Libby reservoir, for example, the expenditures for the coming year are something around $2.5 million. That will become an integral part of the costs of the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority. We see that as simply a cost of producing power in the province and Hydro will have to absorb that as part of the costs of operation rather than as a separate fund out of general revenue through the Water Resources Service.

Now we may have to make some adjustments in terms of phasing Hydro in to this particular cost load, but essentially Hydro is going to have to bear the brunt of these costs. It seems not unreasonable at all, Mr. Chairman, that the environmental impact and clean-up costs that we've had in terms of these reservoirs should be reflected in the power rate. It seems clear that we can meet some of these costs right now without affecting power rates; but if we want a higher standard of development with respect to these reservoirs, then it will be a cost tied in the end to the cost of energy in the province.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. CHABOT: I see from the reservoir waterway improvement that Mica reservoir has had a substantial reduction in the amount allocated for clearing. Last year it was $2,000,000; this year it is down to $1,000,000. No doubt the Minister must conclude that the programme that was undertaken by the former government relative to this clearing was a substantial and realistic one — one that was meeting the needs of clearing the reservoir behind Mica Dam. There's been a cutback, so obviously he's satisfied that the work that has been done in the past was reasonable and fair and met the needs of the future recreational potential in that particular area.

I am wondering why there has been this substantial cutback. I certainly don't want the Minister to go around and say that there has not been a good programme behind Mica reservoir when he has decreased the amount allocated by $1 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you satisfied that it's a good programme?

MR. CHABOT: Yes, I am satisfied that it is a good programme.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I suppose a factor is that on March 29 the dam was declared operational and the flooding begins. There is not too much room for loggers under water in the reservoir, and so the funding has changed because we didn't want loggers drowned.

The programme, however, is being reviewed and we're having outside advisers looking at the whole question of reservoir improvement. We may very well find after a new programme is established that funding will have to be considerably increased once the pond is created.

MR. CHABOT: Just a supplementary question on that point. The Minister suggests that that reservoir will fill up in a matter of weeks. It will take years. They could successfully remove any debris or any timber behind the reservoir as the water rises. The Minister know that, and for him to suggest that there is a possibility that loggers will drown in the next few weeks on a clearing project is unbelievable. I think the Minister, if he is at this time, as he had led me to believe, not entirely satisfied with the clearing project, then I think he should allocate the necessary

[ Page 1892 ]

dollars so that clearing can continue even as the water rises gradually over the next 10 years.

AN HON. MEMBER: But you people said we wouldn't have to allocate dollars. You said the Americans would…

MR. CHABOT: We did. We've allocated millions of dollars as the vote indicated. Two million…

MS. CHAIRMAN: Will the Member address the chair.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question on the same point. Two million dollars allocated last year; a substantial cutback by the NDP. They don't believe in clearing reservoirs anymore. They're cutting back the allocation that was originally…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: If you really believe there's a need for improvement behind Mica, allocate the dollars so that the work can be undertaken.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Madam Chairman, it seems to me that the Member for Columbia River is on the same kind of ground that he expects those loggers to stand on. (Laughter).

Pretty shaky, Jim. It reminds me of when I was in university; I took a course of logic in this. It was quite clear that if you start with a false assumption you can reach almost any conclusion. (Laughter).

Madam Chairman, I am sure that we are not going back at this late stage into all of the terrifying prospects that were created by the flooding of so many of our valleys in British Columbia. May I just ask the Minister that, based upon expenditures of this kind each year, can he forecast how long we may be obliged to continue such expenditures and, therefore, carry this kind of burden which was bequeathed to us by the former administration. Is it going to be a continuing annual expenditure of this size? Because whether we carry out through the department of this government or whether it's paid for by Hydro or paid for by us, it is an expense on the people of British Columbia. I, for one, would like to know for how long we will continue to face this expense?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, we are really talking in terms of over a decade or maybe two decades.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 152 pass?

Vote 152 approved.

Vote 153: Forest Service general administration, $134,984 — approved.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Madam Chairman. To the House Leader — is the House Leader prepared to allow a lunch adjournment at some time today or do you expect to go through a vote which is $65 million, including such things as pollution control and land development, prior to the time that we adjourn for lunch? I just ask the position of the Hon. House Leader.

HON. MR. HALL: The position of the acting House Leader is that we want to get on with the people's business. Can you call a vote either for or against?

AN HON. MEMBER: Bulldozer.

Vote 153 approved.

On vote 154: water resources service, Water Rights Branch, $1,015,214.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. FRASER: This is on vote 154, is it?

MS. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is.

MR. FRASER: Thank you, Madam Chairman. To the Minister, all we ever hear in this province is the flood problems in the lower Fraser Valley. I would like to say that the Fraser River is a long river and there are problems in the interior as well caused by high waters and the erosion that it's causing. There are a lot of troubles on the Quesnel River, which is a large tributary of the Fraser.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I wish the Fraser River would not fight, please.

MR. FRASER: The erosion going on in these two rivers that I'm aware of is quite extensive. I'd like to know what the Water Rights Branch is doing about it. They have a fairly efficient staff — I don't think enough of them — but what are the policies about correcting some of these things?

Last but not least — and I'm glad the executive vice-president of the British Columbia Railway is in the House — they built a dike to protect their own property in the Town of Quesnel last year and by doing this, they diverted the Quesnel River right onto

[ Page 1893 ]

private property. They are going to lose this property within 30 days. The Town of Quesnel and the people who own the property have been writing all winter to the water resources department and all they ever get back is, "We acknowledge receipt of the letter. It's under study."

Well, you haven't got much longer to study because the water's starting to rise and there's going to be up to 100 acres taken out right in the townsite because another government body performed an illegal act. That's what they did. And I refer to the British Columbia Railway. I'd like some answers.

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With respect to the upper reaches of the Fraser, there has been agreement now in just the last few months with the federal government so that the federal-provincial cost-sharing agreements will extend to the upper reaches of the Fraser system as well. It may be that the disasters of last summer at least have brought about this kind of co-operation between governments. That's one worthwhile end from that misfortune.

The studies are being carried on with respect to upstream storage as a factor in terms of dealing with flood problems on the river. The problems in flood plains, though, is something that has never been analysed in the past by staff to the degree that was necessary in terms of evolving a decent programme. Just the mapping work, the photometric work that is necessary, early flood information and so on, has never in fact been brought together. There is, in fact, going to be a need for some supplementary aid for special work this summer so that we can really get on with the job of beginning to understand the problems of our flood plains in British Columbia. The work just hasn't been done in the past.

I find that incredible in a water-rich province like this, but it's simply a fact of life.

Regarding the problem in Quesnel itself, I'm not familiar with the problem. I'm not familiar with the activity of B.C. Rail in that regard. I am sure that the staff in the Water Rights Branch would be quite willing to review the whole question with the Member so that we might try to achieve some solution.

MR. FRASER: Thank you, Mr. Minister. But the one in Quesnel is rather urgent and I'd like your staff to look at it right away and then lay a charge against the British Columbia Railroad for building the dike illegally in the first place.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's an interesting idea.

Vote 154 approved.

On vote 155: assistance to improvement districts, $25,000.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Madam Chairman, to the Minister. Would he tell me what the $25,000 is for? If you're going to give assistance to the improvement districts in this province with regard to their water, it's going to take a lot more than $25,000.

One of the improvement districts in my constituency could use the whole amount just to solve one particular problem that they have. I am speaking of the North Pemberton Improvement District.

The fact of the matter is, Madam Chairman, that these improvement districts are finding it increasingly difficult to provide the services for the members of the district and this has simply terrifying consequences. In the past winter in the North Pemberton Improvement District, by reason of the cold weather and lack of snowfall, they suffered great expense with regard to the operation of their water system.

While they've had very fine co-operation from the Minister's department, both in water resources and in the forestry department — the Deputy Minister of Forests was prepared to allow some of the equipment to be used to extricate this improvement district from this particular problem that they had.

But they still face the situation that they have a poor water system that surely must be under standard. The water source is in constant danger of freezing during the cold winter months. Improvements must be made because it's an area of expanding population. It serves the schools in the area. If the system fails, then there's no water in the schools. I just think that there should be a better programme for assistance to these improvement districts than we have at the moment.

There's no question that they're empowered under certain circumstances to sell bonds and raise the moneys that they need in order to carry out the responsibilities of the improvement district, but in many of these outlying areas that's just not possible. Indeed what has happened in this particular improvement district is that the directors who have the responsibility find it so great that there's a tendency to withdraw their attention from this important function.

I think that if there were a more aggressive programme with more moneys made available and greater offers of assistance from Victoria than the staff of the department has already most readily given, that we could solve many of. the problems in these areas.

Year after year, $25,000. It just is not good enough for the job that needs to be done.

[ Page 1894 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I would agree with the Member that $25,000 is very little. It's essentially used just for interim financing problems with respect to very small districts. The main funding is through provincial acquisition of the debentures through our pension funds and the like. I think there is a need for work in this area and it might well take place with the Department of Municipal Affairs.

Frequently there's a need for something beyond the improvement district itself, so the range of services can be provided. I expect that in the coming year we can review and maybe integrate our activities to a greater extent.

Vote 155 approved.

Vote 156: water resources service, Canadian Council of Resource Ministers, $52,750 — approved.

Vote 157: inspector of dikes, $50,808 — approved.

Vote 158: water investigations branch, $1,034,528 — approved.

On vote 159: investigations, hydraulic surveys and projects, $1,950,000.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. SMITH: On vote 159, Madam Chairman. One of the problems that I frequently encounter is this matter of erosion and water runs. It seems to be prevalent particularly in land adjacent to the Peace River where the flats above the river of very rich farmland get inundated in severe storm conditions. Eventually one of the canyons backs up behind the first elevation of farmland above the riverbanks and lets water down through these farmers' fields in great quantities, forming water runs which start out as a little stream about a foot deep running down through the field and before long you have a water run 20 feet deep and 50 feet across.

With every one of these problems that we've encountered, we have come to the branch and seem to have a tremendous amount of problem trying to convince them that it's somebody's responsibility other than the poor farmer whose land is affected. It doesn't seem fair to me that an individual farmer should be responsible for trying to repair what in a matter of a couple of years can become a major erosion problem. Yet the success of getting the department to take an interest in it has been anything but great.

I wonder if the Minister could provide some guidance and assistance to these people. It's not really their fault that they have a major water run coming down through their land that creates a bad situation.

If it's not looked after, with the type of soil you have on the river flats, particularly above the Peace, those things will cut to 30 or 40 feet deep in a matter of two years. Suddenly you have a great ravine 40 feet deep and 100 feet wide across some of the best farmland in that whole area. I wonder if there is not some way of the branch becoming involved in the protection of this land.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: This is something that has taken a fair amount of time. It's clear that a thorough, comprehensive approach or philosophy just hasn't been established. In terms of the projects committed for the coming year, I just might note the ones we have in mind, plus completion of previous ones.

Those covered or proposed to be covered are the Nicola River in the District of Houston, Buck Creek, Pouce Coupe, the Kettle River in Grand Forks, the Granby River, Boundary Creek, the Village of Pemberton the Lillooet River, the Bella Coola River, Strachan Creek, Similkameen River, the Town of Terrace, the Skeena River, another project on the Skeena River, the Illecillewaet River near Revelstoke, the Eagle River and the City of Fernie. Those are the main projects in mind for the coming fiscal year.

It's a real problem to determine the kind of balance one should have in terms of the value of the land being protected and so on. I think that the programme to date has essentially been an ad hoc programme, in effect, dealing with problems as they come up or come to notice. It isn't part of any kind of comprehensive activity or some overall philosophy. I think that's needed.

Beyond that, I don't know if I can be, very helpful. We're simply carrying on with respect to projects at hand, for this coming year at least. We hope to establish a more comprehensive programme. It's partly tied to this kind of survey and inventory that I indicated was necessary a few minutes ago. We just haven't done the mapping work, in terms of flood plain problems and so on, that is necessary. We're going to have to have supplementary funding to move into this area in a worthwhile way.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Madam Chairman, a question on this erosion. When I asked the question before, the Minister said they had made an agreement with the federal government, But what is the formula? Who initiates what on riverbank protection up country?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's going to be jointly between the communities and the province. They should work together and the federal government will share in the funding. The bulk of the initiation is

[ Page 1895 ]

going to have to come from this level. Again, the kind of flood plain analyses that I was just talking about are necessary prior to establishing some decent programme.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Since the Minister brought up the question of analyzing flood plain areas — I wasn't sure that this was the vote in which we should be talking about that, but perhaps we can. I really only want to ask the question of how that programme of defining flood plain areas is going or whether it's going at all.

I would also like to ask whether or not some committee — whether it's the Environment and Land Use Committee or some other committee — would listen to appeals from individuals in a situation such that they're inside the definition of a flood plain at the moment, but because of improvements in diking over the years — particularly since 1948 — there's no possibility that there will ever be water on that land again. It's well diked and well protected. There are many areas like that in the Fraser Valley.

I think it's a serious problem, that the definition of those flood plains be given to the local areas so we know where we stand, particularly in relation to housing development on ordinary farmland at the moment. Is there a programme going on, Mr. Minister, and is there an appeal procedure for individuals?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I think that in the lower mainland the flood plain has essentially been defined by the regional planning groups in the form of the regional plan. With supplementary funding, it's our hope to carry out more detailed looks at these boundary lines. That is one of the things that's intended with supplementary funding. In my judgment, we're not building dikes to allow the farmland to be turned into housing land. That's not the intent at all.

MR. McCLELLAND: Madam Chairman, I didn't say that. I'm talking about building houses for farmers. You know, a home for a farmer on a piece of farmland. I'm not suggesting that this be for development at all.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Fair enough.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Madam Chairman, I'd like to ask the Minister if he would give me some comments on another situation that I brought to his attention with regard to Peace Island
Park in the Peace River.

I sent you a Peace River map where I outlined that if something is not done to head the water off, the spring runoff from the Pine River could take out Peace Island Park because of the way the channels are heading now. I wrote you a letter on it and sent you a map.

It's a pretty serious situation. If the Peace Island Park is taken out, then you're looking at the south side of the Peace River Bridge, which could be undermined. All I'm asking is that you give me a commitment that you will get somebody up there to look at this situation. It's a very serious situation. I realize you're a busy man and I did write you a letter on it…

MS. CHAIRMAN: Address the Chair, Mr. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: What?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Address the Chairman.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Madam Chairman.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The whole matter has been referred to the highways department. It's regarded in this instance as a Highways responsibility.

MR. PHILLIPS: Would that be due to the temporary bridge that was put across the Pine River, Mr. Minister? When the Alaska Highway Bridge was out, a temporary bridge was put across the Pine River to get traffic to the Peace River. It's actually the abutment to the temporary bridge over the Pine River, when traffic was being diverted over the PGE Railroad bridge when the Alaska Highway Bridge was out over the Peace River. Is this the reason it's been referred to Highways?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's considered mainly a Highways problem in relation to the bridges. That's their responsibility and they have to make sure they stay up.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 159 pass?

Vote 159 approved.

Vote 160: environmental quality studies,

$300,000 — approved.

Vote 161: Okanagan flood control, $95,000 — approved.

Vote 162: Canada-British Columbia Joint Development Act, $6,600,300 — approved.

Vote 163: B.C. Hydrometric stream-gauging,

[ Page 1896 ]

$130,000 — approved.

Vote 164: Southern Okanagan lands project, $344,051 — approved.

On vote 165: pollution control, $2,586,626.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver-Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Thank you, Madam Chairman, just a couple of words to the Hon. Minister. It's nice to see him in such pleasant form this year. We don't find you quite as vitriolic on that side of the House as you used to be on this side. That's not a question. (Laughter).

Madam Chairman, I think that in the Province of British Columbia, insofar as the field of pollution is concerned, we should have one law and that is, "Thou shalt not pollute." I do feel that old industries should be asked, indeed assisted, to come up to scratch. If we have to furnish reasonable time to them to come up to reasonable standards, that's fine and dandy. If we have to provide reasonable assistance for that purpose, I think that should be provided by way of depletion allowances or capital cost write-offs or low-interest loans, or indeed no-interest loans, so they would be able to improve their operation without harming their economy — indeed without harming the economy — without them harming their work force, and perhaps creating more jobs for the work force of the rest of the province. Anti-pollution machinery and anti-pollution equipment can be a good business and could create many jobs.

So insofar as the older industries are concerned, I would be much interested in hearing from the Hon. Minister whether or not he proposes a philosophical direction along the lines which I have discussed. Insofar as new industry is concerned, I think that they should be prepared to come into this province and have to accept the standards that are set forth by the province or not open their doors.

Insofar as detergents are concerned, I think we should have a B.C. standard for detergents. If they do not meet that standard, if Granny's White Wash or whatever it may be happens to be killing a lake at the same time, I think that Granny shouldn't be able to get her product onto the shelves.

There's one other item that I have mentioned before in the House, and I think that we have been extremely short-sighted about it. That is the question of liquor bottles. I cannot see for the life of me why it's not possible for the government to provide a return to people who bring back empty liquor bottles to some kind of a central location area. Perhaps the liquor stores themselves would be the best place to do that. Provide the same type of returnable allowance for that, because we find these bottles are continuing to litter the highways and the byways of the province, and they're certainly not doing a great deal.

Along that line, I think it would be a mighty nice thing if we could perhaps try to influence the producing companies to put their product into containers that perhaps could be a little more useful than the present ones are. There's no reason why they couldn't be made in such a way that they would be readily convertible into lamps, or drinking glasses, or water pitchers, or juice containers, or preserving jars, or what-have-you — as long as we can go ahead and just try to provide a little bit of direction to that industry in order that the purchaser can get a better deal and receive a little better variety. I'd rather like to have the Hon. Minister's comments on some of these points.

I suppose the motor vehicle is still somewhat beyond our control here, but at least we are pointing to the direction. I do hope we will be able to have motor vehicles that are not polluting as they are continuing to be at the present time.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Madam Chairman, I'd just like to ask a question of the Minister with regard to a commitment he gave yesterday in reply to some of my comments, and that had to do with the public hearing in White Rock. I'm wondering if that public hearing has been called or whether you will be calling it, Madam Chairman.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, that was simply an indication of attitude on my part. In view of the concern expressed, a hearing will be called. That's a commitment but a time has not been set as yet.

With respect to the question of the Pollution Control Board and some overall attitude toward pollution, standards have and are being set and deadlines are being established in various sectors.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I think I mentioned the beehive burner question. For example, 1975 is a date established with respect to those standards. Then there's the other various A.B.C. standards in other sectors, and they have to meet some of the standards by various time periods.

The question of aid, however, and tax grants and so on is not something that has been reviewed, and I really couldn't make any comment at this stage. It's certainly deserving of consideration.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We have a fundamental problem certainly in some areas such as coastal pulp

[ Page 1897 ]

mills, for example, where it may be extremely difficult to meet the standards, and costly to meet standards that are modestly above the standards proposed.

MRS. JORDAN: Responsibility does strange things.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I don't know if it's so strange, but it may well be that some modest changing of the standards would make the controls economically feasible. Some of the standards, in fact, might not be feasible, period, in some instances. So I think they're all matters for review and consideration.

The question of bottles and things like that comes under the Recreation and Conservation vote. The Litter Act is under the Recreation and Conservation vote. I think it might be more fully discussed then.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would add to the Minister's comments about the cost of beehive burners being very high and expensive. I would assure him that they're even more expensive when the apparatus melts after they've paid $75,000 to put it in. It's happened in our area.

But I would like to just draw the Minister's attention to a problem that was here before. It's becoming more prevalent and I think it is one that he can do something about under this vote. That is in relation to garbage and what I call flying garbage. There's always been a problem of people dropping debris on their way to a garbage dump.

Now we are moving in various parts of the province — certainly in the Okanagan — into sanitary landfills, as they are called. These are generally within an agricultural area and they are also usually located in such a way that the trucks and all transporting vehicles have to go through a residential area. We're not only victims of garbage now, we are victims of flying garbage. I wonder if the Minister couldn't have his colleague in the Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce, or someone, investigate this problem. If there isn't some way that a portable cover with a…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: No, it's $275, Mr. Member, at a minimum — they may find that a bit expensive. I don't know how much the Minister knows about sewing, and I'm not being facetious, but there's a type of adhering zipper on the market today where it's like little claws. You put two pieces of material together and it adheres. I really wonder if there isn't some avenue whereby a tape of this type or some other type could be put on a plastic cover or a canvas cover that would adhere to metal. I really don't think it's quite as funny as it sounds when we live in a wonderful world of science — a great product to be manufactured in British Columbia.

This would allow for portable covers to be put on trucks and other vehicles — little trailers. As the Minister is well aware, a lot of people have trucks, but to get them outfitted with a cover is very expensive. If there was some type of portable top — I think a strong plastic would do and be relatively inexpensive, where the edges would adhere to the metal. Wood is a different matter. They could put grommets on it or little eyes, and use nails or anything on a wooden trailer.

This has been a problem in our area, in Kelowna, where they started the sanitary landfill under the Pollution Control Branch, and they say the people were snowed under and they're being victimized by flying garbage. Vernon has now adopted a sanitary landfill — at least the North Okanagan Regional District — and those trucks and trailers are zooming through in good conscience and they are just spewing the garbage all over the place. It lands on farmers' fields and they're having enough problems right now, as the Minister knows. I would ask if he would seriously, all kidding aside, have someone look into the feasibility of this type of cover.

As I understand it, in the permits that are given by the Pollution Control Branch to the various regions or cities developing sanitary landfills, they lay down fairly stringent regulations, but it's very difficult for one person who gets several lumps of plaster of Paris on their front lawn to have this type of force brought to bear.

I would really urge him to make it very clear, through the Pollution Control Branch, that if a region wishes to undertake this type of landfill, it really must be responsible, even if they have to hire clean-up crews, because it's distressing to the individuals, it's unhealthy and it's certainly disturbing to the landscape.

I was just — you're lucky, I forgot what I was going to mention. Oh, I know — the other problem is all this controversy about gravel pits when they're adjacent to agricultural areas. I think of a particular instance where there are apple orchards. Gravel pits emit a lot of dust and this settles on the apples. If they've been sprayed, it clings to the apples and it causes a financial loss to the grower. It's the same, really, with gravel roads that are adjacent to hay crops or hay fields or other types of agricultural fields. This dust that is raised falls on the crop if it's hay and then the cattle won't eat it; in fact, they develop very serious complications from eating dusty hay if they're that hungry.

I realize there's no instant solution to this, but I

[ Page 1898 ]

wonder if the Minister would discuss some of these matters and see if there isn't something that can be done over the next year. But I would urge him on that flying garbage.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Yes, Madam Chairman, I'd like to expand a little on the point raised by the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. G.B. Gardom) regarding the emission from mills and so on. I'm particularly thinking of B.C. Forest Products on Gorge Road. If you drive down our lovely island in the evening after dark there are copious clouds of smoke and odour from B.C. Forest Products.

I've made some inquiry, Madam Chairman, and to my surprise they tell me that most of the cloud is composed of some form of salt which is reputed to be harmless.

From that point I wonder, in light of the Minister's response to the former Member, have we in fact set standards which cannot be attained in terms of such emission? If this is the case, does it not bring the law into disrepute, even with the best of intentions, that we should have legislation in this province which we know is being broken every day, and yet the company itself appears to be unable to control this particular form of pollution?

I may be misinformed in this but I spoke to, I think it was, the president of the company at one of these meetings we had recently. He claimed not only is it not really harmless in polluting, in the sense that particles of soot or ash are, but that it is in fact unavoidable because it is mainly composed of salt. The Minister can probably answer that.

More particularly I would like the Minister's opinion on whether in fact, with good intentions, we have set standards by law which cannot be met. Where we know that the law is being broken have there actually been cases where citizens have laid complaints — for example, I don't know if they've complained about the Gorge Road situation — and have we taken no action as legislators or through the courts to prosecute somebody who is knowingly breaking the law, because we know on the other hand that they cannot meet the standards which are provided?

It seems to me a rather ridiculous situation, if we're carried away by altruism and we want clean air that, at the same time, we bring in legislation which we know people can't obey. Then when they break the law we ignore them. It seems to me an unhealthy situation and brings the law into disrespect. I'd like the Minister to comment.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I might say with respect to the Gorge Road operation, it's my understanding they've been advised that they must apply for permits and the like. Standards will be set and then deadlines will be set with respect to cleanup.

There have been prosecutions, some half a dozen now, under the new administration. They were all successful. We have gone to the courts. There are some five now before the Courts. So, unlike the former administration, we have worked towards the enforcement of the statute.

It may be in some instances that some of the goals that have been set are somewhat unrealistic. Those are under review.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. CHABOT: Madam Chairman, I have a brief question for the Minister on the Pollution Control Board. It has to do with the issuing of permits by the Pollution Control Board on pump-out tanks for which they do issue permits. But there appears to be a problem on the disposal of the effluent from those tanks.

The East Kootenay Regional District has the function of controlling the sanitary landfills and they in turn say that you can't dump the residue from these pump-out tanks for which the Pollution Control Board issues permits. Of course there are several other types of pump-out tanks — service stations have them for campers and trailers and so forth. It's a real problem as to where this material will be dumped — whether pits should be established, what should be the guidelines of the pits, who should be responsible.

I think there's really a very serious breakdown of communication and co-operation between the regional districts and the Pollution Control Board on just how you dispose of this effluent. I am wondering whether the Pollution Control Board, Madam Chairman, would look into this and find out whose function it is. I think the Pollution Control Board should take some steps to rectify the situation that exists.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It seems to me, Madam Chairman, that some of these common utilities of a community nature — and that's really what this is — are best handled at that level. Sanitary landfills, for example, are really little different in principle — or utilities and distribution systems.

It's our judgment at this stage that the standards and the setting up of standards and guidelines is a pollution control responsibility, but the establishment of the facilities themselves is a regional responsibility. We're certainly setting standards and guidelines but we see this essentially as more or less a community-based function.

We're working towards decentralizing the Pollution Control Board so that there are more regional

[ Page 1899 ]

people available to work with the communities. We hope that at that level these matters can be ironed out.

MR. CHABOT: Supplementary, Madam Chairman. I hope that there will be some guidelines established. The regional districts say that it's not their responsibility to provide the facilities for disposal of this material. Then again the Pollution Control Board issues the permits for the pump-out tanks and also from permanent septic tanks and there's no place for this to be disposed of. I would hope that the Pollution Control Board would give some form of direction, some form of standard, some indication of the type of facilities that they feel are necessary to take this material.

[Mr. Dent in the Chair]

Certainly I agree with the idea that the Pollution Control Board has that it shouldn't be just dumped from a pump-out tank into the sanitary landfill. But at least. they should get talking with the regional districts and say, "We figure this is your responsibility, but this is the type of facility we think you should have to accommodate the problem that exists."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 165 pass?

Vote 165 approved.

Vote 166: laboratory services, $770,678 — approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

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

MRS. JORDAN: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. This morning the Chairman of the Health Education and Welfare Committee asked leave of the House to hold a committee meeting. I would quote for the Speaker's information Beauchesne, 4th Ed., 1958, section 300:

"Committees are not permitted to sit and transact business during the sittings of the House without obtaining special leave upon a report."

The committee, Mr. Speaker, went ahead and met. They used the special sign on the door. They not only used the Hansard transcribing machine but summoned Hansard to appear. The Press were in attendance and in effect reporting a meeting which didn't exist.

We feel, Mr. Speaker, that this was a gross infraction of the rules of this House. Added to this, Members of the committee have had the audacity to say on the floor of this House to other Members of that committee who obeyed the rules of the House, that they were extremely rude in not appearing to the committee. It's my understanding the chairman and other Members have made public statements to this effect.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier of this province made it clear on Tuesday evening to the House and through the media that there would be morning sittings. We feel that there was ample time for the chairman of this committee to acknowledge that there was a need for leave of the House to hold the committee meeting — this could have been done yesterday — or to have notified the delegation that was to appear that the committee would not be sitting and they would have to arrange a mutually convenient time.

Mr. Speaker, we view this as a very serious offence. We would ask the Speaker for a ruling on this and a suitable statement as to what should be done. We can only view the action as not one of lack of knowledge or experience in view of the fact that the chairman went to such lengths to speak publicly on this and, in fact, to place the integrity of the Opposition Members in question.

MR. SPEAKER: I think I have got the main burden of the complaint. I'll look into it and try to give an opinion to the House as to whether a prima facie case of either breach of privilege or any other infraction of the rules of the House have occurred.

I presume that the complaint is generally against those Members who met in one of the committee rooms with people who were there to speak to them. That is the complaint?

MRS. JORDAN: No, Mr. Speaker, the complaint is that this House denied the right of that committee to sit and the chairman went ahead and invoked all the trappings, all the equipment and all the assistance of a formal meeting and indicated to the people appearing before that meeting that this was in fact a legally constituted and formal meeting.

Mr. Speaker, that is a blatant, twisting and bending of the rules of this House, and has a very strong, political connotation to it.

MR. SPEAKER: I would rather not have com-

[ Page 1900 ]

ments of that kind. It is a matter first to determine whether your complaint is one that is, in effect, a complaint of a breach of the rules of the House. I'll have to look into it — I certainly shall and render my opinion on the prima facie aspect of it as quickly as possible.

Hon. Mr. Hall moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:15 p.m.