[ Page 3137 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 132). Hon. Mr. Nimsick.

Introduction and first reading — 3137

Leasehold and Conversion Mortgaged Loan Act (Bill 133). Hon. Mr. Nicolson.

Introduction and first reading — 3137

An Act to Amend the Hospital Insurance Act (Bill 135). Mr. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading — 3137

Oral questions

Steps to offset increased gasoline prices. Mr. Bennett — 3138

Federal-provincial consultations on taxes on mining industry. Mr. Gibson — 3139

Meetings re Vancouver bid for 1980 winter Olympics. Mr. Wallace — 3139

Refusal of Interior body shops to conform to set rate. Mr. Fraser — 3139

Arrangements for conversion of Stena Danica. Mr. Curtis — 3140

Enlargement of Tsawwassen ferry terminal. Mr. Curtis — 3140

Appeals on decisions of courts of revision. Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3140

Delays in ICBC payments to auto body shops. Mr. Schroeder — 3140

Pending legislation. Mr. Gardom — 3140

Increased assessments on golf courses. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3140

Committee of Supply: Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources estimates

On vote 137.

Mr. Bennett — 3141

Mr. Smith — 3143

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3144

Mr. McGeer — 3144

Mr. Phillips — 3149

Mr. Smith — 3150

Mr. Fraser — 3151

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3151

Division on vote 137 — 3151

On vote 138.

Mr. Fraser — 3151

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3152

Mr. Gibson — 3152

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3153

Mr. Gibson — 3153

Mrs. Jordan — 3153

Mr. Curtis — 3154

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3154

Mr. Fraser — 3155

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3155

On vote 14 1.

Mr. Fraser — 3155

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3155

Mr. Fraser — 3155

On vote 144.

Mrs. Jordan — 3156

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3156

Mr. Fraser — 3156

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3156

On vote 145.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3157

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3157

Mr. Rolston — 3157

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3159

Mr. Wallace — 3159

Mr. Phillips — 3160

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3161

Mr. Phillips — 3161

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3161

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3162

Mrs. Jordan — 3162

Mr. Smith — 3163

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3164

Mr. Gibson — 3164

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3164

Mr. Smith — 3165

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3165

On vote 146.

Mr. Rolston — 3165

On vote 147.

Mr. Gibson — 3166

Hon. R-A. Williams — 3166

Mr. Phillips — 3166

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3166

Mr. Phillips — 3167

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3167

Mr. Smith — 3167

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3167

Mr. Gibson — 3167

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3167

On vote 148.

Mr. Smith — 3167

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3168

Mr. Curtis — 3168

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3168

Mr. Smith — 3168

On vote 14 9.

Mr. Smith — 3169

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3169

On vote 15 1.

Mr. Fraser — 3169

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3169

Mr. Rolston — 3170

Mrs. Jordan — 3170

Mr. Smith — 3170

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3171

Mrs. Jordan — 3171

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3171

Mr. Gibson — 3171

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3171

On vote 15 2.

Mr. Gibson — 3172

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3172

Mr. Fraser — 3172

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3172

On vote 153.

Mr. Smith — 3172

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3172

Mr. Wallace — 3172

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3172

Mr. Gibson — 3172

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3173

On vote 156.

Mr. Fraser — 3173

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3173

On vote 15 7.

Mr. Fraser — 3173

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3173

On vote 15 9.

Mr. Rolston — 3173

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3173

On vote 16 1.

Mr. McClelland — 3174

Mrs. Jordan — 3174

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Member for Delta (Mr. Liden), who is not here today, I'd like to ask the House to join me in welcoming a group of students from North Delta Senior Secondary who are visiting us, accompanied by their teacher, Miss Stephanie Barker, who is a member in good standing in the constituency of Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery of students from Carson Graham High School in North Vancouver, accompanied by their instructor, Mr. Siebert and Mr. Brown. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to advise the House that at 3 o'clock (because the galleries are so full) there will be 35 children from the L.B. Brown School in Olympia, Washington, visiting the Legislature. They've spent most of the academic year studying Canadian politics.

Introduction of bills

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Nimsick presents a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 132 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.

LEASEHOLD AND CONVERSION
MORTGAGED LOAN ACT

Hon. Mr. Nicolson presents a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Leasehold and Conversion Mortgaged Loan Act.

Bill 133 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
HOSPITAL INSURANCE ACT

On a motion by Mr. Wallace, Bill 135, An Act to Amend the Hospital Insurance Act, 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.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On examination of Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, May 14, I find that there's a departure from the usual procedure in that a point of order is recorded in Votes and Proceedings. I'm wondering if we're going to start insisting that all points of orders raised in the Legislative Assembly are recorded in Votes and Proceedings, as has been done on May 14.

MR. SPEAKER: What page, please?

MR. CHABOT: Inside of the cover page — page 2, in other words — we find that a point of order has been recorded, which is an abnormal departure from the usual procedure.

MR. SPEAKER: I think that was actually raised as a point of privilege and would have become a point of privilege, had it not ended up on a point of order.

MR. CHABOT: Are points of privilege usually published in Votes and Proceedings?

MR. SPEAKER: A complaint of privilege and the disposal of it are usually recorded, where a breach of privilege is alleged and the matter is dealt with. Here apparently the wording was used that it was a point of order, but I seem to recall it was a point of privilege.

MR. CHABOT: Well, there's a mistake, then, in Votes and Proceedings.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps we can correct that.

MR. CHABOT: Will you see that they correct it, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that we don't get into the business of having double standards regarding points of order?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. I don't want to see any double standards, but I appreciate very much your bringing it to my attention.

MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I just want to keep the record straight — and consistent as well.

MR. SPEAKER: I suppose the custom has been that when matters are of some import — that is, where they can lead to a large dispute in the House, and the question of privilege is, in effect, being considered.... Certainly it was ah extensive business

[ Page 3138 ]

that went on in this particular instance, waiting for transcripts and so on....

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, you might recognize it yourself personally as being a matter of intensive debate and intensive research, but I don't recall it being a matter of intensive concern to the Legislative Assembly. Really I don't see that it justifies having been published in Votes and Proceedings.

MR. SPEAKER: Have we got a time limit on this debate, or can we go on to some other business?

MR. CHABOT: We've got about 15 minutes, Mr. Speaker. If you want we can pursue it in a rational way right now.

MR. SPEAKER: We'll look at the question and see what the proper practice should be in each case. Certainly I'll report to you on my observations.

MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much, as long as we're consistent in what we do in the House, Mr. Speaker. It's most important.

MR. SPEAKER: I appreciate very much your reverence for the rules. (Laughter.)

Oral questions

STEPS TO OFFSET
INCREASED GASOLINE PRICES

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): To the Premier and Minister of Finance: as today seems to be the day that gasoline prices were hiked by 10 cents a gallon, I wonder if the Premier and Minister of Finance would advise the House what steps he will take to aid the consumer to absorb part or all of the price impact?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I anticipated the question from the opposition today on this particular matter, and I'd like to share with the House a telegram sent by the head of the B.C. Energy Commission, Dr. Thompson, on May 14, 1974, to nine oil companies in Canada:

THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA HAS ANNOUNCED PRICE GUIDELINES FOR PETROLEUM PRODUCTS WHICH PROVIDE FOR A 9.2 CENT PER GALLON MAXIMUM INCREASE. THESE GUIDELINES ARE HEREBY MODIFIED FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA BY REDUCING THE INCREASE FOR MOTOR GASOLINE AND HOME HEATING DISTILLATES BY 1.2 CENTS PER GALLON AND BY AUTHORIZING OFFSETTING HIGHER INCREASES FOR HEAVY FUEL OILS. THE RESULT WILL BE AN 8 CENT PER GALLON MAXIMUM INCREASE FOR MOTOR GASOLINE AT THE RETAIL PUMP THROUGHOUT THE PROVINCE AND CORRESPONDINGLY REDUCED INCREASES FOR HOME HEATING DISTILLATES. THE INCREASED HEAVY FUEL OIL PRICE SHOULD NOT EXCEED $10.25 PER BARREL, F.O.B. VANCOUVER.

The rationale for giving heavy fuel oil offsetting higher increases is because historically heavy fuel oil has been in oversupply and prices have been depressed in the world market. Recently, as a result of the world's petroleum energy shortage and increased off-shore crude prices, heavy fuel oil has been in short supply and prices have increased substantially. Whereas heavy fuel oil has traditionally been priced at or below crude oil prices, it is presently running well over $2 above crude oil prices in Canada.

Heavy fuel oil should now be priced more in keeping with the cost of the raw material plus refining, and coincidentally more in keeping with the energy content of the fuel. Underpricing encourages the inefficient use of the fuel.

Because heavy fuel oil sold at depressed prices, gasoline and other products had to be at a higher price in the past to develop sufficient revenue for a barrel of refined product. The former conditions no longer prevail; therefore gasoline and home heating distillates should now be priced relatively lower than the heavy fuel oil.

Dr. Thompson has instructed the nine gasoline distributing companies — the oil companies — that it would be acceptable to the Province of British Columbia to limit the increase to 8 cents per gallon at the pump for the motorist. It is the intention of the Province of British Columbia to ensure that the increase in the price of crude oil does not go to excessive profits for the oil companies. Thus the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) introduced a significant bill just today.

The government itself will be entering into the question of the increase in price and has fixed the return of the increase of the price of oil of $2.50 a barrel to 80 per cent return for the people of British Columbia. With that 80 per cent return to the people of British Columbia in the increase of the price, we have committed ourselves to ensure that the British Columbian motorist will be able to put his vehicle on the road at a cheaper level of operation than he not only experienced at the time of gasoline prices yesterday, but hopefully cheaper than with the increased price in gasoline.

However, we will not go the route that will allow the non-resident to escape gasoline taxes — that is, tourists coming to British Columbia must pay the full share of taxes.

We will announce within a short period of time a dramatic concept in assisting the drivers of this

[ Page 3139 ]

province in putting their vehicles on the road at a much cheaper basis. Everything has its natural sequence of events, in answering this question, Mr. Speaker. Today we've announced that we will limit the increase in price to 8 cents a gallon. No one will escape paying their taxes on the gasoline. We have a plan in mind; we will be recovering 80 per cent of the increase. This is a government that cares for the consumer, as events will prove.

MR. BENNETT: I hate to ask him a supplemental. (Laughter.) I just wonder why the difference down to 8 cents from the 8.5 cents that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) introduced in bill form.

HON. MR. BARRETT: After reviewing our figures, we saw that 8 cents was a fair return.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONSULTATIONS
ON TAXES ON MINING INDUSTRY

MR. GIBSON: I have a question for the Premier and Minister of Finance as to whether he's received a telegram from the president of the British Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines proposing essentially that before new taxes are imposed on the mining industry at either the federal or provincial level, the two governments should get together to discuss how this should best be done. Will he be following that suggestion and contacting federal authorities to have such talks, both to protect our own B.C. tax position and to protect employment in the mining industry?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that I received a telegram, but I hate to do this publicly. I just want to inform the Member that there is no more federal government.

MR. GIBSON: Oh, sure there is!

HON. MR. BARRETT: There's an interim caretaker group that cannot introduce legislation. Depending on the outcome and the wisdom of the people of Canada, I will consider discussing that telegram with David Lewis as the new Prime Minister.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Dreamer!

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary then, Mr. Speaker, does the Premier accept the proposition that there should be no tax increases until discussions are held between the two governments, whenever that can be arranged?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I just find that incredible. He wants me to deal with a non-government in the hopes that the Liberals will get back in. Now, that's absurd. We're here to govern, and if we had to wait for the Liberal Party, we still wouldn't have Medicare in this country.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hoist Bill 31!

MEETINGS RE VANCOUVER BID
FOR 1980 WINTER OLYMPICS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Travel Industry regarding meetings between the City of Vancouver and the winter Olympics committee. Can the Minister tell the House if meetings are planned in the near future in Vancouver's bid for the 1980 winter Olympics?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry): Mr. Speaker, that question would be better referred to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) because of the parks aspect of it. There is a cabinet committee and there's a staff committee. My department's represented on that committee, but I would ask the Member to deflect the question.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the Minister of Recreation and Conservation.... I gather a meeting for April 30 was cancelled and the City of Vancouver is unhappy about lack of progress. Are meetings planned in the near future?

Perhaps to save time, could I ask the second part of the question? Has the government reached the point of specific policy formation as to whether or not they favour the holding of the winter Olympics in Vancouver?

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Yes, meetings will be held at future dates, Mr. Member, and no, there has been no policy set yet. Policy probably will come forth from the meeting we will hold with the officials of the City of Vancouver.

REFUSAL OF INTERIOR BODY SHOPS
TO CONFORM TO SET RATE

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): A question to the Minister of Transport and Communications: in view of the fact that almost all the body shops from 100 Mile House in the south to Prince George, including the City of Prince George, in the north refuse to work at the rate of $14 an hour and all these motorists are subject to a surcharge, what are you going to do about it and when?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I don't know how long it is since the Member's been in contact with the area but...

[ Page 3140 ]

MR. FRASER: Last weekend.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: ...the last report that I had was that one of the major shops in Prince George, one of the medium size shops in Prince George and one of the smaller shops in Prince George have accepted the $14-per-hour rate and are working at that rate.

ARRANGEMENTS FOR CONVERSION
OF STENA DANICA

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Minister of Transport and Communications. Several days ago on the subject of the new ferry vessel Stena Danica, I asked if arrangements had been booked with any yard concerning the conversion job which the Minister indicates will be necessary. I wonder if he could indicate if such a booking has been made or if, in fact, the vessel is going to be modified at the Ferry Authority's Deas Terminal.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Member, I've been away the last couple of days and I haven't had a chance to get an answer to that particular question. I'll try and have it for tomorrow.

ENLARGEMENT OF
TSAWWASSEN FERRY TERMINAL

MR. CURTIS: A further point, Mr. Speaker, on the same general subject was with respect to the enlargement of the Tsawwassen terminal facilities. I gather the Minister would like to take that as notice too.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes.

APPEALS ON DECISIONS
OF COURTS OF REVISION

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson) asked a question in the House on the Finance department as to whether or not approvals to appeal decisions of courts of revisions have been advised. To my knowledge, no approvals were given to appeal decisions of courts of revision on golf course assessment reductions this year. Six requests to appeal court of revision decisions came to my office in February and March of this year, but I did not sign the approval forms. This means that the decisions of the local courts of revision in these cases have been left to stand.

DELAYS IN ICBC PAYMENTS
TO AUTO BODY SHOPS

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): This is for the Minister of Transport and Communications. What steps is the Minister taking to correct an injustice that is occurring in the payout of ICBC to auto body shops?

I understand that in some instances the body shops have only received two-thirds of their money for the month of April, and have had to go to interim financing to pay their labour costs. What steps is the Minister taking?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's the first I've heard of it, Mr. Member. If you have specific cases, I'd appreciate getting them from you and I'll certainly take it up at the next director's meeting.

PENDING LEGISLATION

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Since we're now into the longest session in the history of this province and there was little indication in the Speech from the Throne as to the legislation that was to come before the House, I wonder if the Hon. Premier could indicate to the House roughly how many more government bills are contemplated prior to the end of the session?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it's wonderful that we are now setting records for full debate in this House.

MR. GARDOM: You ended that today in committee.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There, you see, they want it one way and now the other.

MR. GARDOM: Answer the question.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, just give me a chance; you're interrupting me all the time, that's very rude. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, we are dedicated to improving legislation in this province, therefore we will carry on our programme.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does that mean?

INCREASED ASSESSMENTS
ON GOLF COURSES

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): A supplementary question to the previous reply from the Minister of Finance. In the light of his reply, may I ask him whether the March 22, 1974 letter to the Castlegar and District Golf Club from M.D. Naish, the Provincial Assessor, is invalid in view of the fact that the Premier and Minister of Finance has not given his

[ Page 3141 ]

permission for....

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Please get Peter to tell you all about it. I spoke to him yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...is invalid in view of the fact that they have made application for appeal. Tell him, Peter.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If you were in the House, Mr. Member, you would have heard me say that I signed no rights for approval forms. Now, the local court decision stands. The local court decision stands.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The question is whether the March 22, 1974 letter addressed to the Castlegar and District Golf Club which reads: "Dear Sir, Enclosed please find notice of appeal regarding the decision of the 1974 Court of Revision...." et cetera, is invalid because of....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Signed by whom?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Signed by M.D. Naish, as I mentioned before, the Provincial Assessor...is invalid because of your failure to give approval.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I haven't signed any approval in my office....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: A guy gets a doctorate, and they want perfection. (Laughter.) Mr. Speaker, they're wasting the question period again....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON, MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have signed no approval for appeals, and the local court decision stands. If the Member has some information that indicates the opposite, then I would appreciate discussing it with him either in the corridor or my office, but I have signed no approval. The information I have is that the local assessment has been left to stand.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I appreciate the Premier's remarks, Mr. Speaker, but the fact is that the notice of appeal says that consent of the Minister of Finance has been obtained.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Orders of the day

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF
LANDS, FORESTS AND WATER RESOURCES
(continued)

On vote 137: Minister's office, $105,352.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Last night in-session when the Minister was answering about B.C. Hydro, as a director, after giving his statement on the site I project earlier in the day, I felt that the answers were less than frank for this House in outlining the government's and Hydro's plans for the people of the province — particularly concerning the crisis on Vancouver Island.

It's a question that was raised in this Legislature earlier in the session and a question that still concerns the people of the Island, and indeed of British Columbia.

It's a question that could have and should have been answered by the Minister, particularly when he has in his possession a detailed capital works programme for Hydro which involves projects that are itemized as mandatory projects — projects which are entitled "essential projects" — a detailed report that gives scheduling and capital works projects, not only for site 1, but indeed for the Hydro requirements from April 1, 1974 till 1984 — a 10-year projection of all Hydro development in the Province of British Columbia. It's information that could have been given to this Legislature last evening in answer to the questions that the Members put.

Now, decisions and schedules for these projects are already in the Minister's hands, yet weren't divulged to us. The Minister's concept of preplanning and environmental studies seems to be different from that of Hydro, because Hydro right here in this report covering preplanning says "where possible" — not absolutely, but where possible — lead times have been increased to allow the necessary time to meet with municipal and regional planning authorities to carry out environmental studies to ensure best overall use of the land and to allow for pre-logging where this is considered desirable. Considered desirable by whom?

If we're going to have a report, and if the report is going to be the basis on which Hydro development is based in this province, certainly these reports should be undertaken and used when considering the

[ Page 3142 ]

projects, and not taken at the same time that the project is underway.

Here we have...and specifically in a question dealing with one of the particular projects, the Minister said that there would be full studies before the Seven Mile project was undertaken. Yet here we have a timetable for the Seven Mile project which indicates that much of the work will start in 1974. We have details of all sorts of acquisitions, clearing and purchases of specifics to do with that project that weren't divulged to this Legislature, that can't possibly happen if the....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Are you complaining about the announcement of site 1?

MR. BENNETT: I didn't. I'm happy about the announcement of site 1; it was made in 1961 when the first project was started. Construction at site 1 was part of the overall Peace River project. The final allocation of funds in the scheduling of this is part of the overall development, and was something that's been expected and anticipated as part of the original engineering.

What I'm concerned about is that here we had last night detailed questions to do with Hydro and the fact that the Minister with his report in his hands wouldn't give us the answers. In fact, even in the preparation of the site 1 project, it doesn't really meet the information that I see in this report. It talks about $140 million, and the Minister then says with inflation, right in his speech, that it may go to $500 million.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Interest during construction.

MR. BENNETT: Interest during construction. There's an inflation factor of the report I have which says: site 1 project: $407 million; uninflected price, $281 million. And we have a schedule for site 1.

But I look below that and I see a schedule for the Seven Mile project. The Seven Mile project is going to cost $403 million. And I see that there is money allocated in 1974 — $5,109,000; 1975 — $22,767,000; 1976 — $40 million allocated for the Seven Mile project and so on. A project that wasn't going to be started or scheduled until all the studies were undertaken, yet here we see the schedule is already developed — Hydro has made a commitment to the Seven Mile project. That commitment is based on an internal study; the scheduling is made. Yet this information wasn't given to the House last evening in questions specifically dealing with the Seven Mile project.

The Duncan Bay project is going to cost $70 million. The Revelstoke project — $943 million. The Vancouver Island Transmission System — $68 million. These and other projects add up to a total of $7,679 million over the next 10 years — a projection for hydro development that the public should properly know about in British Columbia that wasn't divulged to the Legislature. When we.... Pardon?

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): You can only get the old people in the Social Credit just now.

MR. BENNETT: I'm talking about today. I'm glad to know that you have been around for awhile, Mr. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

Interjection

MR. BENNETT: I am asking you about today. I was here last evening. I am concerned about these projects; the public is concerned. But this information in this report isn't marked "confidential." It should be available to any opposition or government MLA. This report should be available to the public. This report — and I quote from the beginning — says:

"The plan continues the systematic and orderly expansion of the electric system throughout the province, based on meeting the official load forecast which predicts a total load on the integrated system of 9,825 megawatts" — the printing is blurred there — "and a rate growth of approximately 9.5 per cent a year from the forecast peak load of 3,000, 910 megawatts for 1973-74.

"To meet this rate of growth, B.C. Hydro is faced with the need to expand the generation, transmission and substation plant by between 400 and 500 megawatts per year during the first five years of the period, and between 500 and 600 per year during the last five years of the period."

Now this is information that dealt with detailed questions from all Members of the House last evening, which many of us would have liked to have received. Yet we got all-encompassing answers, vague answers, no answers, answers that gave us no information at all. Yet here is a report — a report completed December 10, 1973 — dealing with the province's power requirements from April 1, 1974, to March 31, 1984, with scheduling, not only in gross amounts but by yearly amounts, and a time schedule for bringing on stream these different projects. Particularly the projects we're concerned about are projects that deal with the crisis areas.

Right here in this report the report says:

"Power supply to Vancouver Island continues to be critical. And the second pole of the HVDC interconnection is scheduled for

[ Page 3143 ]

completion with the first valve group scheduled for 1976."

These are the type of answers we were looking for last night, Mr. Chairman, the type of answers that the people of the province are interested in finding out.

Hydro, we have been told and we know, is their corporation, their company. There is no reason of competitive edge in not giving this information. Why is this report not made available? Why can't we get answers instead of the vague answers that we asked for?

Now this isn't like the Minister's....

Interjection.

MR. BENNETT: Well, certainly, but it is not up to the Leader of the Opposition. I may have to table this report as I may have to table the Gottesman Central National contract.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Hear, hear! It will be tabled.

MR. BENNETT: I may have to table those so that the public can find out. But is the Leader of the Opposition going to have to be the one to table government documents?

MR. CHABOT: They should all be tabled.

MR. BENNETT: Maybe all of them.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You'll have the wrong one.

MR. BENNETT: Maybe I will have to table all of them.

But here we are, with this report of the detailed accounting of all of the Hydro expansion plans for British Columbia for the next 10 years — something that this Legislature is concerned about. Some of those questions were asked last night.

I feel the Minister was not being fair to the Legislature in not providing those answers because, as I say, this report isn't marked "confidential." It is not marked "secret." It is there for the information of British Columbians. It is a Hydro report and I would wonder if, perhaps, the Minister would table this report in the Legislature so that all of the MLAs may have the advantage of this report.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): It is fairly obvious that the Minister is going to continue his posture of no answers on the questions that are being asked.

I think, Mr. Minister, that you owe an explanation to the Members of this Legislature, and that you have the very definite responsibility to respond to the Leader of the Opposition on questions concerning the development of hydro in the Province of British Columbia.

It is very obvious from this report that a 10-year plan is, in effect, in your hands and that you have had this report for some time; that it was not developed overnight; that the plans of Hydro are well advanced, not only for site 1, as you announced when your estimates were on the floor of the House, but for the Seven Mile project, for many other projects, the Kootenay Canal project — as a matter of fact, the total projects for British Columbia as you see it for the next 10 years, including Vancouver Island.

It was for one reason or another never pointed out to this House, when you spoke about site 1, that the $407 million figure quoted by yourself, was a figure already including. Inflated costs, because the figure originally in this report showed that when the initial studies were done, the figure was $281 million, and you had taken inflation into consideration when you arrived at a figure of $407 million. In every job total there is a provision showing the initial estimates, the original estimates — I presume made some time ago — and the now inflated figures as a result of projections of inflation that we have to face today.

So what about all this flim-flam and garbage that $407 million was not the correct figure, that perhaps $500 million was closer to it, when you knew that the figure you were giving us included the factors of inflation? What about that?

I think that you owe an explanation to the House, Mr. Minister.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Well, all he has to do is table a copy of the report.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Send him a drawing.

MR. SMITH: Then every Member of this House will have access to this information, which is the right of us.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your leader has a copy of it.

MR. SMITH: Yes, but that doesn't mean that every Member of this House has a copy. I happen to have a copy of it too, Mr. Member. But that does not mean that other Members of this House should be denied the right. I think it is up to the Minister to table this report in the House so that every Member has an equal right and opportunity to study the plans of Hydro. Because it is going to require a vast amount of capital in the next 10 years.

It is obvious from the remarks of the Premier last night that he is concerned about that type of finance

[ Page 3144 ]

and the escalation of use of electricity in this province. That's why he has suggested that we cut back on the use and consumption of electricity, because he is concerned about financing the costs that will be involved, the costs that are involved in financing the provisions and construction projects mentioned in this report.

It is also obvious that right at the moment, the Seven Mile project and the Pend-d'Oreille River is scheduled for 1979 and 1980. It says that two 187.5 megawatt units in 1979 and one in 1980 will be placed on the Pend-d'Oreille River. Is that true, Mr. Minister?

I would say it is, from the report you have at your disposal. So I think that the time has come for the Minister to reveal in greater detail than he has so far in his estimates the plans for B.C. Hydro, the plans for the Lands, Forests and Water services in this province, the plans for northwestern British Columbia as he sees them, the plans for people who would like to avail themselves of Crown land. Are they going to be able to lease land to improve it and purchase it as in the past? Certainly, your department officials have been guided by somebody to issue statements and sign letters indicating a position other than that.

No, it is quite clear that the Minister has two sets of standards: the public face that he shows to the people of the Province of British Columbia and the other face with respect to the operation of his department.

But if he is to be an efficient Minister, then it is important that the policies of the department, once they have been approved, become the knowledge of the Members of this Legislative Assembly.

Why all the secrecy? Why all the secrecy, Mr. Minister? Is it for something that you are concerned about — that you feel that once it's a policy it is your policy alone; that it does not belong to the people of the Province of British Columbia; that they have no part to play in the operation of this province; that as a super Minister you'll go along your own course?

If the public doesn't like it, do they lump it? Is that the attitude? We've had precious little information supplied by you all during the debate of your estimates. What information we have, came as a result of digging and pressing, and there were very, few replies to any of the pertinent questions put to you.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, all of this is very interesting. I can't help but reflect on the former board of directors. I don't recall Mr. Gunderson....

MR. SMITH: You're the new, open government, so you say.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I don't remember Mr. Gunderson coming to the public accounts committees and reporting on behalf of Hydro — the nice appointee of the old W.A.C. Remember old bank man, Einar Gunderson? Did he ever go to the public accounts committee? Not on your life. He had one of the fancy corner offices up there and a hotline telephone right to W.A.C. But he never reported to the Legislature or to a Member of the opposition who would chair the public accounts committee. Not on your life.

Interjections

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, secret documents, secret information. No information. I don't even remember a day in the past when you would even get a chart like this from the former Minister regarding the likely projections of demand or regarding the projects which would meet those demands; you never got those kinds of details before. Let's not kid ourselves. Talk about double standards! For those of you who didn't even know how to plug in a light bulb in relation to B.C. Hydro when you were in government, it's a bit much for you to complain about the quality of information now. Well.

For the benefit of the budding financial genius, the Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith), the difference between the $410 million and the $500 million that I referred to was interest during construction. If you look at the chart, you will see that initial construction work and expenditure commitments will commence this year. The facility will not be in place until 1980.

Now, does Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition understand that there are interest charges between now and 1980 and that would be applied to the $410 million? I know you got the A plus B thing, but can you get the 1 plus 1? Let's try that one. It's interesting during construction and corporate overhead. These are the two basic elements that explain the difference between $410 million and $500 million roughly.

The Seven Mile project on the Pend-d'Oreille has been the product of considerable environmental study since we came into office. Those are not the kinds of studies that the old Socreds thought were worth spending any money on. Now the studies continue. We've held information hearings in the Trail area, just as we did in the Peace country, regarding site 1. There will be further information hearings in the Columbia basin. In addition, there will be public hearings by the Comptroller of Water Rights before a final decision is made. The final decision will be made by the Treasury Board and the board of directors, and that decision has not been made at this time. Thank you.

MR. McGEER: I've listened with interest to the

[ Page 3145 ]

New Democratic Party and the Social Credit Party scratching away at each other like in the old days. While I can sympathize with much of what the Minister of Lands and Forests had to say...

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Nevertheless....

MR. McGEER: ...about the bad old days of Social Credit — and they were bad old days, Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Perish, Mr. Chairman, that we would ever, ever return to that kind of government again.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: No, I wouldn't.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, you would.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks....

MR. McGEER: It's like, Mr. Chairman, asking....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: It's like asking which you would rather have, measles or mumps. The answer is that I find both of them distasteful. If you were to ask which was worse, I would have to say the bad old days of Social Credit were worse than the bad new days of the NDP. They're still bad.

I left the Legislature last night when we adjourned just after 11 o'clock and looked at the air pollution, the scandalous air pollution from the B.C. Forest Products plant just up the way. I thought things really haven't changed. There was a lot of brave talk from the New Democratic Party when they were in opposition about how they were going to change things and clean British Columbia up. But it's really just the same as it always was.

I thought of all the things the Minister of Lands and Forest said when he was a critic in opposition about pollution in British Columbia. The first thing that happened the first fall that he took over was a slash fire which burned right down the mountainside and desecrated an area of the Interior. And the Minister of Lands and Forests is giving licences to pollute. He believes every bit as much in air pollution as the former government believed in air pollution.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: No, no, that's true. The Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) wouldn't deny that they believed in air pollution in the bad old days.

We'll continue to have slash burning in British Columbia and air pollution every fall under the Minister of Lands and Forests. He can say how terrible it was that the former Social Credit government would never give any information. I've asked him how many slash-burning fires he has ordered here in British Columbia and he won't answer questions on the order paper. He's just as bad as the former government, maybe worse. We've still got every bit as much air pollution as we had under Social Credit, probably more. We've still got slash-burning going on; we'll have slash-burning this fall.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: I hope we aren't going to have communities consumed in the process as Salmon Arm was last year. But I'm completely convinced that this Minister of Lands and Forests isn't going to reduce slash-burning one bit. If the Minister is prepared to clean up the air in British Columbia and order an end to slash-burning in this province and the desecration of our clean air every fall, I hope he'll stand up and say so at this session.

But if he is going to permit slash-burning, if we're going to continue to have air pollution in British Columbia on the same scale that we've enjoyed in the past, I hope the Minister will stand up and state candidly that that's what we're going to have.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) earlier today talked about how disgraceful it was of the present government not to give information about power development in British Columbia. No one deceived the public more about power development in British Columbia than the Social Credit government when they had political power. They deceived; no question about it.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Hog wash.

MR. McGEER: Unfortunately, we can't give a clean bill of health to the new Minister. The Premier is chirping away there again. He laid a confidential document from B.C. Hydro on the table and I compliment him for it.

But when it came time to ask questions of B.C. Hydro before the public accounts committee, who was running interference?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Who was?

MR. McGEER: Why it was the Minister of Lands and Forests. Yes sir. He tried for three weeks to block interference for those people. Finally, we managed to get around him, but it was a struggle. I

[ Page 3146 ]

tell you, we dragged him kicking and screaming into the arena of public opinion.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: The Minister of Lands and Forests only yesterday stood up in this House and tried to draw the wool over our eyes about the cost of power. "Ohhhh, " says the Premier and the Minister of Lands and Forests. Well, we had all these costs laid before us about how nuclear power was really twice as expensive as any other form of power and how foolish it was not to go ahead with site 1 and all the natural power developments on three running rivers, and so on, including a 1,715-foot dam on the Pend-d'Oreille instead of 1,730.

But last night I challenged the Minister on some of his cost figures as far as nuclear power was concerned. I said the Government of British Columbia had done everything it could to arouse public fears about B.C. Hydro.

I said the government had invited people who were regarded as nuclear quacks to B.C. I tempered that statement a bit by saying they were merely people who had been discredited in professional circles and therefore had to rely on the kinds of information and the kinds of invitations that the Premier of British Columbia awarded them to maintain any kind of public presence at all.

Here I have a report handed to all Members of the Legislature, including Members of the present government, entitled "Nuclear Power for Vancouver Island", signed by Mr. Gray on behalf of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Here's what he says as a flat statement:

"No document that the Minister of Lands and Forests has released, or that the B.C. Hydro has released, or that the Energy Commission of this province has released, in any way refutes the statement made in this report."

I'm going to read what the report says for the record, Mr. Chairman. The summary of this study says:

"Vancouver Island is one of the most logical areas for the application of nuclear power in Canada. The cost of power from a nuclear power plant on the Island will be less than for any alternative, and inflations in the cost of conventional fuels will increase the differential during the life of the plant.

"The effect on the environment will be less than for any alternative source of power. The effects of any radioactive emissions will certainly not be detectable at any point. The effects of the thermal discharge depend somewhat on the site chosen, but will be unlikely to be detectable more than one-quarter to one-half mile from the site and within this distance are more likely to be desirable than otherwise."

I agree with that. If hot water were being discharged from a nuclear power plant somewhere on Vancouver Island I'd like to have my summer cottage and swimming beach close to that point.

"No other environmental effects are involved.

"A very significant proportion of the expenditure on a nuclear plant will go to local and provincial labour, materials supplied..."

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Isn't that true of any project?

MR. McGEER:

"...manufactured components, operator training and engineering."

That is not the case for every alternative. No sir, it is not the case because the nuclear power plant is capital-intensive and not operating-intensive, as coal, natural gas and oil are.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: And hydro.

MR. McGEER: Hydro is not a viable possibility for Vancouver Island, as the Minister well knows. It's all very well for him to talk about the cost of power delivered at site 1, but it's a very different matter to talk about that power delivered in Victoria because you've got to get the power transported from the mainland to the Island.

The advantage of a nuclear power plant, as the Minister well knows, is the fact that a nuclear power plant can be built so that in peak periods it can deliver power in the opposite direction, namely to the mainland, and save enormously on the cost of underwater cables or whatever form of transmission you decide upon to move power between Vancouver Island and the mainland.

Mr. Chairman, what I am saying in short is simply this. The Minister has given false information to the House for political purposes. He has deceived the people of British Columbia as to the true cost of nuclear power on the Island....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'm just getting to the worst part. Why don't you call me to order after I've finished that. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. McGEER: The Minister has deliberately....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw any imputation that the Minister has

[ Page 3147 ]

given false information to the House.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, he has given information to the House which is not in accord with the facts presented in this report which I hold before you, called "Nuclear Power for Vancouver Island."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member first to withdraw; then we'll accept the second part of his speech. But I would ask him to withdraw the original imputation.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I rest my case entirely on the second part of the speech and not on the first part. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member simply to say: "I withdraw those words."

MR. McGEER: I withdraw, Mr. Chairman, and I substitute the equivalent which is in this particular report. The point that I'm trying to make, not to the Minister — he knows these points very well — but to the public of British Columbia....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would just point out to the Hon. Member that it is necessary, when requested to withdraw, to simply withdraw unconditionally, and then, if he wishes to say the other remarks later, not to qualify his withdrawal.

MR. McGEER: Well, that's exactly what I did.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would just like the Hon. Member to make an unqualified withdrawal.

MR. McGEER: That's exactly what I did, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll accept your words now. You may proceed with your speech.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the Minister even went so far last night as to suggest to the House that we might have an earthquake somewhere along the San Andreas fault — I didn't know that we were on the San Andreas fault here on Vancouver Island — and that suddenly all this nuclear material would be spread all over the place wreaking havoc. That's the extent he's been prepared to go to, to undermine what through logic and technical information is by far the best choice of power on Vancouver Island.

Mr. Chairman, I'm only bringing forward all these facts to explain to you that the present government is no better than the previous government and that's one devil of a thing to say about any government in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. McGEER: That's condemnatory. Who — would want to be put in the same bag with the former government, and yet the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, Mr. Chairman, has qualified for that.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're an old government already.

MR. McGEER: Yes sir. They told us about how terrible Einar Gunderson was, and I agreed. Can you imagine, Mr. Chairman, a man who was the bagman for Social Credit being paid a fat salary to sit as the vice-president of the B.C. Railway and sit on the board of directors of the B.C. Hydro...

AN HON. MEMBER: Executive director.

MR. McGEER: ...and then go and turn the thumbscrews on every corporation in British Columbia? There wasn't a single forest company that didn't toss money into the coffers of Social Credit when Einar Gunderson called up and said it was time for the club dues.

MR. FRASER: Balderdash! Balderdash!

MR. McGEER: Believe me, you paid. When the testimony came out at the time of the Williamson trial, the answer was: "He never got a refusal. Never once." You're darned right they all paid up.

Well, we had men on the provincial payroll who were at the same time collecting for the Social Credit Party and I admit that was bad. But the only way you're going to cure that, Mr. Chairman, is to begin laying the facts on the table as they are. And we had some facts laid on the table: "Nuclear Power for Vancouver Island."

That told it like it is. It gave the relative cost of the various power alternatives. It was done in a completely objective way. Yet all of that is smeared under an escalating table that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources put before us yesterday in which he somehow left a suggestion that nuclear power was twice as costly as any other alternative. He would have had you believe that for power on southern Vancouver Island to put in a nuclear power plant would cost twice as much as the kinds of alternatives he was contemplating. Mr. Chairman, this report puts the lie to that kind of assertion. This report does, not me.

I've read you what this report says and, Mr. Chairman, it's incumbent on you to challenge that Minister to lay the facts on this table, to tell it to the people of British Columbia like it is and to leave political considerations out of our power

[ Page 3148 ]

development. We saw from the example of the previous administration that when political considerations start to influence the kinds of power development we have in British Columbia, not only do we have environmental damage but we saddle the public of this province with costs that they would otherwise not have to bear.

Only yesterday, Mr. Chairman, the Premier of this province was hinting darkly about the consequences of continuing to consume power in this province. It was, if you like, a veiled threat. When people asked if this meant that consumer electricity was going to rise in price, he said: "Oh, no, not that — only industrial." Well, Mr. Chairman, I know who's going to wind up paying for industrial increases — me, as a consumer.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Did you buy all that pulp yourself?

MR. McGEER: What the pulp is sold for is not what the people of British Columbia get.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Ninety-five per cent of that is exported.

MR. McGEER: Ninety-five per cent is exported, and when it's a government mill, who gets the profit?

AN HON. MEMBER: Gottesman.

MR. McGEER: Gottesman gets the profit! The people of British Columbia supply the trees, the workers of British Columbia make the pulp, the transportation people of British Columbia ship it, and for all of that work they get $213 a ton, less freight.

Gottesman sells it somewhere in Timbuktu or some other place like that for $600 a ton or something.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would point out to the Hon....

MR. McGEER: And Gottesman pockets the $400 a ton profit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would, point out....

MR. McGEER: And the Government of the United States gets the taxes on that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member please not reopen a subject which has already been dealt with in the debate on the amendment?

MR. McGEER: I know it's painful, Mr. Chairman.

I hate to reopen it, because if anything cut me to the quick, it was learning that we'd been skinned in British Columbia by some fast operators in New York. It won't be the first time and I expect it won't be the last, but it still will be the biggest skinning we've ever taken next to the Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the Minister will give us a clean account of what is taking place with respect to power development on Vancouver Island. I hope that he will give us a clean account of what the air we breathe is going to be like this fall, because I detect another choke-filled, smoke-filled Indian summer.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister would care to explain in the House instead of in the corridor, I'd like a little something about the University Endowment Lands, because I've found the reports I've heard on the news today very revealing.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Would it be a good location for a nuclear power plant?

MR. McGEER: Well, it's a good location for a park. It's an excellent location for a park, not for a housing development.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You wouldn't want a nuclear plant in your neighbourhood, is that it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: Well, there's two dirty old Hydro sub-stations, and there is no worse industrial polluter than B.C. Hydro. A rat's next of wires all over the place, disgraceful looking railroad lines running through Point Grey, hydro stations not at all done in any kind of taste or environment decor — this is typical of B.C. Hydro. It is no better under you than it was under the former government; it was no better under the former government than it was under the private owners. At least under the private owners they were a little bit sensitive to public criticism, but they have since become hardened, Mr. Chairman.

When we come to what legitimately should be park in this province, and we find that the master planner from Wall Street has sent out tenders to several architectural firms before he even thought of doing an ecological study on the area, we begin to see the kind of hypocritical approach he uses.

He said one thing when he was in opposition, and if one had listened to what he said during those years one would almost have thought he was interested in the environment. Yes, it was possible to draw that conclusion. I even had suspicions along that line myself. In my heart I knew it was probably phony, and certainly the Minister has amply proved it since he took office, because he took what should be a second Stanley Park in the lower mainland and couldn't wait to get his hunkers on it to carve it up

[ Page 3149 ]

for mass housing.

We learned last night by his own admission, not in the House but out in the corridor, that he had hired architectural firms to carve it up....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I said that in the House, too.

MR. McGEER: No, you didn't. You only gave us a tenth of the bad news. The disaster struck out there in the hall.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister doesn't realize what he's running into because the people, in their hearts, want an area preserved for a park. They know if he goes in there with his bulldozers, I'll be there and lots of other people will be too, saying we don't want that area destroyed by this Minister, who is far worse than Ray Williston or Ralph Loffmark or Ken Kiernan all put together when it comes to destroying the environment.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Withdraw!

MR. McGEER: I will not! You prove it, Mr. Minister. And I'll tell you how you can. Ken Kiernan took a pencil and paper and he drew lines all around the parks of British Columbia, but he left parks where they should be left, in the densely crowded areas. Ray Williston stopped the development in the endowment lands. Yes, he did. Credit to them.

This Minister of Lands and Forests takes the one area that most needs to be protected for a park, and that's the area he's going to move into with housing. He's doing a disservice that no other Minister has done in 60 years since this area was set aside.

I hope the Minister will recant in the House today and tell us that that land will not be touched until we have had a proper ecological study and know the areas that have to be preserved until we lay out a park and develop a park, and then give consideration to what housing, if any, might be erected on the University Endowment Lands.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I want to speak for just a few brief moments on hydro power. If I'm a little shaky, Mr. Chairman, it is because I've been exposed to the radiation of atomic power from the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). You know, if my life is ever shortened, Mr. Chairman, it will be because I get exposed to that radiation from Vancouver–Point Grey at every session of the Legislature. I don't know how much more radiation I can take, because when I travel around that great north country and see the millions and millions and millions of horsepower that flow every day into the Arctic Ocean, there for the asking, a waste of energy beyond our wildest imagination just flowing every day into that Arctic Ocean, that could be harnessed into hydro power, why, when the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey starts talking about atomic energy I get all exposed to that radiation.

I would like him at some time to take a trip, Mr. Chairman, up into that great north country, and see the energy that flows every second of every minute of every hour of every day of every year, flows freely. All we have to do is harness our resources, harness that energy, and then maybe, Mr. Chairman, B.C. Hydro will stop burning up natural gas in its plants in Vancouver and start using this untapped natural resource that we have.

Interjection

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, the leader of the Liberals (Mr. D.A. Anderson) says they should harness me. I want to tell you if you could harness that Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) you'd have three times as much.... (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the formal announcement was made yesterday in the Legislature by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources that we're going to go ahead and spend $500 million on site 1 in the Peace River area. And this is a good announcement because the Minister is taking advantage of previous research, previous requirements of energy in the province for years to come, and I'm glad to see that he's intelligent enough to take the recommendations of the previous administration and bring them into fruition.

But you know, Mr. Chairman, we're spending $500 million in the Peace River area to put site 1. There's an area in the Peace River area still that doesn't have hydro electricity so that they can turn on their lights.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Let me guess — Lone Prairie.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister announced during his estimates just recently that for rural electrification they were going to change the formula. What bothers me is that these poor people in Lone Prairie, who have been out there pioneering in that great area, those 32 residents of Lone Prairie will have to pay through the nose to have hydro power, and after they get it then maybe the Minister says he is going to change the formula.

Mr. Chairman, I ask the Minister again, as I've asked many times before: will he please give some consideration to paying the cost of building that hydro line through the seven miles of Crown land to reduce the cost of hydro power to those great

[ Page 3150 ]

pioneering souls in Lone Prairie? And will he move immediately on it? Those people up there certainly deserve hydro.

When this government can spend $70 million on an increased civil service in one year, Mr. Chairman, what is a mere $18,000? Why, even the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) spends $18,000 on a little helicopter trip up in that great north country to look at the roads, so what is $18,000 to help these poor souls in Lone Prairie?

Would the Minister stand in this Legislature today and tell the people of Lone Prairie that he's going to pay for that hydro line through those seven miles of Crown land and help those great souls up in Lone Prairie?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, when enough people move in and they qualify with respect to the formula, but I will keep it high in my agenda. Lone Prairie is close to my heart.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, the Minister said if enough people....

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, he says he is going to redo the formula. He is going to redo the formula.

And I want to tell you, Mr. Minister, I want to tell you here and now, the reason there aren't people in Lone Prairie is because there is no hydro. You are I putting the cart in front of the horse, Mr. Minister.

You are putting the cart in front of the horse. I want to tell you, with the shortage of food in this world, if you put hydro into Lone Prairie, there will be more people move in there and the production of agricultural foodstuffs in this province will go up. Do something for the world, not only for the people of Lone Prairie. Don't put the cart before the horse, Mr. Minister.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You warm the cockles of my heart. It's wonderful.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Minister, please don't put the cart before the horse. Put the power in and more pioneers will go in and open up more farmland and produce more foodstuffs.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Hallelujah! Power to the people!

MR. PHILLIPS: Power to the people. Let there be light! But Mr. Chairman, will the Minister tell me that he is going to do something for those poor people in Lone Prairie?

MR. SMITH: I thought the Minister of Labour wanted to speak in this debate. Is it a matter that....

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Oh, I see — he's been promoted to house Leader. In that case, I will stay right where I am, Mr. Minister.

I think it is very clear that all through this debate he official opposition, in the points we have made, have been right on Ocean Falls and on your deal with he Gottesman Corporation on behalf of the people of the Province of British Columbia. It is very clear that the Minister has not been altogether fair and honest in his remarks in this House.

It is a fair thing to state also, that when you have spoken inside this House and outside it about B.C. hydro and your plans for the future, your statements have been unclear, unclear as to what your actual plans were.

It's also fair to state that the information we have on B.C. Hydro, the information that we have on the Gottesman Corporation and its relation with Ocean Falls, the information that we have on Can-Cel and their situation regarding the international markets of the world and the international business entrepreneurs of the world is something that we have had to document by hard research because the Minister was not in any way prepared to be honest and forthright in his dealings with these particular problems.

That is why, Mr. Chairman, we asked for the Minister's resignation. And we were right in doing that. That is why we say one thing further: if this is the attitude and the direction of the government not only the Minister should resign, the government should resign.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before the Hon. Member for North Peace River resumes his seat, I would ask him to withdraw any imputation that the Minister was dishonest in the House. Will the Hon. Member withdraw that imputation?

MR. SMITH: Would the Hon. Chairman recall when I called the Minister dishonest?

MR. CHAIRMAN: He stated that the Minister was not honest.

MR. SMITH: Pardon me?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member stated that the Minister was not honest to the House, and I am must asking him to withdraw any imputation that the Minister was dishonest.

[ Page 3151 ]

MR. SMITH: I withdraw any imputation of dishonesty. I will just say that he was not completely frank in some of the remarks that he made.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I accept the withdrawal.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, the other evening when we were in debate I brought up certain questions about allocation of timber, and I am not aware that the Minister replied.

I would like, just for a minute, to review them. They were referring to the timber in Chilko working circle that has been directed in a northeast direction instead of a westerly direction, and the Forest Service is building a 50-mile road to get this timber out.

I would like to know why this happened. I would also like to know the approximate cost per mile for this road, if anybody knows.

I would like to know when Plateau Mills is going to become a legal operation. The one mill that's left is not operating properly under the forest regulations or the pollution regulations of the province.

Another thing that I brought up, and didn't hear the Minister say, but it is causing wars in the Interior — I refer to Tree Farm Licences dealing with municipalities and not with the regional district which that municipality belongs to.

It is causing conflict at the local — we'll call it local or political levels. People of the region around the municipality involved — and the Minister knows who they are — feel they are left out of things. I would like to know what the Minister's opinion is on this. Does he intend to expand his invitation to both of them or to confine it where it is?

Those are the three items I would like some answers on, Mr. Chairman.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Regarding the North Chilko or Kluskus Public Sustained Yield Unit, the analysis was carried out at an earlier stage prior to the acquisition of Plateau Mills by the government. The recommendation of the professional foresters was that this should be considered a forest drainage area to the north to Vanderhoof. So the professional judgment of the Forest Service, even before we acquired Plateau Mills, was that the best solution was to orient that forest to the north, rather than to the east.

I am afraid I don't have the cost figures at hand regarding the road, but the countryside is relatively easy compared to most parts of British Columbia.

Deadlines regarding burners have been established by the PCB, and general rules will prevail. As the Member is aware, one of the mills which did not conform is now, in fact, burned down — in the last week.

Regarding the question of municipal Tree Farm Licences — the matter was discussed on our tour of the northwest and we are convinced that there is a need for some area representation outside of the community. So there might well be a joint involvement of representatives from both the community and the surrounding area in the region. It has yet to be worked out, but we are convinced that would be the more reasonable thing to do.

Vote 137 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 15

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I would ask, when you report to the House, that you indicate that a vote took place in committee and ask for the vote to be recorded.

On vote 138: Environment and Land Use Committee Secretariat, $2,227,340.

MR. FRASER: Would you ask the Premier to sit down? I might be a half an hour or so here. The Hon. Member may stand even if he is a doctor.

I've got some questions to ask about this great octopus called the Environment, and Land Use Secretariat. I would like to know how large an organization this is and what branch of government they don't interfere with and slow up and hold up — which is happening ever since we had Bill 42 and the expansion into this.

We have the Bill 42, the public hearings, the agricultural land reserve maps all done at the local level, sent to the B.C. Land Commission and they get lost there for several months. Then I understand that the route is they come to the Environment and Land Use Secretariat.

I'd like to know from the Minister how long a process it is and what the process is from the Environment and Land Use Committee Secretariat;

[ Page 3152 ]

how long do they fuddle around with the agricultural land reserve maps that have already been into 5 or 10 public hearings at the local level, the regional level, through the B.C. Land Commission, and then here? Then finally, I understand, they all initial these agricultural land reserve maps and they get on to the real politburo — the cabinet — where something happens.

I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that this process has got this whole province at a standstill because of appeals that are made to get in and get out of these land reserves. This process of red tape has got the citizens of this province completely confused. I also would like to ask the Minister why he doesn't put out a bulletin to, say, regional districts and municipal councils — I'm not aware that he had; maybe he has — of the chair of command that takes place following the local hearings, because when they were held the Land Commission gave the opinion that that was pretty well it; once they'd reviewed them, they would become law and then appeals to get in or get out would be dealt with.

I can see, Mr. Chairman, and it's the reason I'm mentioning it here under this vote, that we're going to lose all 1974 over community plans and individuals' plans because of the conglomerate we're faced with — the Environment and Land Use Committee.

I also would like to know what departments of government they contact, or do they just make their own decisions as they see fit? Have they any connection with the Department of Lands? Do they ever communicate with that department? Or is it the Department of Highways that gets involved?

But, really, I would like to know a lot more about it. Do they meet every day? Just what are their activities? I'd like to hear some general remarks from the Minister about this Environment and Land Use Committee Secretariat.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, regarding the agricultural land reserve map, there is a procedure — that is, there's been the hearings in the regional district. The regions have had their staff work on it, and the politicians at the regional district in turn have made their recommendations. Then they go to the Land Commission. The Land Commission, by and large, does not have the kind of technical staff or Canada Land Inventory data on the scale that we now have here in Victoria. So that is applied once the proposals are received.

Just to give an example, the Environment and Land Use Committee met this morning and dealt with the Squamish-Lillooet agricultural land reserve, the Comox Regional District land reserves, the Greater Vancouver Regional District land reserves and the Bulkley Valley one.

It's interesting, you know, the kind of data we're now getting out. So in the Bulkley Valley, while the regional district recommended massive agricultural reserves, in fact there are frost-free days only on a one-to-two basis. That is, the odds are that you can actually have frost every other day in the Bulkley Valley. Yet the regional district had recommended massive agricultural reserves.

In addition, the soils are such — and this is old data that we're able to pull together here in Victoria — that tractability is difficult. So while you might have the frost-free days, you can't move the equipment on the type of silt soils that exist on those agricultural lands.

So at long last we're getting this kind of specific information and we're able to look at the regional input and the political and technical input at the region, but we're able to check it out with the best data available and see how much solid sense it makes.

As a result, most of the recommendations have simply been approved by the Environment and Land Use Committee in cabinet, and the ones that we considered today will go to cabinet tomorrow through the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich). So there is not going to be much time wasted there.

But in the Bulkley Valley instance we're just going to have to change the maps, because it's simply misleading to say there's this massive agricultural reserve when, in fact, people might well buy land in the area assuming, because government has said it's a major agricultural reserve, that it makes sense for them to go into the farming business. Frequently it won't.

So there's that kind of worthwhile technical-political involvement that we just haven't had before. The methods and techniques are improving all the time and I think that we're literally breaking new ground with the Environment and Land Use Committee of this cabinet and the secretariat.

We are pulling departments together. They are acting as the catalyst, and we're not getting the kinds of interdepartmental fights we've had in the past. Cabinet tries to meet weekly as the members on the committee. We don't always, but the conflicts between departments are being quickly resolved, and we're getting people in the middle level of the civil service working together in a way we've never had before. I'm convinced that the kind of leadership that new staff in the secretariat are providing will set a standard for the other provinces of Canada, and that we'll see them following the lead that has been established here in British Columbia.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman, just very briefly in following up from what the Minister has said, it's obvious that this is a very important and powerful committee with a good deal of data at its disposal.

[ Page 3153 ]

I would ask the Minister what general policies have been set for the making public of the data in the hands of this committee — its decisions, the matters it's considered, the very many staff studies that unquestionably go into the decision-making process.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, I would recognize a gap there as the Member suggested and as the Member for Cariboo, in effect, suggested.

There really is a need for almost a formal information process. I must admit that I personally am hesitant to go sort of an information route. But with respect to the secretariat's work, there's so much being done and so much worthwhile, it's just a matter of disseminating it.

I think there is a case for some kind of information process that makes more of this data available to the public, and that's something we have under consideration right now.

MR. GIBSON: Just to follow up with the Minister then: one of the problems that often arises is that busy managers and executives and planners in this kind of a system simply don't have the time to decide what should be made public and pull it together in a proper way. Would the Minister give consideration to the addition of an information officer to the secretariat for that very purpose, to get the maximum amount of public knowledge out of this?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, I certainly think so.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Just on that point of the overall working of the land secretariat, is there not some way that the process can be speeded up where there is an obvious complete inconsistency with the zoning that is there and what in fact is what the land should be used for? I'd like to cite two cases in the constituency I represent, and this is why I've kept it for this specific vote.

One is in the area of Lumby where a man had a mobile home park and adjacent to that he had a very large area of productive field and then a side hill. When he went to expand his mobile home park, he found that the Land Commission had zoned his side hill agricultural and the flat land residential. I could give four or five instances within that area where this has happened.

Now we have an acute housing shortage in the area. The council, the regional district, everyone is supporting the extension of this mobile home park, preferably on the side hill and not on the lower land. But the crisis is so severe that he's going to go ahead with the lower land because they've assured him that it's going to be six, eight or 10 weeks before he can get an answer on the side hill, and we just can't afford to wait that long. There should be an avenue, where a situation is as ludicrous as this, that you could get a very quick response.

We also have the same situation in the Vernon area where there was land that had been occupied by a family in a farming capacity for many years and this man had worked outside. He wants to develop an indoor riding ring with stables and barns for his crop storage and go into the specific business of this area of riding. He's in close proximity to five schools so there's a good potential, and he's on the edge of town.

When he went to get his building permit, he had it all but in his hands and suddenly somebody came along and said: "Oh, no. Where you're going to put that building is zoned residential." That in fact is his arable land and the flat land. When they looked at the plan, his flat land, his arable land, is zoned residential and his side hill, again, is zoned agricultural.

In the meantime he has borrowed money, he's ready to go and he's paying interest on this money. Again, the procedure is so slow. There surely must be some element of consideration where the local regional district in these ridiculous cases can move much more quickly and not cost the individual the amount of money that it is and the inconvenience that it is.

I also would like under this vote to ask the Minister regarding the situation of Cosens Bay. I don't want to go into all the details but, as the Minister is aware, this was a commitment by the former government. The Minister's own report recommended that this be a provincial park.

The land is now for sale. There has been an active committee for a long time in this area to promote this and to achieve this land as a provincial park. It's extremely high on the priority of park acquisitions by the Parks Branch.

I should really be dealing with this under parks but, Mr. Chairman, you'll understand why I'm not; I'm not transgressing. When this Minister was Minister of Recreation and Conservation and then as Minister of Lands...when a meeting was held he absolutely cut out all the local input, all the local committees, and said that he would undertake the dealings with Marathon Realty and he would let them know.

Now this is the Minister's prerogative if he wishes to do this. But, Mr. Minister, this is over a year ago. What is happening now is that nobody really knows where you're going. I say to you, through you, Mr. Chairman, because this is exactly where the power in this land acquisition lies — and, I assume, the land secretariat.... Or I'd like to know: is the secretariat handling the dealings or is the Minister handling the dealings?

The only area of contention was whether or not the local people should contribute to the capital cost. I believe the Minister's aware that this is not acceptable to the people on the basis of all the information that's available. Now they are becoming very unsettled and are deeply concerned with the

[ Page 3154 ]

Minister's actions because the rumour is that again there are professional designers, architects, et cetera involved; that there are circuitous suggestions coming through to people such as the golf club and other people that they should contribute to a pot to have a formal design of a recreation area for this area — perhaps put a golf course out there.

The rumour is — and I will ask the Minister's confirmation or denial — that landscape architects and architects have been involved in the situation. I make no accusations against the Minister, but I do ask him today on behalf of the committee and the people: exactly what stage is the acquisition of Cosens Bay at in terms of your dealings?

Are you only involved with Marathon or are you, through you, Mr. Chairman, involved with other companies? Have any architects been hired to design a combination recreational park-residential area?

When will the deal be brought to a close and when will the people get the assurance that this will be a provincial park, that it will be recognized as more of a natural area than a developed area and allay their fears?

I know the Minister is aware that there's no urgency on the part of the people at all, nor the Parks Branch, to develop any section of this land as an organized park. This can be at the government's leisure, if ever.

What they are interested in is not just the water and the shoreline, which is magnificent in both its beach contours and its sloping rock contours and land contours; they are interested in the land itself. This is vital. They are interested in maintaining the size of the present accepted park area, which is over 2,000 acres.

If the Minister has plans for a combined development outside those approximately 2,000 acres, this is entirely another matter, and this may be where the rumours are emanating from. I would ask the Minister to make very clear today what his position is. If these rumours that are unsettling everyone are not true, please deny it, and please outline what he has in store for this land and the people's involvement with it.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): I would like to identify my feelings with those expressed in the first part of her remarks by the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) and also earlier by the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano. (Mr. Gibson).

As government at all levels becomes more complex and, in this context particularly the provincial government, regional districts and municipalities and cities, the citizen is faced with a bewildering maze of lack of information, or confusing information, in terms of, "Where do I go and how do I go about a particular move in order to reach this goal?"

1 think it is appropriate under this vote to again underline for the Minister the need for — probably at the Environment and Land Use Secretariat level — some kind of layout which would be of assistance to the individual, whether he or she is moving into farming or intent upon establishing some business somewhere, or whatever it may be — housing; the list is really endless.

I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister recalls from his earlier career in municipalities that even on a matter which appears to be as relatively simple as zoning, the citizen who has to come into municipal hall and get information is pretty well lost in terms of what step is to be taken first, then what follows — "Do I need a lawyer?" — and so on and on.

I think it would be welcomed by all Members of this House to learn that this particular secretariat had attached to it an individual who could lay out for the individual, under some title, the responsibility for not only telling what has happened after the fact, but indicating to the citizen what route is to be followed before the fact.

I noticed the Minister nodding his head in agreement when I commenced the remarks. I would hope that he would look at this very, very carefully. This doesn't have to be an information officer in the usual sense, but rather a simple guideline. "This is the goal that you wish to reach; this is how you will go about it. This is the relationship between Land Commission and the Environment and Land Use Secretariat. This is where a regional district enters the picture" — and so on.

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, no. I'd want to make sure it was a resident of British Columbia.

The questions regarding specific sites in the Lumby area that the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) mentioned: I suppose that initially we're going to have some of these problems and I would think that maybe the best route would be the chairman of the Land Commission — that's not under this vote — but to directly try and deal with the chairman so that the matter might move quickly.

The original fault, of course, must be shared between the region and others. Certainly the people in the region would know this specific situation, or you'd think they would have, so the slip might have been caught there.

The question of information — or something different, but related to an information officer — I'm very sympathetic to and that's something we have under active consideration. I agree it is confusing and difficult and if there's at least a road map, it would help.

The Cosens Bay question is a matter still under active consideration; there's a range of complications which I really can't go into because they're property

[ Page 3155 ]

matter questions. But I am aware of the desirability of Cosens Bay and Twin Bays and Cypress Bay, whatever they're called, and they're among the finest potential recreation lands in all of British Columbia.

There are not landscape architects hired by the government as far as I'm aware, however, or people of that nature working on the question in terms of technical information. I think we have all we need at this time.

MRS. JORDAN: Just one further question. I certainly respect the need for a certain element of privacy in terms of land dealings. But would the Minister be prepared to give me the assurance today, as the representative of the people in the Legislature, that the wishes of the majority of the people in terms of having that approximate area of 2,000 acres kept as a — I hesitate to use the term natural area, because how can you have a natural area that's used by people — but in this context, that there will be no allowance of an intrusion of some formalized type of recreation area combined with housing or any type of commercial recreational development? I don't mean outside the boundaries, but within this particular area.

Would the Minister be able to send this word back to the Interior?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I would think, if my memory's correct, Madam Member, that this area is designated under the agricultural land reserve, and that in fact would give the assurance you're asking for.

MR. FRASER: I just have one small question to the Minister. Why does the director of the Environment and Land Use Committee Secretariat get a salary of $33,000 and Associate Deputy Ministers in various departments get $28,000? Why is he so important all of a sudden?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think we might very well seriously reconsider all the salary levels of the senior staff.

MRS. JORDAN: Are you cutting them down?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No.

Vote 138 approved.

Vote 139: General administration, $409,585 — approved.

Vote 140: Lands Service, Lands Branch,

$1,276, 583 — approved.

On vote 141: Pre-servicing Crown lands for sale or lease, $2 million.

MR. FRASER: Yes, I brought this up before in this House, Mr. Chairman, and this vote here deals with the development of Crown land subdivisions. If I'm wrong, tell me so, but I think that's what it is.

I'm happy to see that it's increased from $500,000 to $2 million, because there are a lot of people certainly looking for serviced lots, no matter who does it. But one thing I object to most strenuously and have before is that on the servicing of these lots they turn it over to the Highways department.

I don't buy the garbage the Lands department puts out that they have got the engineering and everything and they're all ready to go and they're the only ones that have. That is just not so. Throughout this Province of British Columbia we've got contractors in business for subdivision work for private people in small and large communities all over. This work should be going out to tender so they have an opportunity to do the work, bid on it and do it. And they will do it far more economically than the Highways department will do it. You put this up for tender; you'll find out.

The other and worst aspect of this is that the Highways department, for some reason or another, just love to take on this work and they waste a whole summer in a subdivision and they leave all the roads they're supposed to be doing the maintenance work on; they are just a pile of rubble. It's a disgraceful situation. Of course, I guess they're doing it to recover some funds because they're short of funds. But the highway system suffers and they never should have been there in the first place.

I'd like to know if the Minister is considering a policy change here. Put those Highway department fellows back where they belong — looking after the highways, instead of developing Crown subdivisions.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, in fact we do turn over some of these to private bid contracts. One of the major ones we have underway right now is in Kitimat, known locally as the cable-car subdivision. That's a half-million dollar servicing project and that's all by contract that doesn't involve the Highways department. I'm reasonably sympathetic to opening it up to local contractors because frequently the Highways department will put it too low on their schedule, or it won't tie in with what we have in mind. So I'm sympathetic to what the Member said.

MR. FRASER: I, of course, am referring to Cariboo, because nobody seems to work on Crown subdivisions there except the Highways department, and they work pretty slow at times.

Vote 141 approved.

[ Page 3156 ]

Vote 142: Lands service, Surveys and Mapping

Branch $3,356, 854 approved.

Vote 143: Lands Service, University Endowment Lands Administration Act, $ 10 — approved.

On vote 144, General administration, protection and management of forests, $36,917, 983.

MRS. JORDAN: This involves a small shake mill in the Okanagan. Perhaps you'd like me to wait until.... It's Lumby Red Cedar Shakes Limited of Lumby and a Mr. Don Mattoni is the manager and operator of this mill.

Essentially this is a cedar shake-making mill which, when it originally went to the branch in 1967, was told by the director of the forestry in the office in Kamloops that his request for a quota for shakes and, shingles was not really necessary and that he could operate in cooperation with companies in the area that had the quotas, because basically he uses decadent or fallen cedar; he doesn't need to cut good cedar for shakes.

He didn't press the issue to go on for having his own quota because this was a much more practical situation and more economical and also it was better forestry utilization. This worked quite well until he got into the position where the close-utilization quota system came in and he found that in a position of following through behind those who held the quotas, the forestry was leaning on him to clean up faster than he was able to because of fire regulation.

At that time we went to bat to see if some agreement could be arranged between the forestry service, the utilizers of the major timber, or the holders of the quota, and Mr. Mattoni so that he might even share the cost of fire protection — but so that that timber which he could utilize so well wasn't burned. He operates with about anywhere between 10 and 16 full-time employees. He provides a good work opportunity for many people in the area.

This didn't work out too well, so he then went back to get a quota. They told him he was too small and that he didn't have the necessary facilities to manufacture chips, et cetera, and therefore he wouldn't be eligible for a quota.

Now I understand he does have some land under his jurisdiction, but again he hasn't got the facilities to cut it, so he was subcontracting it out to be cut. Again, this appears to be a terrible waste of a quality of wood that could be used more efficiently and for better public use in terms of boards rather than cedar shakes.

We've been back and forth, to make a long story short, between your department and Mr. Mattoni and the lawyers — on and on and on again. Now the only answer that we have been able to get until a while ago was that the forestry is reviewing the policy; and it's been two years. Unless he gets some consideration, here's no way he can survive. I would urge the Minister to take an active hand in this in order that we can help him survive. If something's happened in the meantime since I've talked to Mr. Mattoni, I'd be very pleased to know it.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think, Mr. Chairman, it might be worthwhile if the Hon. Member could maybe put this in a letter to myself — a summary of the problem as she interprets it. Then we might deal with the individual question at-our level.

MRS. JORDAN: Would you see them if they came down? This would be the best thing.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: If my estimates ever end.

MRS. JORDAN: If it's through by May 24?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm sure we can work something out. Yes, I'd be glad to meet with them once my duties in the House aren't quite as heavy as they are at the moment. I would say that we've been carrying out for about a year now an overview of allocations in the Okanagan. There are problems of probably over-extended land, for example, and a limited resource.

A significant study has been underway for a year, should be completed this summer, so we'll know pretty well what can be done with the wood resource in relation to existing plants in the Okanagan. I'd be pleased to meet with these people later.

MR. FRASER: I've a few questions in this vote; I believe it would fall in this vote, Mr. Chairman. First of all, there are bids closing on May 17 for the establishment of a mill, hopefully in the Clinton area of the Cariboo.

When would those bids be made public? How long does it take? Do you analyse them or do you just release them? The other thing I'd like to know is, what is the total number of staff on the headquarters staff of the Cariboo Forest District as well as the Prince George Forest District, and how many agrologists are in the Cariboo Forest District this year as compared to last?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Regarding the bid proposal requests for the Clinton area, because several companies have requested an extension — that is, companies that were interested — the extension has been made until June. I don't remember the exact date. Those that actually make the bid proposals will be announced as soon as the district forester receives them. There will be an analysis down here. The information regarding the proposals will be made public right away.

The information on the agrologists and staffing in

[ Page 3157 ]

Prince George and Williams Lake I don't have, but I might get it shortly.

Vote 144 approved.

On vote 145: reforestation and forest nursery, $12,924, 608.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Just one brief question. Would the Minister indicate why incidentals and contingencies have risen from $1,000 to $5,534,000? It seems to me that's a fair incidental and contingencies figure.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I would agree that it's a significant inflationary factor. There's no doubt about that. Agrologists in the Williams Lake area number two. We haven't got latitude, unfortunately. We might pursue that by letter.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Is this a misprint in the estimate book? Surely $5 million is not an incidental and contingencies allotment.... It's code 030.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's a computer error, Mr. Chairman. We should have advised the committee earlier. The figure should be the same as last year — $ 1,000 — in 030 and the $5 million should be added to "forest nurseries and planting." That's where the expansion is taking place. "Forest nurseries and planting is $9,616, 638 and "incidentals and contingencies" would be just $ 1,000 as it was in the last fiscal year. This was brought to my attention earlier that it was a computer error and I should have picked it up.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Chairman, I've been waiting for a few days in the House and I was going to do a little talk on trees because I did want to wait for the proper vote.

I must say I've made some big circles on that particular section of the vote, hoping that this would mean a lot more trees and a variety of trees. I have an interest in this since my riding has various people involved in forestry, both in the manufacture of artificial ways of reforestation and also in the planting. I'm very happy that our government has increased it. That's a whopping big increase over last year.

If we review the statistics there were 48.4 trees as part of our artificial reforestation programme in 1972. We're going up to at lease 70 million trees by 1974 and possibly even more. Of course we've at least doubled the budget in the year in reforestation.

[Mr. Gabelmann in the chair.]

The thing I want to ask.... Incidentally, just before I say that, I met some people at the airport yesterday who were returning to Germany and who I just happened to sit next to waiting for the bus to come back. They were alarmed at the lack of reforestation in our forests.

The people in this House should really take a drive out Harrison Lake — you really should do that. Drive out the west side of Harrison Lake and drive out the east side of Harrison Lake and it is pretty shocking — the lack of a planned reforestation programme. There are places as you get to the infamous Red Hill on the east side of Harrison Lake where you'll see certain sections where you can see what could be done through artificial reforestation programmes. You really get the impression that we just take some kind of chance that there will be reforestation.

I remember during the election I think on all sides of the political spectrum people were certainly lamenting the fact that we take about eight times as many trees out as they actually plant. That's just not good enough. These people from Germany were saying: "Boy, if that was Germany we'd expect a tree in there within six months. We'd expect a crop in 60 or 70 years. You people are so casual the way you do your reforestation." I just hope this is the real beginning of a really careful crop of trees and that in 70 or 80 years we should jolly well expect....

You talk about all your knowledge of slopes and frost and soil and that. Well, that applies to forests, too. We should systematically, as a government that expects a much greater yield out of the forest, a great deal more than we are getting.... I just believe this is the beginning.

Of course, in a riding like Dewdney this is very, very crucial. We have some beautiful valleys — the Harrison Valley, the Norrish (which we call "Suicide Creek Valley"), the Chehalis Valley, the Pitt Lake area, Stave Lake area — which must have a much higher yield than is presently appearing.

Of course, you can see some beautiful illustrations. The Members could drive out to Port Renfrew and take the trip from Port Renfrew through into the Cumberland Valley. You would see some excellent illustrations of what could be done. In that case I think it's B.C. Forest Products that have trees that are somewhere around 25 or 30 years old now, beautiful trees. With some thinning we really will see some excellent forests. So let's further escalate this forestry programme.

I'm asking you a question, Mr. Minister. We've had many discussions on this just about the way you do this. Now this is a mud pack. Incidentally, these trees have been sitting there for a week and it's the mud pack and the Styroplug which are the only trees that are going to survive. The humidity, the dryness — both climate and content wise — of the last seven days in this Legislature....

This is a mud pack. I think you've seen this. This is

[ Page 3158 ]

a one-year mud pack and you are purchasing more mud packs, not many, but at least you're purchasing 3.5 million this year from Pelton Reforestation, the mud pack people in Maple Ridge.

I certainly appreciate that at least you're going to get some kind of an objective look at mud packing as one of the alternatives, because it would seem that if you look at various climatic areas of British Columbia there is a whopping difference in the soil and the adaptability of certain trees. Even if you go from one end of Harrison Lake to another, there is a very definite climatic change as you go to the top end of Harrison Lake and up into Lillooet Lake. Presumably that needs a different programme, a different type of tree. We need to have an overall mix.

I feel it's just an essential question to ask if you're putting in 70 million to 75 million trees. Why do you make such an immense commitment towards a styroplug, which now I gather you're going for somewhere around 30 million trees, and I've just got to check this — yes, somewhere around 30. These are very dried out styroplugs but these are grown in plastic or styro containers at a large establishment where we're spending a great deal of money south of Langley.

It's a very large commitment which I just hope is the wisest commitment, that we really as we do this reforestation constantly appraise and test the total economies. The taxpayers are paying for all the clearing of land and asphalting and the purchasing of styroblocks, which the Members should know is just a plastic block with many cavities. We should be very sure that the total economics are meaningful. We should be very, very sure of what it costs per tree after being planted.

I certainly congratulate the Minister in the kind of testing. At least he's continually doing testing and finding out what the survival rates of these trees are. Here, of course, is the bare root, which is still the classic way and good healthy roots there, in this case still more or less alive. We have some two-year-old trees. These are two-year-old bare root trees. Again, in the west coast with the heavy foliage it's very necessary to go to a two-year-old, sometimes three-year-old, tree to get a real jump on the ferns and the bracken and everything.

Again, I think the question needs to be asked and maybe you can help us as we go from a tremendous increase in styroplugs — three million trees two years ago to 20 million anyway, if not even more, to the Styroplug way of growing a tree.

I think we need to know the survival rate of these; we need to know about cross rooting, about spiraling; we need to know about the total amount of money laid out.

You say you are going toward the mechanized process. We have seen no machines. There are grand ideas of blowing the tree out of plastic casing. We haven't seen this and there doesn't seem to be much likelihood of this. I think we need to know about the total economies of this as well as the mudpack which seems to be, I think, a very necessary alternative in certain areas. We need to see the total economies of the bare root, and, of course, the bullet designed by Walters of the UBC research farm.

I have asked you several times — and haven't had an answer — why you don't charge for these under the Act. You are permitted to charge for the tree. Simply let customers decide for themselves what they want. Presumably there would be a difference in price for a one-year-old and a two-year-old tree, whether it's grown in a plantation or wherever. Then, of .course, the customer can decide whether he wants to spend extra money to have it grown in a styroplug or whether he wants to have it grown at extra cost — something like 2 cents — in the bare root or in the mudpacking process.

Under section 151, you have authority to charge. I would have thought that if you charged, there would be a greater sense of responsibility by your various customers. We could talk about B.C. Forest Products. Those guys say: "Look, we know the side here. Why don't you let us do the planting? We have our foresters stationed at Maple Ridge. We know that area. There will be greater continuity of the same people working the same ground. We will ensure even a greater survival rate than we are presently getting."

I was very pleased to hear that Princess Mudpack has a survival rate. Maybe it was survival after a very wet fall which may be a variable we constantly need to look at. But 90 per cent is a pretty high survival rate contrasted to bare root which would be considerably lower. So I am asking you to continue to evaluate and test.

Then I think you need to make a political decision. I really think you should charge.

I think of even greater economies, greater responsibility. I think the local people who know their area will even do their own research. They will work more closely with the department; there will be a much greater yield for that area.

I think if you do charge, there should be more relation with the small companies. The smaller companies could possibly still bring in various work crews and crews like the summer employment programme the students are involved in now. They would actually have the overall supervision; their foresters would be giving a lot of the direction.

I would also like to just remind you that other areas are looking at the example of the Mission tree farm. It is a very small tree farm, Mr. Minister. We have asked you, when are we going to hear from you on reverted timber berths?

There are old timber berths which presumably reverted back to Crown that are surrounding the Mission tree farm. We wrote you nearly a year ago

[ Page 3159 ]

and are still waiting. I remind you now and then. It would give greater economy to the Mission tree farm. The Mission tree farm, incidentally, is only 16,000 acres. It would certainly benefit if some of those old timber berths were included in this tree farm which you feel is a prototype and which I understand other areas such as Smithers, Burns Lake, Quesnel, et cetera, are looking at.

I can assure you that we are very proud of it at Mission. In fact, we hope a lot of students this summer will be working in there, not just to do the planting or the actual task but learning and relating. I think it is a very excellent programme.

So those are some questions and we will get on to the next vote later.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I am sympathetic to the idea of charging for seedlings. But it is a circle, really, because it reflects in stumpage. But there might be some advantages simply in the process. It is something I think we had better review.

The question of having all our eggs in one basket. The plugs versus the mudpacks is something that does concern us. We presently have a senior forester in Scandinavia right now reviewing all of their techniques and processes in order to compare them with what we are doing now in British Columbia. Our senior staff people generally didn't have the freedom in the past to get about and see what was being done in places like Scandinavia. It is my own view that we couldn't spend money better than having our senior professional staff see what is being done in other parts of the world.

We are a relatively competitive industry in some ways; we should benefit from the experience of others.

I am sympathetic to the possibility of charging. It's something we will want to look at in more detail and something that we might continue a dialogue on throughout the next few months.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I have always tried to use estimates intelligently and reserve comments to certain votes. The House has commented at length on the debates that have gone on on the Minister's salary. If I could just ask the Chair at the moment, I was called to a meeting in the Speaker's office just like that, trying to meet my responsibilities in the House to debate this business of the Blues. I am now prevented from taking part in any discussion on the Land Commission or the Environment and Land Use Secretariat. I think this is very unfortunate that this kind of situation arises.

I don't know if the Chair would allow me a little bit of latitude to ask just one particular question which I think is certainly out of order on this motion.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Ask it fast.

MR. WALLACE: It is the question of the delay in dealing with claims of the people who are in difficulty because of the land freeze. I will quickly leave it at that. I don't know how the Minister could be in order by answering it any more than I am in order asking it.

I have one particular instance which I would have otherwise mentioned to the Minister of a situation which went on for 15 months. By the time it was settled, the individual had spent money and the development was no longer possible. I just make that comment in passing. Perhaps the Minister at a later time can get back on to that subject.

On the question of reforestation vote I would just like to ask one or two very quick questions. The Minister, when he was in opposition, was one of the most devoted spokesmen on behalf of adequate reforestation. I can remember him making many strong speeches from this side of the House. I can't recall the figures but at the time he was making it very plain that we were far behind in replacing the natural amount that was lost by disease, fire and by the actual cutting of timber.

I wonder if the Minister could give us a comparison, let us say, between 1972 and 1974 as to how close we are coming in 1974 to the so-called sustained yield idea: whatever we or Mother Nature is removing of our forest resources is, by and large, being replaced.

I have had some discussions with foresters, and one of the points they expressed — it's only an opinion and I want to hear both sides of the story — is that there is a tendency in the Forest Service today of foresters not being out there where the action is. There is less of a practice to have the forester out there in the forest in the front line, as it were, finding out exactly what some of the problems and needs are in the whole question of good planning for reforestation and so on.

There is the feeling among some foresters, I understand, that there is too much time spent shuffling papers and sitting in offices and planning. It is maybe a little bit like the surgeon who spends a lot of time reading how to do an operation but doesn't get into the operating room to do it. Or when he gets in there he is not sure that what he saw in the book was right. That may not be a fair analogy but it is the kind of analogy that people tell me about when I try to discuss forestry.

The other question is on the nurseries in this vote. To what degree is the department of forestry interested in having the private sector go to greater interest in developing their own nurseries? Is there some good reason in the past why this did not work or should not work?

Once again, I feel we must have cooperation between the government Forest Service and the private sector. I wonder if this is another area the

[ Page 3160 ]

Minister could comment on.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just a few brief questions to the Minister before we pass this $12,924,608 for reforestation and forest nurseries.

I would like the Minister to tell me if he feels reforestation and money spent on reforestation in the Ocean Falls harvesting area is being well spent. Is it fair to spend the taxpayers' money to reforest in the harvesting area of Ocean Falls when we're giving the paper from the trees that are grown in that harvesting area, which is subsidized by the people of British Columbia, to Gottesman company of New York?

I would like to ask the Minister if it is not true that the contract signed with Gottesman was for a mill net of $160 a ton. If it is, we will be spending taxpayers' money in reharvesting the harvesting area of Ocean Falls, spending good taxpayers' money to make Gottesman, an international newsprint selling agency, rich. I don't feel it is fair that the taxpayers of British Columbia should have to subsidize an international corporation.

We will be spending and reforesting in the Ocean Falls area; the trees will be cut down, put through the Ocean Falls mill, sold to Gottesman at $160 a ton when the cost of manufacturing this newsprint alone is $195 a ton. In other words, the taxpayers of this province are subsidizing Gottesman to the tune of $35 a ton for every ton of newsprint which is processed through Ocean Falls.

Here we have a situation where this department, in incidentals and contingencies and forest nurseries and planting, is spending $9,617,000. A great amount of this money will be spent in the harvesting area of Ocean Falls to keep those forests going so that Gottesman and company can make a profit.

I'd like to ask the Minister if it is not true that the contract is tied to the California price, a delivered rate of $213 a ton.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: Is it not true that if this price drops below $213 a ton, Gottesman and company can cancel the contract and leave Ocean Falls with all their newsprint and not sell it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me just a moment. If the Hon. Member would just stop for a moment for a point of order, I would like to remind him that in the early part of his remarks one-half of each sentence was in order but the other was out.

You are now beginning to be more out of order than in order. I would appreciate it if you would come back to the vote which deals with reforestation.

MR. PHILLIPS: The problem is that....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Maybe I can simply tell you that the figures are incorrect.

MR. PHILLIPS: Here we have a....

Well, Mr. Chairman, if the figures are incorrect, why doesn't the Minister tell us the truth? Why doesn't he file the agreement?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister has the agreement. He has shown disdain for the House by not giving us those figures.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask you to try and come back to the vote, if you can.

MR. PHILLIPS: As I said, I am here to protect the taxpayers of British Columbia. Here we are spending $12,924,608 on this vote 145...

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You don't care about seedlings.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...to look after reforesting our forests. How much of that money is going into the harvesting area of Ocean Falls? Here we have a situation where the taxpayers of British Columbia will be reforesting this harvesting area at Ocean Falls while Ocean Falls loses $850,000 a year and Gottesman stands to make millions and millions of dollars profit.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: Why should the taxpayers...?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Order, Mr. Chairman. On a point of order, this matter has been thoroughly canvassed for some seven days by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. I would urge you to bring the Member back to order and discuss the question of reforestation, which is the vote at hand.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I agree entirely, Mr. Minister. Apart from being out of order in terms of what you are talking about, the matter of repetition is pretty clear as well. I would ask the Member to move on to another topic or take his place.

MR. PHILLIPS: It will never be a matter of repetition when the principles of good government and protecting the taxpayers of British Columbia are involved. Never will it be a matter of repetition. As I've said before, will the Minister tell me how much of this $12,924,608 is going to be spent in the harvesting area of Ocean Falls to reforest those forests...

[ Page 3161 ]

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'd be glad to answer that question.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...where the trees are being cut down to go through Ocean Falls to sell the newsprint to Gottesman and company so they can rip off millions and millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money? That's a fair question under this vote, Mr. Chairman.

Here we have Gottesman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! I would appreciate it if you would stop just for a moment while we discuss whether or not you are in order. I would suggest, Mr. Member, that you are out of order. I would ask you either to take your place or move on to another topic.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like the Minister to tell me....

MR. CHAIRMAN: When he takes his place, he can either answer or not answer. That is up to him.

MR. PHILLIPS: All right. I want to know. I'll restate the question again. I want to know how much money is being spent — the taxpayers' money of British Columbia — in replanting the harvesting area in Ocean Falls.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: There is no harvesting area in Ocean Falls, so no funds are being expended. The company buys pulp from another company and buys logs from another company, so there are no direct activities in the Ocean Falls area by the Ocean Falls Corporation. There is no such harvesting area.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister is trying to play semantics with me. Those trees have to come from somewhere. I don't care whether they come from a Crown Zellerbach harvesting licence.

I'll restate the question. Trees have to be cut down to supply the Ocean Falls mill. Or does he use hot air?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'd like to see a better use put on that, I'll tell you that, Mr. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, go ahead. You can make all the smart remarks you want to. I want the truth about the Gottesman agreement. I don't care if we debated this seven days or seven weeks; the truth is still being hid from the people of British Columbia — the whole, dirty, rotten truth about this situation. (Laughter.)

It's all right for the Premier to laugh....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I trust, Mr. Member, that you are through now with the topic. If not....

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not through until I get an answer. I want the Minister to tell me how much of the taxpayers' money is being spent in reforesting the area. If you don't want to call it the Ocean Falls, harvesting area.... I don't care who it belongs to — the area where the trees are coming from that are going to the Ocean Falls mill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think all of us understand the question.

MR. PHILLIPS: I have to spell it out for the Minister in black and white. I may even have to draw him a picture.

Will the Minister tell me: is there a reforestation programme in the area where the trees are being cut down that are essentially ending up in the Ocean Falls mill?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I was startled to hear the Minister respond to the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) that there was no charge made with respect to the seedlings which come from forest nurseries. When you consider that we are going to spend this year something like $9 million for forest nurseries and planting, it seems to me that it is a significant expenditure for which there should be a recovery. When you consider the total dollar cost for such a programme, it is absolutely astronomic.

We know that by the time a seedling is planted in the forest area up to 80 years may pass before a tree is produced which is merchantable. Therefore the recovery of stumpage or royalty or whatever charge the government may be making 80 years hence does not reflect itself, Mr. Chairman, in a return to the Treasury of the Province of British Columbia for 80 years, for example.

To make the mathematics simple, if we take an interest rate of 10 per cent, we recognize that money doubles every seven years, and therefore in an 80-year period there will be 10 doublings — that's 1,000 times. As a consequence, the $9 million allocated this year for nurseries and nursery stock, forest nurseries and planting, by the time those trees become merchantable will have a money cost to the people of the Province of British Columbia of $9 billion. And this goes on year after year.

I know the Minister recognizes this because the very distinguished economist, Mr. Gaffney, has written a number of articles and made a number of statements concerning this very consequence. It seems to me that one way in which we can short-circuit that money loss to the Treasury of British Columbia is by making at least a nominal charge to recoup all or the majority of this $9 million, so that it is not the people's money which is

[ Page 3162 ]

expended this year and not recouped for 70 or 80 years. Therefore the people of British Columbia don't lose this tremendous sum of money.

We could take and invest the money, Mr. Chairman. Take the $9 million and put it away and 80 years from now we would have $9 billion. I wonder if perhaps there wouldn't be a greater return to the Treasury of British Columbia from the forest if we did just that rather than growing the trees now.

I appreciate that the land is there and that there should be a proper use made of the land, but it seems to me that the desirability of reforestation and this enormous money cost could be brought more into balance if there were a charge for the seedlings. I would like the Minister to perhaps comment on that proposition.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I suppose one thing we should keep in mind always is that we are the owners of the land, fortunately, in British Columbia, and the owners of the trees, basically, with a few exceptions. So most of the land bearing the trees is owned by us, and at least the residual return will be ours or for future generations, at least. But the dilemma that a policy-maker has between what, say, biological or forest goals might be and what sound economics might be — and both of these are pretty hard to nail down or define — is very difficult.

If you apply a straight economist's view, we would probably not do any reforestation at all, and I don't think we can accept that. So that's simply a policy judgment that one makes after considering a whole range of alternatives. But I think the main thing to keep in mind is that we are the holders of the land ourselves, the people in common, so we can achieve these benefits.

It is a matter that has been discussed internally and we see some areas where we can track a course, or at least a better course. We have a research group within the Forest Service. Mr. Dennis Blue, for example, took training at the London School of Economics and is also a professional forester. He is working on the timber ram allocation methods.

Again, they are plugging into their econometric work — financial considerations as well as forestry considerations — and trying to reach some new optimum. So we have programmes in the Salmon River area, in the Prince George region, and we are looking t at the Kootenays in terms of using some of these new methods and techniques that are presently used in the American southeast in the fast growing pine regions — in effect, maximizing or trying to reach some optimum solutions, given an economic view and a forestry view.

So we are moving toward some kind of route between these two professional views that should be better than what we have done so far.

MRS. JORDAN: Speaking of policy judgments, as the Minister was, and speaking of the replanting of our forests and the ability of the Crown to pay, I'm just a simple housewife but I would like to try and put this whole deal regarding Ocean Falls in layman's terms and relate my questions to the reforestation.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, forgetting what Mr. Fotheringham, said, that the whole deal that we're involved in goes like this. The government has an outright purchase, the California price is....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I saw the Minister signal you, and I'm going to relate my questions....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MRS. JORDAN: He looked at the Chairman and gave him the signal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! A point of order.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I would again draw to the Chairman's attention the fact that this matter has been fully canvassed under the proper vote, which is the Minister's salary. That vote has now been dealt with and passed and I urge the Chairman to bring the Hon. Member to order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I was just going to do that following completion of the first sentence of the Hon. Member. I would ask her not to discuss those matters that have been previously debated in this House, both because they are tedious and also because they don't come under this vote.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your ruling and I appreciate your fair point, but if you would just hear me out you will see that my questions relate very directly to reforestation, but I have to quote these figures in order that I can pose he question so that the Minister will understand what I want to know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I just point out to the Hon. Member that the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) was using a similar tactic. We ruled him out of order and I would suggest that you try and relate this to reforestation alone.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, if you will allow me to go into the figures, basically I will give you my

[ Page 3163 ]

question but I would like to have the right to frame it in the proper context. But if the California price is $230....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I'm sorry, Hon. Member, but that is not....

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, how will you know what my question is if you don't hear it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the question has anything to do with reforestation, I wish you would indicate that.

MRS. JORDAN: It does, Mr. Chairman. If you will just bide your time and listen to the question, then if the questions aren't right, you can rule them out of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: The powerful Minister.

MRS. JORDAN: ...less the freight of $19.50 U.S. funds per ton, and less the so-called commission of 3 per cent, which is $5.82 per ton, we see a total return to the mill of $188.18 per ton.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Can't we have an orderly House?

MRS. JORDAN: Now, Mr. Chairman, if you will just listen, I will relate my questions, but I would say that for all of this, for $188.18 per ton return to Ocean Falls, Gottesman gets the right to sell at any price, whether it's on the black, blue, grey or brown market....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: Just a minute, Mr. Chairman. I'm just there. And gets the right to....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order!

MRS. JORDAN: My question, Mr. Chairman: if out of that return of $188.18 per ton...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated!

MRS. JORDAN: ...what is the cost of reforesting over the next two years on a per ton basis using those figures? Now, Mr. Chairman, what's wrong with that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first thing that's wrong with it is that you know full well that when the Chairman is standing all Hon. Members are to be seated.

I just want to suggest to the Hon. Member that I think it was made clear during the debate just a few minutes ago when the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) was on his feel that if you are going to discuss matters that have been fully discussed in this House prior to now, it will be out of order, and I have so ruled.

I would ask you not to discuss the matter relating to Gottesman or any of those comments, even though you may in some indirect manner be able to relate it to reforestation, because that matter has been fully canvassed. I would ask you not to proceed on that any further.

MRS. JORDAN: My question is very simple and it was very short. That is, in light of the return of $188.18 per ton, what is the cost of replanting a similar amount of timber that will be used to produce that ton? How does the Minister, as the responsible Minister for the unmentionable deal, and the reforestation policy in that particular area, equate the cost in terms of the return to the people?

How does he intend to finance the cost and how does the cost of reforestation fit in with the cost of production per ton in relation to that figure of $188.18? In other words, out of the return of profit to British Columbia of $188.18 per ton fixed, how much is broken down into cost of reforestation to replace the timber? How much is broken down into cost of production in other areas?

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MR. SMITH: It's okay for the Minister to hide behind the rules of debate in not answering questions put to him by this committee. But I would suggest to the Minister this: He can answer or not; it really doesn't matter. By his actions, he stands condemned before this committee and before the People of British Columbia. Everyone in British Columbia is a loser over Ocean Falls. But we'll see the day....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order! I would draw the attention of the Hon. Member to standing order 61, part 2, "Speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or cause under consideration."

I would also remind the Hon. Member of what my assistant said when he was in the chair. You cannot reopen a subject which has already been thoroughly canvassed, and, for that matter, a subject which has already been disposed of by a vote of the House.

Therefore, I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to some new matter pertaining to this particular vote.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I think I explained the position of the opposition quite fully and I won't

[ Page 3164 ]

repeat those remarks.

I do wish to say this concerning vote 145: There's a tremendous increase in the amount of money provided under code 030, a very interesting increase because it provides more than $5.5 million of increased moneys for incidentals and contingencies.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Minister has made a correction already on this particular point. It's already been raised by another Hon. Member. Hydro has explained this matter. I believe that the information he gave was simple: there was a computer error in the way the figures were printed.

MR. PHILLIPS: Error in the Ocean Falls....

MR. SMITH: Well, am I to understand, then, that because of an error by the computer this amount of money should have been included in another section rather than that one?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: If I might clarify the matter, Mr. Chairman. Yes, it should be shifted to 031 so that it would be under forest nurseries and planting.

MR. SMITH: Thank you very much for the very concise answer, Mr. Minister. If we had had that many concise answers before, we would probably be further along right now.

There has been a significant increase in the amount of money that will be used for forest nurseries and planting in the Province of British Columbia, so my question to the Minister is this: does the Minister contemplate a great increase in contract planting with the money that is provided by this vote? If so, are there specific areas of the province where greater emphasis will be given to reforestation than other areas?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to ask the Minister once again: is there a reforestation programme going on in the area supplying trees to Ocean Falls? It's a simple question; would the Minister please answer?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Roughly, the range is about nine to one in terms of contract versus our own staff, with the nine being contract.

MR. SMITH: Are there certain areas of the province which you will view with preference with respect to replanting and reforestation as compared to other areas? Do you have some specific areas in mind?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, we do have new nurseries in Salmon Arm and the Red Rock-Prince George area. We are decentralizing the reforestation programme and the decision-making. More decisions are being made in the forest districts. We're sharing he funding through the regions.

MR. GIBSON: I'd just like to follow along with he Minister a bit on the economic question raised by the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound Mr. L.A. Williams). I'd ask the Minister, first of all: what percentage of the forest regeneration in British Columbia now approximately is being handled by artificial reforestation procedures? By what extent does reforestation increase the sustained yield of British Columbia due to the fact that, I assume, it provides for the more rapid growth of trees? In other words, does it speed up the natural growth cycle and, f so, by how much?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: On the planting programme — to follow up the previous question — the numbers between regions just to give you an idea of the ratio: 13 — Vancouver; 8 — Prince Rupert; 9 — Prince George; 4 — Kamloops; 7 — Nelson; Cariboo — 6. So that's the kind of provincial distribution on a ratio basis between the regions.

With respect to planting by man versus natural regeneration, we have something like a 20 per cent man-planting programme and 80 per cent natural regeneration, or something along that line.

In terms of the research of the kind of return, I'm afraid I don't have any data at hand. It's a good question that we might follow up and provide the Member with the information once it's gathered.

MR. GIBSON: I'm just wondering in particular, Mr. Minister, about the acceleration of the growth. If the normal growth cycle of a tree is 80 years and you're able to cut it to 60 years by artificial regeneration that would seem to increase the sustained yield of the province by around 25 per cent which is a very consequential figure if that's correct.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Right. There is a research forest at Mesachie Lake near Lake Cowichan and Dr. Orr-Ewing has been there for some 20 to 30 years carrying out research with different seed stock. It's very clear that tremendous gains can be reaped by collecting better seed stock, just something like that, which would be part of the man-planting programme.

I think, certainly, very clear research data is available with respect to his work. You just have to look at the trees in that particular research forest and look at the trees that have been planted with seeds collected at random or trees that were crooked. The distorted trees, of course, have progeny of the same type, whereas he has been able to develop, in effect, super trees — super Douglas fir stock, for example. That has made it clear that our seed-gathering

[ Page 3165 ]

programme has to be related to better tree stock. That is not being done. So just the differences there would be tremendous in terms of the long-run implications in terms of forest productivity.

MR. SMITH: I'm aware and very impressed with the work that Dr. Orr-Ewing has done in this province. One of the things I talked to Dr. Orr-Ewing about was the matter of acceleration of the type of research he has been doing on behalf of the Province of British Columbia.

Has the Minister any plans to accelerate this type of work so that we do get regeneration from genetically better trees than in the past? Is there some plan to have people carry on the type of work he started in this province and, in fact, expand it so all of us in British Columbia will be able to take advantage of that? He has done excellent work for this province. All you have to do is go out and look at the trees that he has planted to see the tremendous difference you can get in a 5- or 10-year growth period.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I take it the Member visited it with the forest committee last summer. I would point out that that was the first time Dr. Orr-Ewing met a Member of the Legislature. When I was there a couple of weeks later, that was the first time a Minister of Forests had ever visited the site at Mesachie Lake. The site was established in 1929 and it's only an hour's drive from Victoria, so it's unfortunate that this man's work and the work at that research forest have been ignored to the extent that they have by the politicians of British Columbia. I'm pleased that under this administration that the forest committee did visit and that I visited a little later.

MR. SMITH: Cut out the commercial. Let's hear what's going to happen in regard to expansion.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, the research fund is substantially increased, as you'll see in a following vote. In addition, the productivity committee's work has been substantially increased as well. The building of plots, basic research sample plots, around the province is being pursued with the aid of people from the University of British Columbia and Mr. Glew of our department, as I mentioned earlier, and other forest service personnel.

So that is being accelerated and while it was, to be fair, established under the previous Minister, it is a most worthwhile programme. It's certainly a late starting one. That has its advantages too, however, because now the committee members have been able to look at what's being done in Germany and Europe, Scandinavia, the south, elsewhere, and see to it that our own programme is on a par with anything else in he world. I think that is the case now. They do have significant funding and expanded funding for these research programmes.

Vote 145 approved.

On vote 146: forestry and correction camp programme, $32,500.

MR. ROLSTON: I'd like to remind you of the excellent programme — of course, Stave Lake, Boulder Bay, excellent programmes — but that's not much money. There's tremendous public support for that kind of programme. Now I've been after the Minister, since it's a newly established department, to get better equipment. They've been messing around with a D8 Cat. We want to get a new Cat.

I'm a little confused. I realize it's B.C. Hydro, and I gather you get little bits of equipment from one group and from another group, but it's a tremendously important programme. I think part of the reason why Haney correctional is where it is is because of that kind of programme.

I want you to know — I think politically you should know — that that's why the federal government are putting a medium-security jail into the Mission area. It's largely because they want access to those correction programmes in the forests.

We have tried to work through the B.C. Corrections Branch to ensure that there's no jurisdictional hassles between the federal government — who incidentally would love to have a medium-security jail, if they could get community support for one, in Maple Ridge. There is a real shortage, a housing problem.

But one thing is that you just have to have equipment, you know. You can't have guys sitting around with shovels or with just work gloves. We need more skidders. There's one steel spar there, an old loader. Again, I think a great deal more money could be spent on this programme.

Now it also comes up under vote 159, the clearing of lakes. I believe you're going to accelerate that vote and increase money into that particular vote. But I just can't emphasize enough the positive corrective programme, both for the fellows and also for supplying lumber. I remind you that this programme also provides a lot of the lumber that's used in various government institutions — especially parks and rec — in the sawmills. I think a little more money could have gone into that budget than you see there. That's a rather minimal increase. That's about barely half the cost of a good Cat.

Vote 146 approved.

On vote 147: forest research, $674,084.

[ Page 3166 ]

MR. GIBSON: We got very briefly into the research section earlier on. I want to admit at once my bias in favour of research and in favour of probably more research in the forest industry. I want to quote very briefly from a piece done for a recent chamber of commerce forest symposium to point out the results for this.

The author mentions that you can take an optimistic and a pessimistic view of British Columbia's forest industry in the world markets. He says that the optimists:

"...point out justifiably that wood resources can not only renew themselves under any reasonable condition of management but that the quantity and quality of following tree generations can be improved by seed selection, genetic developments, fertilization, irrigation, pest control and intensified management techniques."

That I suppose would be a short list of the research areas that would be covered under this vote. The vote 031 projects, $546,000, is not at all specific as to what kind of projects there are. I'd be grateful if the Minister could detail some of the ones he considers are more promising.

We mentioned the optimists earlier on; now I quote the pessimists who note that:

"There are large reserves of unexploited forests in the tropical region awaiting only the axe and saw and the digester to provide us with competition. A more telling aspect of this renewability argument is that while the short-fibre indigenous species harvested may not measure up in quality or cost to our own, the land beneath the stands provides a receptive environment for the establishment of plantations of exotic conifers which do measure up, quality wise, and which can be produced at much lower costs."

Just to go on, there's a footnote later on in that article which notes:

"Brazil and New Zealand can obtain 250 to 300 cubic feet per annum annual increment of growth, whereas coastal B.C. obtains only 75 cubic feet per annum and the Interior of British Columbia has 30."

I'd ask the Minister, then, what research specifically is going to increase the yield and the quality of the kind of trees that are growing in British Columbia, and give us a progress report on the success of this research to date, as well as any of the more promising projects under vote 031 that he might be particularly proud of.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I suppose the most significant one is actually under the silvicultural vote itself, rather than the research one, so that vote 155, which is $1.5 million, is probably the most extensive and intensive programme that is, with a very tremendous amount of work in terms of picking sample plots in terms of a cross-section of the types of forests and soils and climate conditions around the province.

Once establishing these, and I think we have about heading for 250 of these plots, then there's a constant monitoring: what are the implications of thinning in this kind of site with these kinds of trees and this kind of climate? What are the implications of fertilization of this kind of site with this kind of climate and these kinds of trees?

That sort of thing is going on as part of the productivity committee's work. I think that will be the most productive in a hard sense, in terms of the research. I think we'll learn a great deal so that we can manage better in relation to bio/geo/climate zones around the province.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd just like to ask the Minister if he would consider under research devoting more time and money to the research into the use of aspen. As the Minister knows, there are hundreds of thousands of acres of native poplars growing in the north country. They talk about Brazil and the hot climates producing trees; this native poplar tree grows like a weed. When there's a land-clearing operation, thousands of cord feet are burned in wind-rows because there's no use for it.

There is a mill in Slave Lake, Alberta, which is under the direction of the Department of Forestry in Edmonton under the Alberta government, that has done a fair amount of research on using this native tree for furniture components. They've researched into drying methods and the durability and warping, and so forth.

There has also been some research done by the University of British Columbia in chipping this native aspen and feeding it to cattle. It always has bothered me to see this native tree being wasted when I'm....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Would McDonald's use it in their hamburgers, then?

MR. PHILLIPS: It's a possibility. It might have to go through the cow first. (Laughter.)

In the day and age when we're taking a closer look at our natural resources, I'm sure that the University of British Columbia would love to have more money to continue their research into cattle feed. I believe it's the University of Saskatoon that has done some research on feeding this to cattle. Would the Minister mind telling me what his thoughts are on this? What can be done?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, I certainly can't claim to be an expert on cattle feed, Mr. Chairman, and I'm really not familiar with that area. However,

[ Page 3167 ]

we do regard the aspen as one of the significant resources in the province that we really haven't devoted much attention to. The assistant chief forester just next week will be at a special conference in Alberta regarding the use of aspen, and, as you know, he was the district forester that covered the region that included the Peace River country.

In addition, we have a general northeastern study in terms of the kind of industrial base that might be built upon the wood stands of the northeast which are primarily aspen. We have also hired Scandinavian experts on the use of hardwood, who'll be reporting to us as well. That's the Yakabore Company from Finland.

I think those are the main points. We do regard it as a significant resource, one that we don't have enough information on. We are applying talent to the question now.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just one further short question to the Minister on this: is there any possibility that some of the existing pulp mills in the north could integrate some use of aspen into their operations?

There are pulp mills throughout the country which are mixing aspen. I was really amazed last summer, when I was back in New Brunswick, to see anybody who even cut down a maple tree stack it on their front lawn. The pulp company in Nacowick.... I can't remember the company, but there's a large pulp mill just across the Saint John river which will come along and pick up rock maple or elm when a person cuts them down. They use it, and this really amazed me because I've always thought.... There are three basic uses — furniture, cattle feed, and in pulp mills.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The furniture one does intrigue us because there is a great furniture industry in Scandinavia, based upon their hardwoods. I had the opportunity last summer of visiting the Asco Furniture Company near Lahtsi in Finland, which is the greatest seller of furniture in western Europe and Japan. They simply do excellent work, and I am convinced there is an opportunity in British Columbia in that field.

The question of pulp. We have sent directives to the pulp companies centred in the Prince George area indicating they will have to prepare to start using hardwood species as part of their mix in the production of pulp in the Prince George area.

I think we've probably just had it too fat and too good. We've really developed some bad habits in this province. We have a rich wood resource, and we haven't made the use of the hardwood species in this province that we should have. That's why the directives have gone out in the Prince George area.

MR. PHILLIPS: What about plywood, too? It can be used very well in plywood.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, yes. There's no question about that. In Finland, 35 per cent of the wood they harvest is birch. That makes beautiful plywood. It's a beautiful furniture material as well.

MR. SMITH: I notice that code 031, with respect to projects under forest research, is increased substantially from $123,000 to $546,000. Could the Minister give us an indication of the type of projects to be undertaken which warrant this increase? If he would, could he say how this work relates to the work of the Environment and Land Use Committee or the Land Use Secretariat, or if there is any connection?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, there is fairly close work in some connections. For example, high-elevation logging and its implications, which we don't have enough information about, is something that is being worked on jointly with the secretariat of the Environment and Land Use Committee, the Forest Service and outside advice — particularly this summer with Dr. Timmins from the University of British Columbia, the forest ecologist from UBC. That's one example. High-elevation logging is a matter of great concern among environmentalists, and I think more and more of the public at large.

There's a range of programmes, however. That's just one example. There's a silvicultural programme, programmes in the Charlottes in relation to the Sitka spruce tree improvement programmes, forest mensuration programmes, biometric services, and some analyses with respect to integrated resource management.

It's a wide range, and there's funding from various sources as well as this vote.

MR. GIBSON: I would ask the Minister if there is any work being done on aerial logging under this section.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: As I indicated earlier, we did have a man in Switzerland looking at various techniques and processes of aerial logging. There will be experimental work carried out in the Lardeau PSYU in the Kootenay Lakes area.

Vote 147 approved.

On vote 148: public information and education, $181,050.

MR. SMITH: I notice that vote 148, again, is increased substantially. I think that's probably a good thing if the increase in funds is used in a manner to inform the public generally about the forest industry in the Province of British Columbia, to provide more informational bulletins and work in the area of just

[ Page 3168 ]

keeping the public generally informed about the number one industry in our province.

One of the things that does concern me, and which I would like the Minister to comment on, is the matter of consultation with industry, and specifically with the Council of Forest Industries, which represents the industry of the province, over the content and publication of information that will be disseminated by the department. Is there any liaison work being done there, and if so how closely do you work with industry with respect to publications?

I know that industry, for instance, put out a tremendous amount of material themselves. It would seem to me that there should be a close liaison there so that the taxpayers get the advantage of the expenditure to the greatest extent possible.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Our interests aren't always parallel, although at times, of course, they are. I recall MacMillan Bloedel's various ventures in this field beyond sponsoring "Heidi" and other interesting programmes on television.

There are the coloured supplements in the weekend editions of the major newspapers in British Columbia. One of them was called "The Living Forest"; the other was called "A Walk in the Forest." They are putting out this information, which is fine. Certainly some of it is quite worthwhile. I notice that on one of their early editions of "A Walk in the Forest" they had a back page which had a beautiful orange background, and a seedling, and indicated how much they had paid in stumpage and royalties in the previous year — I think at that time it was around $7 million.

I thought that was most worthwhile information to give out to the public, and I told them so. I was pleased that they were putting this kind of information in The Vancouver Sun and the Vancouver Province. But I guess after reviewing it, they changed their minds, because when the same colour supplement came out in Time magazine later in British Columbia, they excluded how much they had paid in stumpage and royalties.

Their view of the world and our view of the world do part now and again. While we are willing to cooperate with the Council of Forest Industries, and have done so on numerous occasions, they are a special interest group and they are well represented in this chamber. I don't know if their representative is up there now, but at any rate I think they will continue to do their thing and we will continue to do ours.

MR. CURTIS: On this vote, I am not really so much interested in what the industry is doing in terms of communication as I am in what the provincial government is doing.

I wonder if the Minister would indicate under code 013, printing and publications, what is intended here. It's an increase from $20,000 to $80,000. What does he have in mind? I notice that advertising and publicity is up by $25,000 over last year.

I also realize, Mr. Chairman, that the salary for the information officers is in an earlier vote, so that this is really the running of the office and what is spent in promotion and public information. But I suggest that this branch of a vital department in the provincial service has been starved for many, many years.

We see a total vote under the Forest Service of over $63 million. This year $181,000 — really a very small sum — is to be spent to inform and educate the people of British Columbia on the part of the province on what is being done in our forests, what is being carried out, and what is intended for the future.

I know from personal experience a number of years ago, long before I entered politics, that this was the forgotten branch. While some recognition has come into evidence here, that is still a very small vote when one considers the importance of the total department and the job to be done in communication.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think the Hon. Member makes a valid point. As you can see, we are essentially doubling the vote this year. But I would agree there is a real lack. We do need more information.

The change is primarily related to the excellent publication produced by the information section of the British Columbia Forest Service know as Forest Talk, which I think is an interesting, informative, factual document that benefits all of us. But I would agree that it probably is still inadequate.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, it is amazing to sit and listen to the Minister and observe the cynicism that he seems to hold towards the industry that is responsible for producing 50 per cent of the revenue of this province. He seems to adopt the attitude that anything they can do I can do better.” I can do better as Minister." Nonsense!

MRS. JORDAN: He's not doing it very well.

MR. SMITH: All I suggested is that if you wish to get full value for the people of British Columbia it is not good enough to just double the budget for public information and education. It is up to you, as Minister, to create a climate of cooperation between yourself, your department, the officials of your department and those people who harvest the timber resources of this province. Certainly the money that is being spent collectively by your department and other people who are just as interested in public information as you are could double, or maybe triple, the effectiveness of your programme if you cooperated with the industry instead of taking a

[ Page 3169 ]

cynical attitude and saying that their ideas on publicity and yours are poles apart.

If anybody could be accused of using the printed word in the press for selling a programme of propaganda at taxpayers' expense it is the NDP government in this province. They have done it on every occasion. They've done it on ICBC, and they've done it in many areas. Don't try to get away with that garbage in here, Mr. Minister.

Vote 148 approved.

On vote 149: Forest Service Training School, $60,200.

MR. SMITH: On this vote I note that the vote for seasonal staff you might as well say has been written off altogether. It dropped from $108,000 to a measly $500. If you are to operate a training school I suppose that you are going to need staff. What has happened to the seasonal staff? How do you operate a training school if you are not going to provide for employment of people in the operation of that school? If you don't have funds to hire the staff, who will run it and who will attend it?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It is covered under vote 144, Mr. Member, which increased from $30 million to $36 million. The staff section of this vote was taken out this year and it is included in vote 144. I think that explains it.

MR. SMITH: Is it transferred there?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That's right, and an increase in the previous vote.

Vote 149 approved.

Vote 150: grant to Canadian Forestry Association, $30,000 — approved.

On vote 15 1: engineering services and forest-development roads, $4,042, 972.

MR. FRASER: This vote is up from $2.4 million to $4 million. I have a few questions to ask about the forest roads.

First, I would like to know the policy of disposal of the timber on forest right-of-way roads. Are they put out for tender? Is the status of the people bidding made clear and the fact that other people don't have preferential treatment?

In the case of Plateau I understand other operators up there were told that this road was a forest road and that they would have to pay for the use of the road. That is fine so long as they knew what it was. In the case of this forest road I'm afraid it was 50 miles in length. Does Plateau pay the market price for the right-of-way timber on a large strip through the country like that?

I would also like to know if any environment studies are made on these forest access roads. In the case of the one road that is under construction at the present time, how are you recovering the costs of that road? I asked earlier what the costs would be but I would say that at least $5 million is being spent of somebody's money to build this 50 miles of road. Is this being recovered through stumpage as they log or is it just being written off to this vote here, for instance, without recovery?

The other thing that has happened in the Interior of the province, where a lot of roads are being built.... I might say that under the supervision of he engineering division of the Forest Service they build a good road. It's a good standard for a rural road — better than the highways department can build, I might say.

Then the logging is all done in the area where the road runs and the road is abandoned. The Highways department won't have anything to do with it because it is not what they call in their road register. They legally can't spend any money on the road. They won't take it over because they are always broke; they haven't enough money to look after their own roads. So the road becomes in a dilapidated condition and everybody complains that nobody is looking after it.

What I am really asking is: what is the policy when a decent forest access road is built? Is it the intention of the Forests department to maintain it forever, whether logging is going on or not, or just to abandon it, or try to work with the Highways department to take it over? When this happens people start locating along these roads on a permanent basis. All of a sudden they find out that the logging is gone and nobody is doing anything about it. So I think there are some policy matters here that can be clarified by the Minister.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Regarding the Kluskus road south of Vanderhoof, the funding is $700,000. That is the funding in this budget. That covers that.

In terms of the full access to the timber in the right-of-way, it is an open free-bid situation. The Forest Service has advised the individuals of that.

Regarding the use of private roads I'm just not up to date on what the ownership pattern is in the immediate Vanderhoof area other than that the Kluskus road will be a public road and existing private roads will be integrated as part of the whole system. There will be full public access.

Regarding the overlap in various jurisdictions, there is an interdepartmental committee involving the Minister of Transport's department, the Minister of Highways' department and the Forest Service to

[ Page 3170 ]

resolve this question of tertiary and hinterland road systems so that we have some kind of rational overall policy. That includes the Mines department as well. So each of us has been involved in road programmes. There has been no sort of overall pulling together and this committee is working on that now. I think basically it is tied to the Minister of Transport's office.

MR. FRASER: Just a question for clarification. Using the Kluskus road again, now it is under construction. It will go into use. Is the policy of the Forests department to maintain and service that road for all time or until a policy change is made?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I gather that the present policy is that the group of users who would use the road would be involved in the maintenance programme. All of this will be related to the interdepartmental committee's recommendation.

MR. ROLSTON: It's really excellent because there are a lot of areas where rock work is costing $50,000, maybe even $60,000 a mile to do a really good logging road. I spent some time two weeks ago looking at a lot of the more difficult roads in my riding. It seems kind of silly that these roads simply sit for another eight years and are not used again. I'm trying to get some kind of direction from the people in Highways, Parks, Recreation, and you mentioned Mines, and certainly from your department so that these will be called limited-access forest roads. If we or the industry are laying out that kind of money for a systems road then surely that systems road could be used by more people.

Incidentally, I'm a little confused. I might ask you, regarding the question of systems forest roads can these be ledgered against stumpage? I understand that a smaller road can be simply a credit against stumpage. But I am a little confused about systems or main roads. Of course, these are roads that cost a lot of money anyway and the consumer is paying for that indirectly. We should make sure that these roads really fit in with a grid system. Again, we can talk about East Harrison Lake, we can be talking about West Harrison Lake, there are lots of other illustrations, where there ought to be a useful transportation pattern. We are certainly going to need them before that crop is taken off again. More coordination seems very, very necessary.

I'm appreciative in this vote, incidentally; I think you're spending $60,000 on the East Harrison road. We have an infamous place called the Red Hill which is just a terrible place to go down. One fellow described driving down there with a loaded truck of dynamite to go to Bear Creek and Silver Creek and other camps and it is a very treacherous place. We already have fears on the east side of Harrison Lake.

Because of impositions of the fisheries people we can only tow now when there is high enough water in the Harrison Lake and down the Harrison River.

They're becoming much tougher with flat booms being towed out of the Harrison working circle. We might have to start hauling. Can you imagine hauling from Bear Creek and even Silver Creek? That seems incredible. That's a very long distance.

We should get some kind of direction because you're spending money at maybe $40,000 a mile. We ought to know whether this is going to be a hauling road. If the feds are going to be that tough on us, there would be no hauling. In the Fraser Valley there is general fear that the days of towing flat booms down the Fraser River are really coming to an end, so let's get maximum mileage. Maybe this vote, which is certainly an increase, will need to be even more in the future.

MRS. JORDAN: I'd like to ask the Minister just what sort of a policy is evolving between himself and the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) regarding the use of forestry roads and the fire roads in terms of recreational use. Has the Minister had any meetings with private industry and the forest industry? Has he had meetings with the Minister of Recreation and Conservation and recreational people in the province?

These roads are, in many instances, not used in the wintertime and they're excellent for the sport of snowmobiling. I'd like to call upon the Minister to work out a programme that is integrated between the forest industry, the forestry department, the recreation department and recreational people in the province at large so that these areas can be clearly mapped on the waterproof maps, — which, incidentally, were first used in this province in the North Okanagan — and made available readily to people coming to the province or to local residents in order that the taxpayers can get winter use out of these roads as well. In wintertime, there is snowmobiling, sometimes cross-country skiing, snowshoeing since some people like to snowshoe on road areas rather than across a lot of open terrain. The potential is incredible for well-patrolled, well-organized in terms of safety, winter-recreational areas combining the use of private and government forestry roads and fire roads.

I wonder if the Minister would explain what has been done. I've spoken on this before and I had really hoped he would have a statement to make at this time.

MR. SMITH: Just a few quick questions on this vote to the Minister. Would the Minister indicate the average cost per mile of construction of roads developed by the forest department? I also notice that there's a fairly substantial increase in the amount

[ Page 3171 ]

of money available. Will the Minister indicate where the roads are to be constructed in the province?

There's one other question that I have to pose to the Minister. I notice an order-in-council gave Canadian Cellulose Co. Ltd. the right to lease 10.55 miles of the Fish River and Fish River crossing roads for ingress and egress purposes. Apparently they've leased this from the Department of Highways. I presume the road was built as a public road. Will it mean now that Can-Cel has the right of ingress and egress to this particular section of road which would prohibit the public from using it?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm afraid I have no specific information on it. I'm totally unfamiliar with that particular piece of road the Member raises. So maybe it would be best dealt with by correspondence.

To give an idea of the areas where other road work will take place this year, there's the Skagit River, the Nahatlach, Harrison West, Harrison East, Port Mellon-McNab, Chilliwack Forest, Nesquia Forest, Okeover-Theodosa, Forest Road, Babine-Shedin Creek, Saskwa, Skeena River, Nilkitkwa and Middle River Bridge, Boundary Road, Tezzeron, Nararnata Dam, Penticton Creek, McNulty-Empress, Little White Mountain, Bull Creek, Cherry Creek, Forest Road, McNulty Red Forest Road, Chris Creek, Adams River, Scotch Creek, Vavenby-Adams, Mable Lake, Quest, Penticton Creek, Upper Shuswap, Blue River, Fry Creek, Horsethief Creek, Findlay-Alton Creek, Canal Flats, Kettle Valley, West Kettle Bridge, Revelstoke and the Illecillewaet Chilco. I think that gives the range.

MR. SMITH: Average cost per mile? Do you have that?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The range is 10 to 40.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, he didn't answer my question. I didn't want to deviate from the vote too much but I'm prepared to. I'd like to have an answer.

I'd also ask him if, in referring to the forestry road in the Mabel Lake area, if there are funds available through your department for relocation of this road in order to allow the development of the provincial government Mabel Lake Park? You can't develop the park until that road has been relocated.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Its relocation is between mile 8.0 and 10.0. I'm not sure if the park is there.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like an answer on the multi-use of forestry roads.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The full amount is $100,000. I can't give assurance that that amount would be spent this year. That's the total cost of doing the work envisaged.

MRS. JORDAN: What about the multi-use of forestry roads for recreational purposes?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, they are basically industrial roads. We are anxious to see that the public benefits from public lands. We have done more to see that that is the case in more parts of the province. It's an idea we're certainly sympathetic to, keeping in mind the idea that the original purpose of these is for the industrial exploitation of the resource.

MRS. JORDAN: I recognize this, Mr. Minister, but you have a number of briefs, one specifically from the Spallumcheen area in the Hon. Member for Shuswap's (Mr. Lewis) riding, which outlined to you a programme that could be developed. This was done in cooperation with recreational people in the area, the councils and the forestry department.

In light of the fact that I've brought this up on the floor frequently, that it was something that was being investigated by the former government, and the fact that you are getting briefs on this now, some more thought than appears evident should have been given to it. Do you have anyone in the department working on this?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: On recreation?

MRS. JORDAN: The multi-use of these roads encompassed with the recreational programme.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, sure. We do have recreational foresters on staff and there have been some modest increases there. The Minister of Recreation has his own funding and his funding is substantially increased in this area.

In addition, we have an interdepartmental group working under the Minister of Transport on rationalizing these road patterns and uses in the hinterland of the province.

MR. GIBSON: Just a quick question following this up, Mr. Chairman. Does the department publish or would the Minister consider publishing maps of these forestry roads that are particularly suitable for recreational purposes as some of the forestry companies do?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I would agree we should consider that as part of our public information programme. It might well require more funding for it, but it's a good idea.

Vote 151 approved.

[ Page 3172 ]

On vote 152: fire suppression, $4,000,000.

MR. GIBSON: I appreciate that this figure would vary a great deal from year to year, but we're spending $4 million on fire suppression in the coming year.

Could the Minister give some very rough estimate of the damage done to timber stands in British Columbia in terms of value by forest fires in an average year, if there is such a thing?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think it would be difficult to get that kind of information. The vote, in fact, probably doesn't mean a great deal because if there are forest fire problems, the funding is simply provided. That is the situation.

But in terms of actual losses, in terms of value of the forest, I'm afraid we don't have that information at hand. I gather it is in the annual report; I don't recall it.

MR. FRASER: Just a short question. What is the policy of the Forest Service when you have a large fire? Do you still raid the beer parlours and conscript people to fight the fire at the very minimum of rates per hour? Do you go to the loggers that are in the area and get them out? If you do, do you pay them for their equipment and their men at the same rate they would be earning if they were on their own logging show?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I understand that we pay the standard rates, Mr. Member, and generally try and do a little bit better than the beer hall in terms of staffing. Frequently, of course, we would use either the equipment or the men of the companies that would work in the area. Generally, it's not a raid on the beer halls.

Vote 152 approved.

On vote 153: Forest Service, forest inventory, $2,080,452.

MR. SMITH: This vote is for $2 million. The previous vote, vote 138, I think, was to provide $1,600,000 to the B.C. land inventory. I wonder if there is a possibility of any duplication of effort or work between the forest inventory and the B.C. land inventory and if, in fact, it couldn't be combined in one vote.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I don't really think there is, Mr. Chairman. The Forest Inventory Programme has been ongoing for a long time and it is a programme geared to a re-inventory, I think, roughly every 12 years or something of that nature. The information the Forest Service is trying to obtain is very specific in terms of stands, qualities, species, growth, et cetera.

The information gathered under the Canada and B.C. land inventories under the secretariat are generally of a different nature — that is, capacity for wildlife, waterfowl, capacity of the land for recreation purposes. They are now getting into the inventory on sports fisheries for which, for example, we have not had much of an inventory at all in the past. So the B.C. and Canada land inventory are basically building up inventory data that is quite different from the Forest Service.

MR. WALLACE: Just a brief question to follow the Minister's comments.

To what degree is this forest inventory as of now to be used in helping the Pearse committee in its study with regard to the possible change in stumpage? Is the inventory of the actual stands available and so on? Is this an up-to-date inventory?

I have heard comments from foresters that we are not really as up to date as we should be in knowing exactly what our forests do contain. I presume that it is the kind of information upon which the work of the task force will be continued.

Is the Minister quite confident that we are up to date in our knowledge of the forest inventory in order to make the kind of judgments which the task force will be making?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I suppose the professionals would always want better data and would always compress the cycle so they could get into these stands more frequently. And we have provided more funding, so it does mean that they can do better as they see it in terms of the inventory work.

But the work of the task force — at least the report that was tabled with the Legislature, tied to the early tenures — is more of & specific nature: that is, a detailed inventory of the whole tenure sites themselves — the timber berths, the timber licences and so on.

That would have to be a special project if legislation were brought in relation to the task force recommendations. So it would be a specific project for the Forest Service to be involved in precise inventory of the resources on these old tenures. That is just new work which would have to be done.

MR. GIBSON: Just to try and understand better what the Minister says, since the forest inventory is so important to the management of the whole industry: is he generally content with the quality of that inventory? Is he satisfied that he knows pretty well how much of a sustained yield we have annually in British Columbia?

[ Page 3173 ]

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, I am satisfied with the various rules the professional foresters apply. Their rule books are conservative enough that they will look after any of their errors.

MR. GIBSON: Will they be too conservative in calculating sustained yield?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That's putting them on the spot. They certainly think not. My view is that they are reasonably conservative. That's probably desirable.

Vote 153 approved.

Vote 154: Forest Service, scaling fund, $10 — approved.

Vote 155: Forest Service, silviculture, $1,449,852 — approved.

On vote 156: Forest Service, public recreation in forest areas, $600,000.

MR. FRASER: Yes, a few questions here, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister. This is a vote of public recreation in forest areas. Now it is my information that there are a lot of these areas under reserve in the province.

I will just give you an instance — from Williams Lake to Bella Coola on Highway 20. Apparently there is all kinds of forest reserve for recreation. But I say to the Minister, none of the public that travel know that. There is no identification to let the public know where these are.

You are voting $600,000 here. Hopefully, maybe that would be to identify these places to the public so they can make use of them. You know, how does the general public know whether it is private land or public land in this case?

So I would like to know if they intend to identify these and do any development on them this year with this $600,000.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It will go to privies and garbage cans...

MR. FRASER: Well, at least that's something.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: ...which is pretty fundamental, and a real problem. The question of outdoor recreation is obviously a broad question that is actively being considered by the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) and the....

MRS. JORDAN: But you don't let him do anything.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That's not true. He was pushing me around this afternoon. But that is actively under consideration by the other Minister.

Vote 156 approved.

On vote 15 7: Forest Service, grazing range improvement fund, $355,000.

MR. FRASER: This is a very important vote — grazing range improvement fund. I don't want to hold up the committee, Mr. Chairman. I'm happy to see this increased a lot. But is this for giving seed to cattlemen to put out themselves or are the Forest Service people actually going to do this seeding? That's what I would like to know.

The reason I ask is that I've found in the Cariboo that if you are nice to a forest ranger, you'll get some seed to plant. If you're not so nice to him, you are liable to get shoved right off. What is the policy?

AN HON. MEMBER: Be nice to everybody.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Greater cooperation, greater coordination, greater funding for joint programmes involving these associations.

Vote 157 approved.

Vote 158: Peace River community pastures, $24,000 — approved.

On vote 159: reservoir waterway improvements, $10.

MR. ROLSTON: Mr. Chairman, could you give us a bit of an idea of where this money is going? I heard that you're spending $78,000 on Stave Lake. Quite frankly, that's not enough to do the kind of work that needs to be done on Stave Lake. Again, I'm talking about urban areas, areas where a lot of people are going up these reservoirs now. You know how dangerous they are.

I keep talking to John Carmichael, the B.C. Hydro engineer out in he Stave-Ruskin region, hoping that when we drop the lake, as you are presently dropping the lake.... Anticipating what could be a flood in the Freser Valley, really, I think we could spend double that.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I have an announcement, Mr. Chairman, That is that in fact it has more than doubled. It's $168,000. We've taken into consideration the Hon. Member for Dewdney's many protestations regarding this. This $168,000 is only a modest beginning, but it is a result of his active work on behalf of his constituency.

[ Page 3174 ]

Vote 159 approved.

Vote 160: general administration, $187,378 — approved.

On vote 161: Water Rights Branch, $1,429,368.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, point of order. From the Minister, under which vote might we discuss flood control?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Under 161.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you.

MRS. JORDAN: I was hoping that we would go into this tomorrow, because I have a report that I would like to read into the record.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): If you have a report and it is fairly lengthy, I would like to move that the committee rise, report resolutions, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolutions and asks leave to sit again. It further reports that division took place on vote 137 and the committee requests that this vote be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.