CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Vancouver arson investigation. Mr. Phillips — 2911

Testimony of Professor Tussing before Energy Commission. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2911

Statements regarding Dominion Bridge Co. Ltd. Mr. Wallace — 2912

Oil refinery in Surrey. Mr. McClelland — 2912

Use of ferry system by government vehicles. Mr. Curtis — 2913

Refusal of JP to lay charge. MT. D.A. Anderson — 2913

Committee on provision of services to children. Mr. Phillips — 2913

PWA head office relocation. Mr. Gibson — 2914

Guidelines for debt collection agency. Mr. Wallace — 2914

Formation of B.C. Steamships, 1975, Ltd. Mr. Curtis — 2914

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

On vote 126.

Mr. Fraser — 2915

Appendix — 2947

MONDAY, JUNE 2, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery today in their crimson blazers are 65 students from Trafalgar Junior-Senior Secondary school band. They are accompanied by their teacher Dave Glackin and also by Currie Chapman and by Margaret Hornby, one of the parents. I ask the House to give them all a very warm welcome.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the press gallery will be smoking cigars today because one of their members, Mr. Mike Hughes, and his wife are the proud parents of an 8-lb., 15-oz. boy. They are calling him Gregory Robert and it's Mike's second son.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I ask the House today to welcome a delegation from Malaysia. The leader of the delegation, Mr. Yap is the senior officer in the Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sport in Malaysia. He has with him four regional youth officers, Mr. Mohammed, Mr. Shaari, Mr. Suffion and Mr. Zacharia. They are here on a study tour of Canada in preparation for 35 young people coming from Malaysia under the Canada World Youth programme this fall. I ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, in Victoria today and hopefully in the gallery a little later are some students from Aldergrove Secondary School accompanied by their teachers, Paul Esposito and Ed Nercessian. I would like the House to make them welcome.

Oral questions.

VANCOUVER ARSON INVESTIGATION

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would like to direct my question to the Attorney-General. With regard to the investigation which the Attorney-General promised me he would carry out surrounding the rash of arson fires in the Vancouver area, has this investigation been carried out?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): I spoke with the fire marshal. He is investigating these fires but he is not ready to make a report.

MR. PHILLIPS: Was there a special investigation carried out by any person other than the provincial fire marshal himself? Was there somebody appointed to carry out such an investigation?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I only know that the fire marshal's office, as is done with all fires of a serious nature, is making an investigation. There may be somebody else, too, but I don't know. Probably the municipal fire departments involved would make their own investigation also.

MR. PHILLIPS: A further supplementary. Would the Attorney-General advise me when the report will be available? I see that there have been more arson fires reported recently.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, it's a serious problem. I don't want to undertake right away to make the report public, because sometimes it is based on information, belief, rumours and things of that kind that might even involve the reputation and even involve a potential court case. I have no objection to sharing with the Hon. Member the information I received from the fire marshal's office.

TESTIMONY OF PROFESSOR TUSSING
BEFORE ENERGY COMMISSION

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Premier, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Premier whether he has discussed with Professor Arlon Tussing of the University of Alaska his proposal to have all mineral and hydrocarbon exploration carried out by a Crown corporation?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not specifically, Mr. Speaker, although I met Mr. Tussing in New York.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: At the dinner. Yes, he was there at the dinner. I thought he was a moss-backed Tory, but I was incorrect. He's further ahead than most of us.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Premier then whether Professor Tussing came to British Columbia to testify before the B.C. Energy Commission at his suggestion?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sorry?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Whether Professor Tussing came to testify before the B.C. Energy Commission at the suggestion of the Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, not at my suggestion. As a matter of fact, I didn't know he was going to be there testifying.

[ Page 2912 ]

STATEMENT REGARDING
DOMINION BRIDGE CO. LTD.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of Economic Development with regard to his statement about the decision by Dominion Bridge Co. Ltd. to pull out of the fabricated steel market in B.C. and his comments about using the B.C. Development Corp. to provide low interest rates...?

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I haven't got to the question yet.

Do the Minister's statements and actions on this issue represent the policy of his department to use the B.C. Development Corp. as a political tool to coerce the business sector of the economy in this province?

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, the development corporation has been asked to review the number of fabricators in the province and see if they need special assistance. We do not propose to encourage fabricated steel being fabricated in Alberta for use in B.C. If that can be avoided. That's the gist of my comments.

In addition to that, with respect to the 300 families that will not have their breadwinners employed, we're going to take every measure possible through this government to ensure that they find other employment.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In the light of some of the statements attributed to the Minister, including his statement that Dominion Bridge Co. Ltd. had blamed the present glut to steel on the market on the NDP government, has the Minister any evidence to back up his statement that Dominion Bridge Co. Ltd. took the position that it was all the fault of the NDP government that there is a glut of fabricated steel product?

HON. MR. LAUK: I'll take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since the Minister doesn't appear to know the answer to that one, does he still intend to carry out his reprisal threats against the company whose major sin appears to have been telling the truth about what's happening to investment in this province under the NDP?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR: J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Minister's intemperate threat to Dominion Bridge Co. Ltd., I was wondering if he will shortly be taking punitive action against the owners of the 15 major ore bodies that are not being developed in this province because of excessive royalty demands by the government.

HON. MR. LAUK: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

OIL REFINERY IN SURREY

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier concerning the picking up of the options by the B.C. Petroleum Corp. over the weekend on the land in Surrey. The president of the B.C. Petroleum Corp., James Rhodes, said over the weekend that Surrey would be the ideal choice for the proposed refinery. I wonder if the Premier could tell the House on what studies that comment by the president of the corporation was made.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The chairman of the petroleum corporation informed me this morning that his statement was to the effect that all three locations now considered in the running the ideal locations — all three.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. Would the Premier tell us whether or not all of the studies will be made available to Surrey council, and whether they will be made available in open council meetings, and whether or not public hearings will be held on the results of these studies?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, through you, the refinery will not be built in any location where the council is not in agreement with the material and the method they want to handle the material — the method they want to handle the material. The council itself.

MR. McCLELLAND: That's not what I asked.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sorry?

MR. McCLELLAND: That's not what I asked.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The council will determine that; I'm not going to determine that for the council, Mr. Member. That would be undue interference by the government.

MR. McCLELLAND: Supplementary, Mr.

[ Page 2913 ]

Speaker. Will the Premier tell us, if council decides they want to have the studies discussed in open public meetings, and if the council decides that it wishes to have public hearings on the results of those studies, will the government then agree to that proposal?

MR. SPEAKER: A question cannot be hypothetical. I think the Hon. Member knows that.

HON. MR, BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I can't answer that until the council makes those requests.

MR. McCLELLAND: Do you agree to that or not?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't be silly.

MR. SPEAKER: According to our authorities, it says that questions must not be hypothetical. Now if that isn't hypothetical, I don't know what the word "hypo" means.

USE OF FERRY SYSTEM
BY GOVERNMENT VEHICLES

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Minister of Transport and Communications on the subject of B.C. Ferries: can the Minister inform the House if instructions have been issued, verbally or in writing, to most or all provincial government departments prohibiting or discouraging the transportation of government vehicles on B.C. Ferries routes, and if the instruction has been issued that such employees who must travel in the course of their ordinary duties are to use aircraft instead?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications) : I would have to check that one out.

REFUSAL OF JP TO LAY CHARGE

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): May I ask the Attorney-General whether he has ordered an inquiry into the refusal of a justice of the peace in the Victoria area to pursue a charge laid by a private citizen, one Michael Roach, who I believe was in touch with the Attorney-General both last week and this week as well?

HON. MR, MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I understand a charge was issued in that case, but I am making informal inquiries so I will be fully informed about the situation.

COMMITTEE ON PROVISION
OF SERVICES TO CHILDREN

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to direct my question to the Hon. Premier. With regard to the committee announced in the budget speech on Friday, February 28, to decide what basic services should be provided and how they should be provided to all children, regardless of where they are educated, will the Premier advise the House who is the chairman of this committee?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) is the chairman.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister advise me how many meetings the committee has held?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'd ask you to ask the Minister in charge.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister in charge, but I would have thought the Premier would have done his homework before going to talk to 500 schools. I don't want to be argumentative. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, no. The Minister responsible will give you the reply that there have been several preliminary meetings, plus two formal meetings of the committee, and all further information you would like from the Minister. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to ask the Premier — and he can get the information from the Minister of Education if he desires — has the committee appointed any representatives from those groups which are directly affected or involved, such as the Federation of Independent Schools or the B.C. School Trustees Association?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I suggest you ask the Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: You must ask the Minister responsible for a particular jurisdiction.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, with all due respect, it was the Premier who announced the committee and he did speak to 500 school children on Friday last about this particular situation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

[ Page 2914 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Then I'll ask the Minister of Education. Have any appointments been made from these other groups, Madam Minister?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): There have been several preliminary meetings of the cabinet members alone, and there has been consultation informally with the Independent Schools Association and the trustees.

MR. PHILLIPS: But you haven't appointed anybody.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No, but representation from those groups will be taking place very shortly.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just one final supplementary question. Will there be a preliminary report released prior to the final report on August 1, as called for in the budget speech?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No decision has been made on that.

PWA HEAD OFFICE RELOCATION

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier on a subject I've asked him questions about before. In view of the fact that at the annual meeting of PWA the chairman made only a very conditional guarantee about the head office remaining in Vancouver — he said for at least 12 months — is the government now prepared to intervene in the Canadian Transport Commission hearings which will discuss the takeover of this airline by Alberta?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm confused. Are you suggesting that we threaten PWA if they move their office out of B.C.?

MR. GIBSON: No, I'm suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that the office should stay in B.C. and the government should do something about that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, if that includes threats, Mr. Member, I'm not quite sure. It appears to me that there is some confusion within the 15 minutes of the question period. However, I will take your request to threaten the company under notice.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, there was no suggestion of threatening. My question was whether the government was going to intervene. The Premier is an expert at that.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're still leader, David.

He just blew that one.

GUIDELINES FOR
DEBT COLLECTION AGENCY

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General. With regard to the new debt collection agency staffed by ex-RCMP officers and established to deal with persons who don't pay their provincial fines, what specific guidelines do the members of this enforcement agency have in order to decide which individuals should be taken before the small debts court, which then of course has the opportunity to jail the offenders for 10 days?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: All fines unpaid will be within the purview of the enforcement officer. I would think they would not come back to the small claims court. They might in some cases, if a civil judgment can be collected there easily — I suppose that is one route to go — but basically they come back before the provincial judge in the regular provincial court.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact that the chief enforcement officer, Mr. Newson says there are unpaid bylaw fines in Vancouver of only $ 1,000, and since he has said that numerous man-hours will be spent to collect very small fines, can the Minister tell the House the estimated costs of this agency and the estimated total of unpaid fines?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Not right away, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WALLACE: Will you take that as notice?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll take it as notice. I'll make a statement on the office.

FORMATION OF B.C. STEAMSHIPS, 1975, LTD.

MR. CURTIS: To the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources: many hundreds of British Columbians travelled on and enjoyed the newest government acquisition this weekend. However, it would appear on the basis of a variety of printed material that we were guests, or at least passengers, of a non-existent company — that is, the British Columbia steamship company.

Legislation is coming forward, the Minister indicated.

Interjection.

MR. CURTIS: No, the question is directed to the Minister, not to Captain Crunch.

[ Page 2915 ]

Would the Minister indicate if at this time and pending the introduction of legislation the employees on the vessel and shore side are the employees of your department, or employees of a company that is not yet approved by the Legislature?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Mr. Speaker, the last charge that we had the Titanic came from the leader of the Liberals, and we made $70 million subsequent to that public investment. At any rate, the company is British Columbia Steamships, 1975, Ltd. In terms of federal transport regulations, that is in fact in existence. In addition, the legislation will be forthcoming shortly. I thank you for your compliments.

Orders of the day.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to permit debate in Committee of Supply for this afternoon's sitting.

Leave granted.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF LANDS,
FORESTS AND WATER RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 126: Minister's office, $150,833.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I am happy to take my place in this debate of the salary of the Minister of Lands....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. FRASER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That will help a little bit.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): For five minutes.

MR. FRASER: For a while, yes. Four minutes.

I said that I was happy to take part in the debate of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. He is also the Minister in charge of B.C. Hydro; chairman of the Environment and Land Use Committee, with the awesome powers they have; in charge of the PNE, the takeover of the PNE at Exhibition Park in Vancouver; and, of course, in charge of the Princess Marguerite, whose first sailing many people have just enjoyed. So he is, indeed, a very important Minister of the Crown, I feel he's probably the most important Minister of the Crown for the simple reason that this Minister, whatever he decides to do, controls the destiny of over 50 per cent of the citizens of British Columbia. He has very large responsibilities and frightening power.

In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, he also controls the New Democratic Party which is the government of the Province of British Columbia. He controls its policies; he controls the NDP Premier of British Columbia.

I would now like to deal briefly with land policies that come under this Minister's jurisdiction and, more specifically, with the disposal of Crown lands. There are several ways to alienate Crown land.

AN HON. MEMBER: Here we go again.

MR. FRASER: The fact that the Crown owns 95 per cent of the land in the province shows the power and responsibility this Minister has. But I would like to deal with the disposition of the various types of Crown land, and make a few observations.

I would like to know if all future Crown land is going to be disposed by leasehold only, or is it going to be as the policy exists today — that is, residential Crown land by leasehold, and agricultural Crown land, when classified as such, leasehold to purchase?

The other thing I would like to mention is the fact that I know there has been a reorganization in the Lands department. I hope that it has some help in speeding up land applications. I hope that was why this reorganization was done. Mr. Chairman, the citizens of this province, rightly or wrongly, feel that their applications are delayed.

I have had innumerable requests from the people in my riding, and I have had this problem for five to six years — through the prior administration as well as this one. It appears to me that residential land for alienation takes a minimum of 18 months to be processed — a straightforward application. It becomes a lot more complicated on an agricultural-designated Crown land application. You are looking at a minimum of 24 months before a decision is arrived at — yes or no. I think this process should be shortened up considerably, cut in half at least. I am aware of the fact that input has to be asked from innumerable government departments and local officials such as regional districts, the provincial fish and wild life branch and so on, but surely we can speed up the disposal of Crown land. All the people want to know is an answer. Sometimes they get an answer of no after waiting two years and it's very upsetting, to say the least.

I know that the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources has just recently been restructured at the Victoria level and out in the regional level. I wonder whether the Minister thinks this will speed up the applications for Crown land.

[ Page 2916 ]

The Minister also made an announcement last November, in dealing with Crown lands, that 5,000 residential lots would be created in the Province of British Columbia this year to alleviate the shortage of housing lots, These were to be created from Crown lands and would have helped the 1975 building season. Well, the 1975 building season is here and I think it was just paper talk because it is my knowledge that not one is available at the present time and, of course, we are now in the midst of the building season for 1975. I would like to know from the Minister what the holdup is. There is a definite shortage of residential lots at a reasonable price in the Province of British Columbia. There are privately owned lots available, but at an average price of $10,000 and $15,000 each. If these Crown lots could be developed, they would be below that price. I would really like to know from the Minister when he thinks that this good programme would get off the ground and become a reality. I consider it a good programme.

I would like to speak of another thing that has recently happened in the conflict in this Minister's department. I assure you, Mr. Chairman, there is no end of it — the conflict between the bureaucracy in his departments. I refer to the Department of Lands, the Department of Forests and the Department of Water Resources. One department is going one way, one the other and so on. They do not correlate what they are doing and it's causing the citizens of this province no end of delay and indecision. I will give you one specific instance on the disposal of designated agricultural land by the Department of Lands.

In prior years this timber has gone to the applicant for that agricultural land at a nominal price to help open up agricultural land in this province. In other words, the timber from it is sold by the applicant for the land. With the clearing of this land, some timber is obtained, sold and the money put back into the development of the land to get it cultivated so that it can grow crops.

Only recently Forestry has moved in and said that the applicants for agricultural Crown land can no longer have this timber; it has to go to the forestry quota holder in that area. Now, Mr. Chairman, this is a very important item and this is a change of policy. I don't think the Minister even knows about it and that's why I am bringing it up here.

We have the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) doing all he can to encourage the development of agriculture, and here we have the Department of Forestry coming along and saying that people who are applying for the designated agricultural land the Lands department agrees that it's agricultural can't have the timber on it. Consequently, how are we going to get the land developed by the individual citizens who rely on some funds from that?

As far as the quota holder is concerned, in the forestry working circles of this province, that timber, no matter who takes it off, is going to end up in a quota holder's sawmill. So somebody is becoming pretty greedy here and I suggest it's the Forest Service itself. I repeat that timber will go to the quota holder's sawmill. It really boils down to who is going to log it; that is the point at issue.

As for clearing land for agricultural purposes, if you think a logger can log that timber and have that land suitable for clearing, you have another think coming, because they go in there with large bulldozers with shears on them, cut the trees off at ground level, and then the clearing of the land is a really costly item. Apart from helping the development of agriculture, it only increases the financial problems of developing this land. I have letters from responsible forest officials saying that in no way will the timber on this agricultural land go to the person who has applied for the land. I would like to hear the Minister speak on that if he knows anything about it.

Now I would like to deal with the Forest Service, which comes under the jurisdiction of this Minister, and say that I and those all over Canada have had the highest regard for the efficient B.C. Forest Service that we used to have in British Columbia.

But I am amazed to find now that all the decisions on final forest policy are not made by the Forest Service; they're made by a Mr., Headley. I understand he comes from Vancouver East and he doesn't know the difference, Mr. Chairman, between a spruce and a fir tree. I think this is an appalling, disgraceful condition. Where the Forest Service professionals make recommendations, he makes the final decision. I would like to hear from the Minister what he has to say about this.

AN HON, MEMBER: He's an old school board buddy.

MR. FRASER: Yes, I understand he's a school board buddy and I believe he's also an NDP cardholder, and that is his chief qualification, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to now go on and talk about the Woody Woodchip timber bill we discussed here last November and put into law which gave this Minister the authority to set the price of chips. We had a lot of discussion on that bill at that time and we gave a lot of warnings. The Minister went on and carried out the law as it is provided in that bill and set the price of chips at $35 per unit. I think, Mr. Chairman, we could now review the situation today and what this legislation has done.

We now have sawmills, Mr. Chairman, in the interior burning woodchips. Yes, burning them — and

[ Page 2917 ]

not getting one nickel for them.

AN HON. MEMBER: And using them for landfill, too.

MR. FRASER: And using them for landfill. I'd like to hear from the Minister what he thinks about that policy.

The Premier of this province went into the interior, I believe within the Cariboo, and announced that they would look into an export contract for surplus woodchips. I have asked questions on the floor and they have been referred to this Minister. He was still looking into the export of woodchips.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the Minister: don't waste your time. The Premier knew when he said it and this Minister knew when he said it that there is no export market available for chips because of the surplus of chips in the United States, in Germany and Japan. So why fool the sawmill operators and the public of this province by saying that they will look into export of chips? And even if they did find an export market for the surplus chips that are a real problem today, Mr. Chairman, I'd suggest they have no way to transport them. They wouldn't get any chip cars on the BCR because most of its operations are derailments. They never have any cars when the shippers want them for lumber or any other product.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: They did manufacture one car here last week and, believe me, that won't put many surplus chips on the world market, I'll tell you.

AN HON. MEMBER: It isn't painted yet.

MR. FRASER: Well, get it out. Don't bother painting it; just get it rolling. But I heard that they tried it out the other day, this one car, Mr. Chairman. It had flat wheels and ran backwards down the track instead of tracking behind the locey.

But, Mr. Chairman, on the real problem of surplus chips, there is a market for chips right next door to us in the Province of Alberta — limited market, but a market. They will pay $18 a unit for these chips, Mr. Chairman, but our B.C. mills can't sell them because they'll be breaking the law. The law provides a setup by the timber Act, setting the price at $35. The law says they must get $35. I'd like the Minister to reply here today. If they sell at $18, are they going to jail? If they are, for how many years? Are they breaking the law? It appears to me they are.

So much for that. But while I'm on the Forest Service, as I said at the start, Mr. Chairman, I have high regard for the Forest Service we had. But there's one section of that department I have no regard for at all because they're straight dictators. I refer to the grazing division of the Forest Service.

I want to relate an experience that's going on in this province right today, Mr. Chairman, to prove my point. I want to give the experience of a young married man who has built a herd of cattle up of 100 head. He worked 20 years to get to this point. From there on I have to do some quoting. His name is Lloyd Bennett. There's nothing to hide. He has nothing to hide and neither have I. I just want to relate the facts of the persecution going on by this individual in the interior of British Columbia, In 1974 he asked and asked for a turnout date from the grazing division for turning his cattle out on the Crown open range. The grazing division will recall, Mr. Chairman, we had a tough winter in 1973-4. Everybody was out of hay and it was high priced. But finally, Mr. Chairman, the cattle went out on Crown range. I believe the cattle went out on May 21, was the normal turnout date, but the forest bureaucracy hadn't time to write the permit out. On May 24 the Gestapo moved in and laid a charge against Lloyd Bennett for trespass on Crown range.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bennett appeared in the court of our land, the provincial court at Quesnel, on September 16, 1974, and the charge was as follows: "....did unlawfully pasture animals owned or controlled by you upon Crown range when said animals were not covered by a permit issued there for." I might say that Mr. Bennett's operation is 80 miles west of Quesnel in the Blackwater River country.

This man went to court, and the verdict against the charge was not guilty of trespass on Crown lands. At that court case, after the adjournment of it, Mr. Bennett went to the officer in charge of the grazing division of the Cariboo forest district and said: "I would now like to have a meeting with you and I'd like my MLA at the meeting."

I want you to get this, Mr. Chairman, because I feel quite strongly about this: this public servant turned to Mr. Bennett and said: "I haven't got any time for you or any god-damned politician."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that it is improper in parliament to make specific charges in estimates against civil servants. This should be done by a substantive motion on the order paper.

MR. FRASER: Well, this is a policy item, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. However, I am....

Interjections.

[ Page 2918 ]

MR. FRASER: I'm talking about the administration of policy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are considering the administrative responsibilities of the Minister in this department, and while....

MR. FRASER: Well, this certainly....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! While it is quite correct to discuss matters that you have raised, I would make the point that in order to make a specific charge against any civil servant, as against a Minister, it should be done by a substantive motion.

MR. FRASER: Anyway, so much for that, Mr. Chairman.

I want a public apology from this public servant, and I want the Minister to get it because it reflects on every MLA in this House. And that, in my opinion, is the way the grazing officers of the Forest Service feel about the elected people in this province. It is time things changed. That Minister, I'm sure, will look into it.

Following this episode, no further meetings were held with that kind of a response, and Mr. Bennett applied for his 1975 grazing permit on January 29. He still hasn't received an answer. The turnout date this year is June 1, 1975, and he has no feed. He has his cattle, at this day, ranging on his hay meadows which means, as you know, Mr. Chairman, that he will have no hay next winter. He has had no answer at all from the permit he asked for in writing on January 29.

Mr. Bennett contacted me in April to find out why he had not received a reply. I wrote to the chief of the grazing division in Victoria, Mr. Pendray, asking why he had not. I asked the question why Mr. Bennett hadn't had a reply. Mr. Pendray replied to me on April 18. This is the reply and the way it is to date: "In reply to yours of April 7 regarding the disallowance of a grazing permit application submitted by Mr. Lloyd Bennett, we would advise that this matter is under review at the present time." That's where it still is — under review at the present time.

In the meantime, Mr. Chairman — and this is the real part of the story — the Gestapo got all organized. It is very difficult to keep beef cattle inside a fence, and they had reason to believe — the grazing division of the Forest Service — that Mr. Bennett's cattle were in fact on Crown range last week.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I do not wish to be part of a kangaroo court trying civil servants. I would ask the Hon. Member to remember that we are in Committee of Supply and we are questioning the Minister on his administrative responsibilities, not trying civil servants. I think that it is quite correct to state facts, but I think one should be careful in the choice of language such as "Gestapo" and so on.

MR. FRASER: Thank you.

On May 23, 1974, Mr. Bennett was warned by letter that there could be a trespass going on by his cattle. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that the letter was delivered to Mr. Bennett's wife by helicopter and three forestry officials. I'd like to know what that cost — a helicopter from Quesnel with three forestry officers to deliver a letter.

Then on Sunday, May 25, six riders from 100 Mile House, hired by the grazing division — six riders from 200 miles away — arrived on Mr. Bennett's ranch area with instructions to round up cattle that were supposedly trespassing on Crown range. The horses and riders were accompanied — and get this, Mr. Chairman, — by eight government vehicles and 14 Forest Service employees, also one Jetranger helicopter and pilot and two RCMP officers in their four-wheel drive. I won't use that word "Gestapo" Mr. Chairman...

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Statism.

MR. FRASER: ...but how would anyone feel with this onslaught of thousands of dollars worth of equipment and men over a few cows trespassing on Crown lands? I'd like to know from the Minister how much that exercise cost.

On the arrival in this wilderness area, the 14 Forest Service employees mentioned earlier proceeded to cut trees and build a holding corral after the cattle were rounded up.

Mr. Chairman, these Forest Service employees cut trees down in a provincial park on the north bank of the Blackwater River and with these trees constructed a holding corral on this provincial park. Mr. Chairman, these forest officials should be charged immediately with damaging a provincial park. All B.C. citizens want to preserve the parks they have. We pay these officials to see that they are preserved. But, lo and behold, what are they doing? I just told you what they did on Sunday, May 25, 1975.

After all this organization and thousands of dollars of public money spent, do you know what happened? This army of men and machines found one poor old milk cow and impounded her, (Laughter.) They then paid a cattle-hauling company $132 to haul this poor old milk cow to Quesnel where she is presently today impounded and will be sold at public auction on June 11 to recover some of the wasted public money that was spent on rounding her up. I intend to be at that public auction, Mr. Chairman, and buy that cow so it can go back to its rightful owner.

MRS. JORDAN: Harassment of citizens!

[ Page 2919 ]

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, Lloyd Bennett, the farmer, is a young married man with two children, aged three and seven. The 100 head of cattle and the farm he has are all his family has. He has worked for 20 years to get to this point. By rounding up the only milk cow he has — that is what this great army of men and machines paid for by the public purse has done — they have deprived Mr. Bennett's children of the milk so badly needed for their health. They are now drinking water, Mr. Chairman, because of the brave actions of this large army of men and machines paid for by the citizens of British Columbia.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, to have taken so much of the Legislature's time about this case, but Mr. Bennett has done everything he can to abide by the law. As his MLA, I have done all I can do with the grazing division of the B.C. Forest Service. I now want the Minister to intervene in this miscarriage of justice and, under the Forest Service, issue Mr. Bennett the grazing permit he is entitled to as a Canadian citizen so he can continue to farm and make an honest living and not end up on welfare.

I have never seen a case, Mr. Chairman, in 25 years of public life of more harassment, vindictiveness and spite like this. The grazing division of the Forest Service, because they lost the court case last September, made up their minds they would get even with Mr. Bennett. Mr. Bennett was found not guilty of the trespass charge by a properly constituted court of this province. Do these forest officers think they are a higher authority than our courts, Mr. Chairman? They certainly do, and this is a terrible state of affairs.

I know the Minister will be alarmed about this and will immediately see that Mr. Bennett is issued his grazing permit forthwith so he can continue to make a living for himself and his family. If the Minister doesn't do this, Mr. Bennett is bankrupt tomorrow — not next month, not next year, but tomorrow. These cattle must be turned out or he will have no forage for the winter feeding of them. They are eating that now as green grass.

Another point of fact. The range where these cattle normally range hasn't got one cow on it, not one cow. There is room there for 400 and all Mr. Bennett wants to put out. There are ample feed supplies in this area.

I would like to know, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister will arrange a meeting for Mr. Bennett today or tomorrow. He is in Victoria; he is in the gallery of this Legislature at the present time. It is his last resort. I will gladly attend the meeting with the Minister if he'll arrange it.

I want to close by saying that the Department of Agriculture of this government has done everything possible to encourage agriculture. Here we have another government department saying that the raising of beef will come to a halt. I'll go back to something that was said here by myself a couple of years ago. We'll go back to eating grizzly bear and porcupine pie, because that's all that will be left to eat. That's all the grazing officials really want to see grazing on our Crown lands.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister is going to answer on the Bennett case. Before the vote passes, I think he might want to say a word.

While I am on my feet, I would just like to say that I was unable to attend his great ferry christening. I sincerely regret that I had a cold and was unable to be on board. I would like confirmed that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources is now going to become responsible for everything that floats — all the other ferries as well — because he did such a fine job. I would like to congratulate him. He did a fine job and I think that his cabinet colleagues should take note, especially the other two of them who run ferries.

While I am on my feet, I would like to suggest to the Minister that he might give us some statement on the status of the Skagit at the present time. Some time ago, last August, the Minister issued a press release in which he put forward the letters that he had sent to Mayor Uhlman of Seattle. He proposed in that that the Skagit issue be settled by turning the British Columbia area of the unflooded Skagit Valley, the area that would be flooded if the dam is raised, into a provincial park, paying back Seattle for the value of the agreement. He proposed a price — I won't go into the details of it now — based essentially on the 1967 formula. He went on to say that the Seattle energy question might well be — I have to phrase this delicately — improved by some discussion of a possible power export on a short-term basis.

I wonder whether he could now report to the Legislature about his success with Major Uhlman, because as far as I know this matter is still carrying on. The FPC is still holding their ridiculous hearings. I remember attending one a little over a year ago to put forward a submission. It seems that there are a whole series of administrative wheels spinning and very little happening. All this, of course, is costing a lot of money. Every day we delay on the Skagit settlement means that it costs more. I think the Minister might well, at this stage, bring us up to date with the information he has and, in particular, the state of his discussions with Mayor Uhlman and Seattle City Light. Perhaps he could do that and we could take up another matter a little later in his estimates.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Dealing with the various points raised by the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) and the Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson), with respect to the lands serviced there is not a limitation to leasehold; only development, with the

[ Page 2920 ]

exception of major industrial or commercial lands, so there has been no basic change in this past year in that regard. The lease-to-purchase arrangements and other various arrangements that were in force continue to be in force. In some specific sites we designate maybe critical shoreline areas, say on a river bank, for leasehold development only with interior sites available on a fee simple basis. So there's really a full range that's still available to those interested in purchasing Crown land.

The reorganization is intended to speed up processing and much of it has been on an aerial basis regionally so that in Victoria now we have regional desks for the northwest, northeast and so on, That has helped and I think it has developed more of an esprit de corps: I think the branch is livelier now than it's ever been in its history and there is actually a kind of competition going on within the branch in terms of performance. We are extremely pleased, because the lands branch probably has changed less through the decades than any other department of government. We inherited a lands department that was essentially the same as its early forerunners in the days of pre-emption at the turn of the century. One of the things I am particularly proud of is the reorganization of the branch and making it a more effective land management agency than it has been in the past.

That's not to say that we are satisfied. The regional inspectors in the various regions have done a lot of preliminary work in terms of trying to get Crown land open and available across the counter. That is definitely our goal: there should be land availability across the counter so that a citizen could come in and ask where the Crown land was in a particular region and he could be shown on a map and told what the price would be. We are a way from that but that's definitely the goal.

Our main problem at the moment is the regional districts themselves which, in my judgment, have taken a very narrow view of the question of rural settlement. It's my own view and I think the government's view that there should be a greater availability of land in rural areas for our citizens. As we see it now, the greatest frustration in terms of making that land available is within the regional districts, who really have a very narrow perspective in terms of limiting development to the towns themselves, British Columbia just wouldn't be the kind of place it is today if that had been the approach from the beginning. As a person with some planning background I am disappointed in my own profession, because I am genuinely convinced that they are taking too narrow a view of his human problem. In a province as rich as we are in terms of land, it may mean that we will have to face up to the regional districts where we are convinced they are being unreasonable and not open enough and proceed regardless in terms of making rural land available. I would be interested in hearing the Member's ideas in that regard with respect to his own region, where it is also a problem.

With respect to cutting and quota, that is something I am prepared to look at in more detail. It is my understanding that that is taking place within the special sale area in Quesnel-Prince George, but that was in fact written within the pulp harvesting agreement which was signed by the former government. There may be some administrative differences but the contractual agreements and rights were in fact signed by the Social Credit government when the pulp harvesting agreements were made.

Regarding the timber products bill, we are going to continue to look at our options in the immediate future and see what opportunities we have. I am not entirely convinced by the Member's argument about no demand and at what we might consider decent prices. That is something we are currently looking at and may have some decisions on shortly.

Regarding the specific case of Mr. Bennett and the Blackwater River, I am not familiar with the case. It is unfortunate that the problems Mr. Bennett appears to have had were not raised earlier directly with myself. We would have been quite willing to meet at an earlier stage regarding these problems.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will you meet now?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Not while the House is sitting, but certainly if the estimates move along quickly, I would be very happy to. If the estimates are over shortly I would be more than pleased to meet with Mr. Bennett — and the Member, if he so wishes — after that.

We generally find that things aren't black and white. While the Member has given a forceful speech, I would like to say that there is enforcement of regulations where there hasn't been in the past. I am not going to apologize for that. There has been a real need for enforcement. Certainly the lack of enforcement in the past has meant the destruction of the grasslands of British Columbia on far too great a scale. Turnout dates and trespassing and effects on the grass resource are something we regard as serious. Many individuals may not regard these matters as seriously as we do.

I should say that we are anxious to see the grazing division enhanced and developed to a greater extent with senior people. We will shortly be hiring an outstanding range manager on a short-term contract basis in terms of restructuring the organization and in terms of strengthening it and developing much better range management in British Columbia in the long haul.

The question of the Skagit was raised by the Member for Victoria. I don't think there is anything

[ Page 2921 ]

more I can report at this stage other than that we have an excellent committee working on this matter. I suppose the important question is: has it flooded or has it not? It has not. We are continuing in that vein to see that it is not flooded. We will be proceeding with the discussions with the people in Seattle.

MR. FRASER: I just want to thank the Minister very much for the answers he has given. I appreciate what has happened in regionalizing the Lands department and I hope that it does speed up applications for Crown land.

As for the remark he made regarding the timber on agricultural land going to the pulp companies, I am very well aware of that agreement made in a special sales area to get pulp mills to move into the interior of the province to give an assured supply. But what has been going on actually until only recently when the Cariboo district forester came in with his iron boots is that they contacted the pulp company and they gave up their rights to this timber. Now the Cariboo district forester is saying that even if they do so, he is going to turn around and give it to the sawmill quota holder. The applicant for the land is no longer going to have a kick at the cat in any shape or form, even at an auction sale. Mr. Minister, this is what I am after. I would like to see the applicant for agricultural Crown land be given the right. The district forester certainly put the timber up for auction, but the least we could do is not to exclude the applicant for that land from bidding. Let him bid along with any other citizen of this province. That is what has happened there and what is causing trouble.

The last remark that I have on this section of the Minister's responsibilities, Mr. Chairman, is regarding his remarks regarding the grazing division. There was enforcement in the past, Mr. Minister; don't give us a snow job like that. The Forest Service would every once in a while get into an exercise of drugstore cowboying. It ends up costing thousands of dollars, which comes out of your various departments, hiring helicopters and horses and building corrals.

I want to say on this grazing that the whole beef industry is alarmed about this. I used one case, but the whole industry in this province is alarmed about how the grazing division is playing tinkertoy with the applicants. Who do they think they are? They applied in January. Your form says that they must have it in by February. Why can't these owners of beef cattle in this province have a reasonable answer from these people in the grazing division prior to turnout date? They want to know in advance. That's only good management. But the grazing division is not giving them out; that's what they're mad about. They will accept what they are given. They are afraid to answer questions for fear they won't get any grazing permits. It is all over the province. It's in Yale-Lillooet riding where they raise a lot of beef; it's in Kamloops; it's in Cariboo; it's wherever there is a beef industry. That's what's wrong. They're behaving just like arrogant people, and they resent that.

Those people have big investments, millions of dollars, and their investments depend on some use of Crown ranges. They've had it for 30 years. They've had their notices in advance on what they can turn out, where and when. Now they can't get this information, and that is not fair or just to Mr. Bennett or hundreds of other people who raise cattle in this province.

But I do thank you, and I am going to do my best to arrange a meeting, Mr. Chairman, with the Minister and Mr. Bennett. I appreciate the fact the Minister didn't know about this case. This is not something I have kept in a file. This only happened over this last weekend, and it is coming to a crisis on June 11. It's been a crisis every day now because these cattle are penned up on private land. Those helicopters are flying steady, Mr. Chairman, from dawn to dusk to make sure they don't get out. If they do, they go right into the hoosegow right now.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We should get at least one thing straight, Mr. Chairman. Between the lines one continues to get from Social Credit that the public lands are the preserve of special groups. They're not. They have to be managed for all the people of the province, not just one group or another group. There has been an assumption underlying most of what I seem to hear from those ranks that this is the special, privileged area for a few. This is not so. These are public Crown lands; they will be managed for the full benefit of all of the public and not just one group.

This between-the-lines point of view that we get from the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), in terms of always seeing to it that year-to-year leases continue forever in the hands of one single individual or one group, is all wrong. It is not something that this party will accept at all.

As I indicated, of course we are prepared to meet with individual citizens. If they have some of the difficulties — even some — that the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) is talking about, then we should be meeting with them and discussing these matters.

I have in front of me now a wire, again in relation to some earlier activities of Mr. Bennett in the Cariboo, and this is from the wildlife federation. This is what they say at the same time. This is not a black-and-white situation at all. These lands have not been managed on a multiple basis in terms of protecting the wildlife interests that the Minister for Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Radford) is protecting now. At long last we have a proper staff of biologists working in the field, beginning to do the homework which should have been done 20 years ago, that was never done. It's a change in direction and a basic change that I am proud of and one I think the people

[ Page 2922 ]

of British Columbia are proud of.

This is the kind of wire we got in response to some of the Member's earlier statements. They state:

WE URGE YOU TO FULLY SUPPORT THE ACTIONS OF YOUR RANGE MANAGEMENT STAFF IN CANCELLING CROWN LAND GRAZING PRIVILEGES OF RANCHER LLOYD BENNETT.

This is dated April 18.

IF STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO MLA ALEX FRASER ARE QUOTED CORRECTLY IN THIS MATTER, THEY DESERVE NO CONSIDERATION, BEING TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE IN OUR OPINION. HE APPEARS TO BE RECOMMENDING A RETURN TO MANAGEMENT OF OUR NATURAL RESOURCES ON A BASIS OF POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY. WE WOULD REMIND YOU THAT THIS IS WHAT PUT OUR RANGES IN THE SAD STATE THEY ARE IN TODAY. YOUR STAFF NEEDS AND DESERVES YOUR FULLEST SUPPORT IN THIS MATTER. THEY HAVE OURS.

Signed, Bill Otway, executive director, B.C. Wildlife Federation. Another major interest group that is interested in proper management of the resources, and, of course, they have a special interest in terms of the wildlife resources of the province. That's a pretty broad special interest in terms of protecting the land that all of us hold in this province.

Now on the further matter that the Member raised regarding the PHAs in terms of bidding, on principle I am certainly not adverse to a bidding process. That's something that we would be prepared to follow up further.

MR. FRASER: I just want to reply to the snow job of the Minister. He's been fairly reasonable until that last effort he put on — the snow job where he brings in the B.C. Wildlife Federation end of this discussion on this individual problem.

I would like the Minister to ask the B.C. Wildlife Federation if they know anything about that country at all that they are talking about. Let them get out of their ivory-towered offices in downtown Vancouver and go to Poplar Mountain. I've been there; I know what's there. There are moose and deer there with cattle. I'm aware of that; cattlemen are aware of multiple use. They don't want the area to themselves.

I am saying, Mr. Minister, that this area is thousands of square miles, and there is room for moose and deer and even the officials of B.C. Wildlife Federation, if they would get out of their ivory towers and get up there and take a look.

Go today! Get in one of those forest helicopters they've got patrolling Lloyd Bennett's cattle. They'll find out. I don't buy that snow job from an organized, paid group. I'm supporting these people who are trying to make a living producing cattle and keeping off the rolls of your colleague, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi). Those kind of people, the B.C. Wildlife Federation, will just put this man right on the welfare rolls. That's the only place he's got left to go!

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Would you speak up a little, Alex? (Laughter.)

MR. FRASER: The others involved here, are they prepared to hire him, give him a job? Oh, no! We get a lot of twists from these power mainland people who know all about the interior. Get them out there to take a look at it. Look there right today and they'll find out the conditions.

HON. MR. KING: Could you speak up, Alex?

MR. FRASER: Fine. You're entitled to listen to their opinion and mine both, but there are two sides to this story. It's really interesting, and I took forward to the meeting we're going to have.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I just want to speak in favour of the position taken by my colleague from the Cariboo. I must say that I was astonished to hear the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources — that architect of the policy of this government in order to see that its master control of the land is undertaken correctly in the true socialist sense — label the producers of this province "special groups." Only an airy-fairy social planner from the lower mainland city district who's never really worked a day in his life, who's never had his fingernails dirty, who's never got up at 10 or 20 or 30 below zero in the morning to feed cattle, could label the producers of this province a "special interest group." The way he sneers out the words "special interest group" makes it very clear that he's trying to paint a pretty picture of producers in this province being well-to-do, well-dressed, well-entertained people such as the Minister himself. He's trying to make the people in the lower mainland and, yes, the people in the federation of wildlife, believe that the producers of this province, and in this instance the cattle producers, live a life of luxury when in fact they live a life of extreme hardship compared to the majority of people in society today and- in this province.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that that Minister go to work on a cattle ranch for a while. I'd suggest that that Minister takes some money, some of the $50,000 he's earning as a fat-cat Minister of this government, and invest it in trying to produce food for this province, trying to make a living as the cattle ranchers anywhere in Canada are trying to do — not with other people's money, not with other people's ideas but with the sweat of their brow and with their own dollars.

My colleague has expressed very clearly the problems they have in securing proper turnout time

[ Page 2923 ]

in advance so that they can plan. To hear this Minister talk, you'd think you could get up in the morning, press a button and move a steer 50 miles into the mountains. And some of them go further than 50 miles. You can't move a herd of cattle in 20 minutes to a grazing land or the grazing area. It takes days and weeks of planning to organize it, and it takes a good deal of time to carry it out.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): The single-use concept; that's all he believes in.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, he does. The single-use concept by the elite of society, when in fact land is for people. And food happens to be for people, or should be.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's very good.

MRS. JORDAN: Everybody on this side of the House is interested in multi-use of land. This Minister needn't try to smear, and paint an ugly picture, because multi-use-of-land studies were going on long before he got to be a Minister of the Crown, and the Kamloops district was one of the very active areas. It really has not progressed that much under this Minister because of the grave difficulty they have in getting a decision from him.

But, Mr. Chairman, everyone wants to see multi-use. I'm sure most British Columbians want to indeed see wildlife on our land. I suggest that those British Columbians must also know, in making their decisions on multi-use of land and the best use of land, what it costs to produce this wildlife. We know what it costs to produce a head of steer — last year a minimum of 54 cents a pound. That money isn't put up by the government; it isn't put up by anyone but the producer himself. He's solely responsible for finding it, for operating his unit and for trying to secure a reasonable return and a profit. What does it cost to raise one head of deer or elk or moose? What is the cost of the production of ungulates in this province? A head of deer that's sold for a pittance of a licence to one individual to go out and shoot, and recreation by shooting is a legitimate form of recreation — hunting.... But should the public of British Columbia, Mr. Minister, be subsidizing approximately $400 of table meat for one individual? The Minister seems to be putting that table meat, subsidized by the province, in a more favourable position than beef, which is being produced by an individual producer in this province.

When we talk about the preservation of wildlife, which, indeed, we all want to see preserved, Mr. Chairman, don't you think it's important that there should be some figures attached to this cost so that the public of British Columbia know what they're basing a decision upon? Where are we going to draw the line between visual appreciation of animals and the food that is put on the tables of the people in British Columbia?

I'm sure this Minister, when he's sneering at the cattle producers and trying to label them an elite group in this province, likes to eat beef. I rather suspect that hamburger's not in his diet very much. There are a lot of people in this province who need hamburger, roast and steaks. They like to have them produced in British Columbia, and the only way that's going to happen is for the producers to have a fair share of the grazing lands in this province, for them to have reasonable help in the management of these lands and for them to have answers at a reasonable time so that they can plan the management of their production units.

Mr. Chairman, I think it's important that this Minister stand up and apologize for trying to paint the cattle producers as an elitist group. I also feel that it's important that the confusion coming from his department, because of his lack of leadership, be cleared up. I believe the grazing branch has a very important function to perform in this province, and a great contribution to make. I do believe that they have to have a knowledgeable say in the management of land, but it should be on a co-operative basis...

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): For the first time.

MRS. JORDAN: ...not on a holier-than-thou basis. There are some very knowledgeable men in this department — and women, I hope, soon to be, when we get more women agrologists trained. But those knowledgeable ones and those who are most effective have been effective because of their ability to talk with the producer and with the wildlife people, not through dictating. I must agree with my colleague from the Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) — there are many fine men in the grazing division, knowledgeable people — and they get along well, But there are some who shouldn't be there because of their inability, no matter how knowledgeable they are technically, to communicate with the person who has their life's work, their life's money and the whole future of this province in their hands and on the line when it comes to food production here.

We have a Minister of Agriculture earmarking millions of taxpayers' dollars to try and provide stability for the production of cattle in this province. Yet we have another Minister who's hiding his head in the sand and not facing any reality in terms of the practical application of grazing, nor the cost of the raising of wildlife in this province, and not making those figures public.

I would ask the Minister to please advise the House who the authority is that will be hired by this department as a consultant to the grazing division. If

[ Page 2924 ]

it's a name not common to this House, would he please advise us what his qualifications are, what his previous employment is and what country he's coming from.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I often have trouble following the Hon. Member for North Okanagan, because on one hand I'm supposed to be all-pervasive and directing a zillion things, and the next minute I'm being attacked for not making a decision on anything.

MRS. JORDAN: No, you're just supposed to tell the truth.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's the schizophrenic attacks from the Hon. Member that leave me confused in terms of which side of the Member to follow.

MRS. JORDAN: What is your policy?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I should at least consider one aspect of the statement that I do consider serious — the question of looking more closely at costs and benefits of various resource sectors. That really hasn't been done in the past on the scale that should be done.

The environment and land use secretariat, with their staff working with the Forest Service, the fish and wildlife branch and other staff agencies, are carrying out an excellent experimental, analytical programme in the East Kootenays in this regard.

While I am especially proud of the increased staff and the work of the staff of the fish and wildlife branch and other departments, it does seem clear that there is, in fact, a need for more careful analysis of these various resources and the cost and benefits of various management techniques in relation to them. Until we established the environment and land use secretariat, we really didn't have the professional expertise, the knowledge or the talent to do just that kind of work. It's only in the last couple of years in staffing the secretariat group that we have had the means in terms of talent to work out these questions and get these agencies working together and understanding each other's talents, limitations and so on.

The work in the East Kootenays that is currently underway will establish a kind of benchmark for different agencies. It will mean, in fact, that the disciplines we have added and have here now will be enriched by this process: the fish and wildlife staff will have a greater understanding of economic constraints or economic realities, and that will really make them better biologists in terms of serving the people of this province, just as the foresters will have a better picture of the problems of the fish and wildlife staff and will become better foresters in the service of the province.

This just wasn't possible before because we did have a government with blinkers on that never saw these questions in a broad enough perspective, that was so penurious that they wouldn't provide the staff. We kept losing these people to Ottawa and the United States. At long last, with the change of government, we have at last had this kind of talent to do exactly the kind of serious work the Member was suggesting.

MRS. JORDAN: In regard to who the new consultant will be to the grazing division, when the Minister is talking so much about all this talent that he is importing, it's unfortunate that they haven't imported more talent in the cabinet. I would suggest, Mr. Minister, leaving aside your usual political ramblings, that had there been any discussions by yourself or by those in your department with the University of British Columbia — I repeat, discussions, not dictates — and with BCIT, in the training areas of the various disciplines of wildlife biologists, agrologists, foresters....

The problem is not, as the Minister outlines it, that the former administration had blinkers on and was blind at all. The problem is worldwide in that in the training of these disciplines they are too interrelated; there has never anywhere been enough cross-discussion between those who are studying the biologies in wildlife, those who are studying the agriculture and those who are studying in the discipline of forestry. So it takes them 10 years, once they get into the area where they must work in a multidisciplined atmosphere, to have any appreciation or respect for the other disciplines. The route to go is at the training level so that they have an understanding of the problems, the interests and the objectives of wildlife if they are a forester; and agriculture if they are wildlife biologists or in the wildlife conservation field. I would ask the Minister if, particularly at BCIT.... But I know myself — I have discussed it with university people at UBC and received a very strong response — that it also takes a good deal of liaison with the departments themselves before this type of practical cross-relationship can be developed.

Who is going to be the new consultant?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Minister may answer either one at a time or after two or three have spoken, at his discretion.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Following up my previous comments about the Skagit, I listened with interest to the remarkably sparse information provided by the Minister. I would now like to be, as perhaps I should have been in the first place, more specific. Are we

[ Page 2925 ]

continuing the approach via the IJC? Some time ago the Minister wrote to Professor Maxwell Cohen, the chairman of the Canadian section of the International Joint Commission, and he talked about the province wishing to go ahead to make application to the commission for further order with respect to Skagit Valley. Correspondence last year at about this time from the Minister to Cohen was made public, but I have no knowledge of any replies. I would like to know whether or not that avenue has been abandoned, whether or not the Minister's legal advice, I believe provided by Mr. Goldie in Vancouver, indicated that this was a dead end, I would like to find out whether Mr. Goldie is still in his employ or still on retainer and whether or not this avenue is still being pursued. That's point one.

The next point I would like to know is whether or not the direct approach to Mayor Uhlman of Seattle and to Seattle City Light is being pursued. Has there been any further correspondence following up the press release that I mentioned to the Minister — the one that he himself issued almost a year ago, on September 27, 1974? The press release was dated September 27, but the material it covered was a letter dated August 9, 1974, giving a three-point proposal of direct contact between Uhlman and Mr. Williams, the Minister who signed the letter, the Minister whose estimates are up today. So I would like to know what results, if any, there have been from that direct approach of August 9, 1974, which we learned about in September. I wonder whether he would indicate whether or not there is any information on that at the present time.

The third avenue which I know about — perhaps there are more — which I would like information on is the provisions of the 1967 agreement signed by the former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, and former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, Mr. Williston. This agreement was signed by both those gentlemen and in that agreement there was provision for a board of arbitration of some sort. I don't know the correct term as I don't have the details of the agreement at the moment, but I do know that each of the parties could name, in case of dispute, an arbitrator, and there could be a chairman named by the two arbitrators and any dispute under that 1967 subsidiary agreement was meant to be determined in that manner. I wonder whether we have appointed an arbitrator for the purposes of activating that arbitration committee in terms of dispute.

So sticking strictly with Skagit, Mr. Chairman, and in being more specific than I was in my first questioning, could I ask the Minister whether all these three avenues are being explored still, whether there are lawyers still hired — Mr. Goldie — for the IJC submission, whether Marvin Durning, Seattle attorney, is still under retainer for the approaches to Uhlman and Seattle City Light, and, finally, whether the third avenue of the arbitration board is being activated or will be activated? I wonder if the Minister could give me a little more information at this time than he did last time, which was close to zero.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the Member for North Okanagan, the consultant question is not finally resolved, so an announcement cannot be made. We do have in mind an outstanding person with great background in this field. There is a serious problem, or at least there has been one in the past, in terms of training for people in this field. We haven't done so in Canada. As a result, most of the more highly qualified people in this field are products of the United States universities father than our own, unfortunately. But changes have been taking place at the University of British Columbia and there have been additional courses in this field so that we are changing the direction, at UBC at least, to some extent.

[Mr. Kelly in the chair.]

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, that remains to be seen. My own belief is that there is a very serious need at the university level. There may well be at the technical level, but we have a huge gap at the university level as well, as we see it.

MRS. JORDAN: It's a little easier for you to operate at the technical level at BCIT because it is a government institute.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, it depends. We are starting to get into extremely complex questions in terms of land management. We do need more people at the professional level for starters, as we see it. That gap just hasn't been bridged.

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That is the Member's opinion. You have to start somewhere. They never started anywhere.

On the question of the International Joint Commission, it is my understanding that the actions of the IJC are being held, pending the discussions with Seattle, so that option still is there, one might argue.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: With permission, I wonder whether the Minister could indicate what the reply is from Prof. Cohen of the Canadian section?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The matter is simply

[ Page 2926 ]

held, pending discussions with Seattle at this stage. So the commission is aware of our actions in this other area with respect to legal counsel. Mr. Goldie is still available to us on a retainer basis with respect to this matter, I am not free to comment regarding Seattle per se at this time. The question of arbitration in our opinion and on legal advice is contrary to the boundary waters treaty, which we regard as very important, needless to say.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Just a quick follow-up on that. The Minister this time provided a very, very small amount of information about the IJC and said it was pending the outcome of direct negotiations with Seattle. He skipped extremely lightly — in fact, he didn't say a word — about the negotiations with Seattle. He admits that; he shakes his head up and down saying, yes, he said nothing about his negotiations with Seattle.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Right.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, could he say something now?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He shakes his head the other way and says no. Why? You have made public, Mr. Minister, documents, or at least a letter dated August 9 of last year. Surely it could be possible to at least have some indication from you at this time as to whether this is a fruitful avenue, whether we are getting somewhere with our discussions with Seattle City Light, or whether this charade that is going on of Federal Power Commission hearings will continue and ultimately determine the question of Skagit. The people of British Columbia would like to know why the FPC carries on if indeed this government is really taking up the matter with Seattle City Light. I wonder if we could have a word or two more about negotiations with Uhlman and Seattle City Light.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, I said I have no comment regarding negotiations, and that is it. No comment. The actions of a regulatory agency in the United States are entirely up to them as a sovereign nation. I have no comment about that either

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I just want to compliment the Minister very briefly on the excellent service that was inaugurated yesterday. There have been nothing but good comments. I would like to ask the Minister whether Admiral Gorst was on the bridge...

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes.

MR. McGEER: ...when it made that stately landing at low tide. There was some problem with the right rudder there in trying to get the ship straightened out.

MRS. JORDAN: Left rudder.

MR. McGEER: No, it's too weak in the right engine — doesn't have enough horsepower. It can't pull around. But in any event, Mr. Minister, people have complimented you and the government on that particular service, and I didn't want to let the moment pass by without throwing you a bouquet.

Now, Mr. Minister, I'd like to ask about another question where it's a little more difficult to pay you a compliment. This was with regard to commitments made by the provincial government on property in the City of Vancouver. I want specifically to refer to Jericho, first of all, because this is a battle that goes back over 11 years and which, at the last moment, is being thwarted by you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Looking for another job?

MR. McGEER: The first speech I made on this was in May, 1964, when we began to put pressure on governments to turn an area of beautiful waterfront that had been denied the people of the City of Vancouver for, then, almost 20 years, in creating a proper park. There were no complaints about giving that area to the military, of course, during the Second World War, but when the war was over, and nothing happened, and nothing happened, we began to get restless with the government.

I'd just like to indicate the degree of progress that had to be made. I have a letter, dated June 17, 1964, from the then Associate Minister of National Defence, outlining reasons why that Jericho property could not be made into a park.

He said in his letter that it would be costly and difficult to relocate such facilities — and he goes through the facilities: the RCE office, stores and workshop; the RCEME workshop; the RCOC depot; petroleum, oil and lubricant station; the guard house; the central heating plant; the men's barracks; the men's mess-hall; the munitions units; the sports field; the miniature range; and so on.

He concludes by saying:

"Under these circumstances, I hesitate to agree with your suggestion that we discuss this matter, as I can see no likelihood of any part of the Jericho Beach property being released by this department in the foreseeable future. The interest of Vancouver residents in the development of a park at Jericho Beach is well appreciated, but I regret that I am unable to assist in this matter."

Some of us worked very hard on the federal

[ Page 2927 ]

government for many years to break down the prejudices that were preventing the people of Vancouver from enjoying this area as parkland. Interestingly enough, the best progress that was made was made with the provincial government. It took only two and a half years to get a commitment from then Minister of Lands and Forests, Ray Williston, with regard to the two parcels of land, blocks 4565 and 5098 of group 1.

It was a commitment from the provincial government to turn that over into a park. It was on the basis of this commitment from the provincial government that myself and many others were able to go to the federal government and say: "See, this has been taken away from the people of Vancouver. One level of government is willing to turn it back to them for a park — why can't you do the same?" We'd been at it then for nearly three years but we had been successful in getting a commitment from the provincial government.

Then, several more years passed. Much negotiation between the City of Vancouver and the federal government — and I can't tell to what extent the provincial government was involved in these negotiations. But finally, on March 30, 1973 — nine years after the battle was first commenced — that property, belonging to the federal government, was officially turned over to the City of Vancouver. After a wait of 28 years, the people were to have their waterfront park.

On that date, Mr. Chairman, March 30, 1973, the mayor of the City of Vancouver wrote to the Hon. Robert Williams, stating:

"Today at 10:30 a.m., the City of Vancouver received the remaining part of parcel 2 and all of parcel 3 at Jericho Beach, Vancouver, British Columbia, from the Government of Canada.

"Pursuant to the letter sent to the mayor of Vancouver by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources on November 26, 1966, the City of Vancouver is now formally applying for lots 4565 and 5098, group 1, New Westminster district, situated south of Jericho Beach, to be used for park purposes, as well as the adjacent water lot, 7030. We have been informed that all three lots have been released by the federal government to the province as of April 1, 1973."

The final sentence: "We would appreciate your prompt action."

March 30, 1973 — 26 months ago. No answers.

MRS. JORDAN: Maybe he had his blinkers on.

MR. McGEER: He can't answer a letter in 26 months. The Minister can't answer a letter from the mayor of the largest city in British Columbia in 26 months. April 18, 1974, to the Hon. Robert A. Williams — a little over one year later.

"Dear Sir:

"Re: Jericho Beach Lands.

"On March 30, 1973, the mayor wrote to you applying for lots 4565 and 5098, group 1, New Westminster district, situated south of Jericho Beach, to be used for park purposes together with adjacent water lot 7030. I have been asked by the mayor to follow up this matter by requesting that the city be permitted to take possession of these lots and, if such permission is granted, the terms upon which the city would be permitted to occupy the same.

"I would appreciate hearing from you in respect of this matter at your earliest convenience."

Fourteen months ago — no reply, Mr. Chairman, on May 26, 1975 — one year later the mayor of Vancouver writes to the Premier.

"Dear Dave:" — familiar —

"I was appalled at the comments Bob Williams made last Friday about the Jericho Beach situation. He admitted there was a written commitment from Ray Williston to turn over the seven acres owned by the province to the city for a nominal lease. However, he went on to say that the present government was under no obligation to live up to commitments made by the previous government. In this regard, I know that he was quoted correctly in the newspapers because I saw him say it in person on Channel 2 television,

"As I mentioned in my letter of April 10, I think this sort of conduct is unbecoming of a government. I would appreciate your confirmation that it is not your policy to disregard commitments made by the previous government.

"I would also appreciate knowing your government's position on the seven acres at Jericho about which I first wrote in March, 1973. I have received no comment or acknowledgement to my letter of March, 1973."

How often, Mr. Chairman, did we hear that Minister criticize the former Premier for not answering his mail? His speeches are still ringing in my ears, Mr. Chairman. Mind you, when the former Premier didn't answer his mail, it was usually to average citizens that wrote in to him asking for some little favour. But he used to answer the mayor of Vancouver; he always had time for that.

Mr. Chairman, I have an article from the

Vancouver Sun of Friday, May 30: "Williams Ready to Talk With Phillips."

"If Mayor Art Phillips wants to pick up his crying towel and stop complaining to the press, Resources Minister Bob Williams is willing to take with him."

My, Mr. Minister, that's very big of you. That's terribly generous. What a poor sport the mayor of Vancouver was. Just imagine! He writes a letter and there's no reply in two years and he takes out his crying towel. He wrote after one year and he still got no reply, and he pulled a dirty trick: he wrote the boss and told him how you dealt with your mail.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's not my boss.

MR. McGEER: I agree with that, but he should be the boss, shouldn't he?

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: He's going to find out when the next election is over.

Yes, I suppose, Mr. Minister, it was really terribly poor taste of the mayor to complain about the fact that you didn't reply to the letters. Sniveling, wasn't it, of the mayor of the City of Vancouver to write and object about a thing like that, particularly, Mr. Chairman, since he and others had worked for about seven years on the federal government to get the property deeded over to the provincial government on the strength of a letter saying it would be turned over for a park.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: You're darned right the federal government answered the mail. Mr. Chairman, do you know this? The federal government saw that letter and the federal government believed the provincial government and made a commitment. Wasn't that silly of them? Innocence on the part of the federal government, to turn that land over to the provincial government, thinking that it was going to be a park. I'll tell you, you won't be able to fool them again on a piece of land. They'll know better. They'll never turn it over, because they believe that a commitment is a commitment, whereas the Minister said the people don't seem to understand the NDP was elected to office. That's what the Minister said: people couldn't understand that the NDP had won the election in 1972. Of course that changes everything. Maybe the federal government didn't realize that. They thought a commitment was a commitment.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister: if that land is not to be turned over to the City of Vancouver for park purposes at a nominal fee, as outlined in the letter from the former Minister of Lands and Forests, does the Minister intend to give it back to the federal government? Does he intend to write the federal government and say: "I'm sorry that you gave it over. You misunderstood. There was no commitment on our part."?

I don't know where it puts the City of Vancouver. I don't know how they are going to explain to the federal government and to all the people who worked hard to get that property back for park purposes for all the people of Vancouver — the people of Vancouver East, too. They use the beaches. It's the nicest beach area in the whole of the city area. If it had been left to you, Mr. Minister, it would still be in federal government hands — either that or in some kind of housing project you would have cooked up. But some people were trying to make it into a park. You can see that doesn't interest the Minister at all. I would like to move on to another area of interest between the City of Vancouver and the Minister. This is with respect to the downtown property that belongs to the provincial government, and I refer to an article of September 6, 1973:

"Industrial Development Minister Gary Lauk confirmed reports that the government is prepared to donate the building and its land to the city for a nominal price of $ 1."

We are referring to the provincial government building at 635 Burrard Street. Now here's a Minister of the Crown confirming that the government is prepared to donate the building and its land to the city for a nominal price of $ 1.

"Lauk said that the province will sit on the land for 100 years if necessary in order to preserve it for parkland and prevent Vancouver developers from using it for high-rise development. Peter Burkes wants to build a high-rise in that area, and Lauk said 'no way.' " The Minister wasn't speaking for himself. He was speaking for the government. On that basis the City of Vancouver purchased the adjacent land. Not only that, they soaked the surrounding property owners for the bulk of the costs because they would be the ones to benefit from the park.

Now the time comes for the provincial government to live up to a commitment, publicly made, which resulted in decisive action being taken by the City of Vancouver and property owners being assessed extra taxes to pay for the creation of a park. What happens when it comes time for the provincial government to deliver up on its commitment? Yes, the Minister of Lands and Forests welches. The government said yes, but the Minister said no. Sure! The king of lands, forests and water resources said no.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Aren't you welching from the Liberal Party?

[ Page 2929 ]

MR. McGEER: Now, Mr. Chairman, I like to keep on the subject and I don't want to get diverted over here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I am sure the Hon. Member won't allow himself to be diverted much.

MR. McGEER: If you can preserve order, I'll keep to the point. But he's really tempting me. He's tempting me, too, Mr. Chairman.

But there's no question about this particular one. It wasn't made by those nasty old Social Crediters. This was no obligation of a former government. This was an obligation of his own government. The Minister really doesn't care, when you get down to it, Mr. Chairman, whether it was a former government or whether it was the present government.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

If it suits the Minister's purposes, the answer is: "Yes, we live up to a commitment." If it doesn't suit the Minister's purposes today or the next day or the week after, "We don't live up to our commitments." You don't know what a contract is, Mr. Minister. You don't know what an obligation is or a commitment or honour or anything else except the cheap partisan purposes of you and your prejudices...

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Order!

MR. McGEER: ...and the misuse of power that has been placed in your hands by misjudgment of the electorate. Nothing is going to correct this little slip at the ballot boxes faster than the kind of behaviour you've been showing since you took office.

I would hope that we'll never have in our province again the kind of government that doesn't understand what a contract is or what a commitment is, because people undertake long-term obligations not only, Mr. Chairman, in the private sphere. We are not dealing with a contract here between some private forest firm like MacMillan Bloedel that the Minister is always trying to discredit, We're talking about obligations to federal governments, to city governments, to parks boards, to property taxpayers — these are the kinds of commitments that are dismissed with contempt by that Minister, I don't know when we've had a Minister of the Crown with an attitude like this before ever in office. I can't recall it. But I think, Mr. Minister, it's time for your caucus and your cabinet colleagues to remind you of some of the basic obligations of government and for you to do a quick rethink on your position and give some reassurance to the City of Vancouver.

I just want to ask another couple of quick questions before I sit down. I would like to ask the Minister how come he doesn't answer questions on the order paper. The former Ministers always used to do that.

Specifically, I have asked a question about slash fires. Ever since 1972 that question has gone unanswered on the order paper, and I would like to ask why.

Secondly, the Minister used to make a great to-do about how much was being done to clean up pollution in British Columbia since he came to office. In one particular area, which is an important recreational area for people in the area of Vancouver–Howe Sound, I can see absolutely no improvement at all. In fact, I think that the mess that's left behind up there is considerably worse than it's ever been. I'd like to know when those pulp mills and logging operations on Howe Sound are going to be required to clean up in the interests of anti-pollution and recreation in the lower mainland area.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It seems just a little ironic to have the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey talk about rudderless ships, since he seems to be part of the most rudderless ship in the House at the moment.

It's kind of fascinating to hear his view of history and to discuss these matters of parkland in Vancouver. I don't recall the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey ever beating the drum in terms of the area of real need of parkland in the city, particularly the east side of the city which has never really caught up with the rest of town in terms of park space, and which has never had the kind of amenity or opportunity to enjoy the waterfront that the western part of the city has. I think it's to the discredit of all city administrations in recent years that, in fact, waterfront open spaces have not been created and developed east of Main Street where the need is by far the greatest. The city has continued to pursue a policy of Westside waterfront acquisition in areas like Point Grey Road — hundreds of thousands of dollars a parcel in an area that is already richly endowed in terms of recreation space and open space. It's been a real disappointment for me, as a citizen of Vancouver, to see that that didn't really change when government changed in Vancouver from an NPA-dominated council to a TEAM-dominated council. TEAM has done a fair number of worthwhile things and has improved many aspects of civic policy, but in terms of waterfront land acquisition, it just hasn't happened.

I can't see these matters in isolation. The fact that the Pacific National Exhibition, as asset — or what should be more of an asset for the people on the east side of town — was run basically by a downtown group for decades — a self-perpetuating board of directors running that so-called park for decades,

[ Page 2930 ]

making no profit whatsoever, with a disinterested or uninterested city council in the whole process. We changed that and this large land area on the east side of town got at least some kind of democratization in terms of its management in the form of a board of directors with representatives from the neighbourhood, with more representatives from city council, parks board and the like. That was a considerable improvement in terms of management of that "park" facility. That was an improvement. As a result, lo and behold, the PNE, which has not made money year after year because of various inadequate arrangements in terms of leasing the land to others, suddenly started making money with the new board of directors.

All of a sudden the city council took renewed interest in the Pacific National Exhibition. At long last. The park on the east side of town, an area that was short of parks, was looked at in a different way by the city council and the mayor. All of a sudden the idea that a park on the east side of town should be available at a nominal price of $1 a year for the site changed. The mayor said: "No, $1 million is more like it." That didn't happen until he was frustrated in his attempts to become the president of the Pacific National Exhibition. The board didn't re-elect him president of the Pacific National Exhibition, and it was then that the mayor decided there really should be a higher fee for this park on the east side of town, that the fee should suddenly change from $1 to $1 million a year, that the idea of this park on the east side of town at $1 a year was too good. It just shouldn't continue, They should have to pay $1 million annually for that land — land they didn't care a whit about before this government came along.

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, the Member's former colleague, Barrie Clark, certainly would be rather upset with the idea of a rental transition from $1 a year to $1 million a year. The rentalsman certainly wouldn't live with that one for very long. But that's what the mayor of Vancouver wanted to do to the citizens on the east side of town. He continued to pursue his activity in terms of park expansion on the waterfront on the west side of town.

The business of seeing to it that there is more open space on the waterfront is a concern of mine as a Member from the area and as a citizen who has been concerned about the question for some time.

So the idea that the province should always give up its land owned by all the people of the province for $1 to the city, when the city was prepared always, again, even with a new administration to apply a double standard — "On the east side of town you pay $1 million a year for parkland; on the west side of town, we want it for free" — it doesn't add up. It just doesn't add up, Mr. Chairman.

I can understand the Member for Point Grey taking that point of view. It's the kind of point of view that Point-Grey-dominated councils in Vancouver have taken for far too long. So the major asked one of his aldermen to contact me to discuss the matter. I said: " Really, the more worthwhile process would be for a meeting with the mayor." Instead, the mayor chose to deal with the press at city hall; that's his choice to make.

That land on the east side of the city is land that should be improved. Now that the PNE is making money — $1.5 million a year, almost the local Canadian Cellulose — they feel that that should go into rent, that it shouldn't go into improvements in the park itself. I'm sure that the majority of the board of directors are of the opinion that those lands should be improved as amenity space and that the first priority for the profit from the operation of the exhibition should be in the form of improvements in those grounds so that everybody who uses those exhibition grounds gets the benefit and so that the funds don't get lost in general revenue. But the mayor, unfortunately, doesn't take that point of view.

The mayor was also concerned about the land on the south side of False Creek. It's turned out that much of the reclaimed land at the shoreline edge behind the new retaining wall is, in fact, provincial Crown land. Again, the mayor feels that that should simply be turned over directly for $1. He said when he phoned me to discuss the matter that it was "simply a draftsman's error" — just a draftsman's error — that they built the sea wall on provincial land, and that therefore the land again should be turned over for $ 1.

One might not dispute at all the idea that the Jericho land should be available for parkland, nor that the south False Creek land similarly should be available. But it's always the double standard. When it came to the downtown area in the three-block court house, land that the city bought for $1 million — a city block — which was originally intended to be a city square, was sold in fact to the province for a price of about $4.5 million.

In fact, much of that land is going to be downtown park: there will be a huge landscaped area, there will be a skating rink, there will be a lake, there will be waterfalls, there will be a major downtown amenity. In addition, the old court house will become a major downtown amenity. Again, the province turns over these facilities directly without charge to the city. But when the province is acquiring from the city, we pay top dollar — $4.5 million for the land essentially to put a downtown civic square, court and a provincial building complex on.

[ Page 2931 ]

The whole surface of the building will become a park; virtually almost a block and a half downtown will become open-space parkland — extremely valuable land. Again the double standard: the province gives the land up for $1, for a nominal fee, and the city charges $4.5 million for the land.

All right. But at some point the province has to consider equity in the situation. It does seem, Mr. Chairman, that equity just hasn't been applied. It is the double standard that's being applied, unfortunately. They want to charge $1 million a year for a park on the east side of town and they want the province to give up valuable land for free on the west side. It's a double standard that shouldn't be applied; it is being applied.

So there are matters for discussion. If the mayor will decide to take the matter up in a rational way, as I think is necessary in terms of face-to-face discussion, then I think it can be resolved for the benefit of all the people of Vancouver, not just the people on the west side but the people on the west side and on the east side. That's the kind of attitude one would hope and expect from a mayor of that city.

It does seem to me typical that a Member from the roller-coaster group, or independentistes, or whatever they call them these days, should say that the last election was "misjudgment" — that it was a slip of the ballot box. It's typical of the Liberals' lust for power, a feeling that they are the only ones who should have the right to govern, to say that the public made a mistake, that they didn't know what they were doing. It's a typical attitude of the Point Grey Liberal mind — that the people didn't know what they were doing and that decisions are all wrong, that it was a slip.

AN HON. MEMBER: There are no Liberals left in Point Grey.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That remains to be seen. The Member also indicated his concern about Howe Sound and Woodfibre. I'd like to advise the Member that pollution control standards are being applied at Woodfibre. They must meet standards by the autumn of this year with respect to emissions at Woodfibre, and that should improve the situation considerably in that area.

MR. McGEER: Just a supplementary, Mr. Chairman. I don't think the Minister really dealt with the question of commitments that were made by the provincial government that were used by the city in their negotiations with the federal government to have it turned over. As I understand what he said, the Minister was unprepared to honour the provincial government commitment because he didn't like the city's policy with respect to the PNE. He didn't say these words, but the interpretation I got was that he was using the Jericho lands as blackmail over the City of Vancouver to have the City of Vancouver adopt the policy suitable to him for East Vancouver.

At first I thought he wanted some kind of beach created down by the grain elevators there under the Second Narrows Bridge. But that wasn't it at all. He was talking about that park where they have all the horseracing which the provincial government collects revenue from. I don't know how many millions of dollars they take out, but the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) contributes to those taxes. It isn't just the people from the east side who play the ponies. So I don't know what the right policy is with regard to the PNE, but I think it unfortunate that the Minister would attempt to blackmail the City of Vancouver. I don't see how his statements could be interpreted in any other way than blackmail, Mr. Chairman. He can explain if there is a different interpretation.

But certainly when the mayor of Vancouver first wrote, requesting that the provincial government honour the agreement, that was in March of 1973 before the PNE question came up. I assume that the Minister was holding back the agreement even then with the expectation of blackmailing the City of Vancouver at some future time over anything he happened to disagree with.

It's very well to fight these class wars — and the Minister has been doing it ever since he came to the House — but it doesn't really help anybody. We don't want to be setting up toll gates for every facility on the east side that the west side people pay money to use, and we certainly wouldn't want to set up toll gates on the west side so that people from the east side would pay to use the beaches or something. What you try to do is create beach parks where there's sand and where there are beaches. You don't try to put a beach in in front of Wall Street there in West Vancouver where the Minister lives. There just isn't enough sand there. And there's the problem of where the freighters dock.

On the other hand, it's an excellent place to build a multi-million-dollar hockey arena to bring the Vancouver Blazers and the Russians and the Vancouver Canucks. I don't think people on the west side or anywhere else in Vancouver complain about the federal government giving that expensive colosseum which is very handy to the people of that area. It just happens to be one of the advantages of one neighbourhood, just like the fact that all the sandy beaches in another part of town are an advantage to that neighbourhood. But surely we don't want to set up a Berlin wall in the City of Vancouver, saying this is mine and that's yours, and to be jealous of everything that's over on the other side, and on the other hand use what's on one side of the picket fence to blackmail the City of Vancouver and to stand in the way of development of

[ Page 2932 ]

appropriate services.

With respect to Howe Sound, the Minister mentioned something about Woodfibre, but he didn't say anything about the major polluter of Howe Sound, which is the Port Mellon mill. It's thrown a blight over the whole of Gambier Island, which was once a very lovely recreational area. The reason why I raise the question, Mr. Chairman, is that when I saw how bad the pollution was outside that plant last summer, I had occasion to call the pollution control branch and discovered they were doing nothing at all about that mill. They didn't have any intention of doing anything about it. So when I was speaking of cleaning up Howe Sound, I was thinking of all the facilities on Howe Sound, Mr. Chairman.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, this Minister has control of so many things, and there are a few things I'd like to bring up that haven't been touched on before. One item was touched on before, and I got an answer but I'm not clear whether the Minister understood.

Just since then I've received a letter regarding timber on agricultural leased land, Crown land. I only want to read a part of it, Mr. Chairman. It's from a citizen who has applied for agricultural Crown land, classified as such by the Lands department.

"To date I have not received any further reply as to the disposition of the above-noted land. However, having spoken recently to the district forester at Williams Lake, I feel an injustice being done to the ranchers and farmers of the Cariboo if Forestry is allowed to take over agricultural land as if it were their own. If a rancher has timber on an agricultural lease and wishes to log it off, it is usually over a long period of time and more than likely the stumpage will rise as the price of timber goes up. But if a logging outfit logs the timber now over a short period of time while the stumpage is low, the government is losing money.

"The district forester states that there is insufficient timber in the SSA," — that's the special sales area — "to support the established operators."

I want to make an observation here, Mr. Chairman. I think this is at the root of the problem, Mr. Minister. There is a shortage of timber in the SSA, so the Forestry department is turning around and saying that they are going to get this timber off this agricultural land and give it to the quota holders.

I want to further suggest that the Indian land claims are involved in this. In this particular area, I assure you that the Narcosli forest district has had a road closed for over a year. These operators in the Narcosli forests of the Cariboo are all the same operators as in the special sales area. I am referring to timber west of Nazko in the Narcosli forest district.

As the Minister knows and the responsible forest officials know, the natives of that area laid claim to that land a year ago May, and no action has been taken, even if it is in the Narcosli forest district and involves quota. So it could be that this is where this can of worms is evolving. I appreciate what the forestry officials are trying to do to maintain the quota supply, but I suggest that the Indian land claims question is definitely involved in this shortage of timber, because they have part of the Narcosli force blocked off.

But really, regardless of who logs the timber off, is it not still going to the established sawmills at Quesnel? I mentioned that earlier.

"What chance has the rancher and farmer got if the timber goes up for public auction after the established licensee has finished taking the timber? All that the rancher has left is a big mess to clean up. The cost to the rancher runs as high as $200 an acre."

I think that's a conservative estimate, $200 an acre for clearing.

"Since he has no income coming in from this land on which he is paying an annual rent, and eventually after cleaning up is allowed to buy 80 per cent of it, he has no alternative but to borrow money to put this land into production.

"Taking as an example 160 acres, the total price for just clearing could run as high as $30,000. For a young rancher just starting out, this is a very discouraging blow when you consider the ranchers' and farmers' economy of today.

"I can understand the problems that the Department of Lands is having with the misuse of agricultural lease land, but I am sure some solution to this problem could be worked out — such as if the timber is included in agricultural lease land, the rancher could log it off in only 40-acre lots. Then before another 40-acre parcel is issued, he must clear the above-mentioned land and have it ready for production."

I just read that off, further to my other remarks to the Minister. I thought it was a good letter and it explains the problem that when the Forestry comes and takes the timber, they take the revenue.

Young people want to go farming, believe it or not, regardless of the economy of agriculture today. Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of them who want to get away from the concrete jungles of Vancouver east and the lower mainland, Richmond, Surrey, Delta and New Westminster. We welcome them up in the interior where the biggest population we have is moose and deer. I think this is stopping this migration, and I hope the Minister now knows what is going on, will look into it and get a report from the forest officials as to why this is happening and, hopefully, get it stopped.

[ Page 2933 ]

I am not sure of this, Mr. Chairman, but I believe this Minister now has the jurisdiction of the Litter Act. I would like to know from the Minister who is in charge of the Litter Act.... I am getting a lot of correspondence from citizens saying that when they return cans, bottles and so on, they are getting a real runaround from merchants. They won't accept this, they won't accept that. Apparently there are a lot of young students now going out and collecting for fund-raising projects. The parents supervise, and they do a lot of hard work to raise funds to take trips and so on. They take the bottles and cans back to the various depots and are told that that can is dented and this bottle is the wrong bottle; it's very discouraging.

I'd like to know who is administering the Litter Act and where I can find out the exact regulations and send them on, because my correspondence all of a sudden has become very heavy from the interior. I think, in other words, that a lot of the merchants are just jacking around the citizens and are not adhering to the Litter Art.

The other thing I would like to hear a report from the Minister on is operation SAM. I forget what the initials stood for originally, but I refer to the car-crushing plant — the pick-up of these old cars, crushing them and shredding them. I haven't seen or heard anything much about it lately. Is it still in existence? How many vehicles did it crush last year? What are the most up-to-date figures? Is it still in demand? What kind of a staff is involved, and so on?

Last but not least, Mr. Chairman, nobody has talked today, under this Minister's jurisdiction, about his title as really senior director of B.C. Hydro and Power Authority. There are two elected Ministers on this board, and they're the only real input from the public. I assume this Minister is senior because the other Minister has a junior portfolio and has the habit of going to sleep. I don't think this Minister goes to sleep in the meetings.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: What's wrong with that?

MR. FRASER: Well, there's nothing much wrong with going to sleep at a meeting, but I wonder whether the senior management of Hydro can't give a snow job, while you are sleeping, to the elected people. Therefore this Minister becomes very important for this large monopoly — not monopoly but Crown corporation — which has got $3 billion in debt, and we were told the other day it is going to $6 billion. I'd like to hear a report from this Minister. More specifically, I'd like to hear if he has carried out the directive the Premier gave him in reply to me when he said inadequacy of the rural electrification policy would be on the agenda of Hydro shortly. I am sure the Minister of Finance, who gives $3 million a year to Hydro to extend rural power, would give $6 million if this Minister would ask for it. Nobody has asked for it. This $3 million has been the same since about 1968. I've said before in this House, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, that it's worth about $1 million today.

Quite frankly, Hydro extensions are almost at a stop. They will continue to decline. I know that we had a report and that 700 were added to the system from rural, but what we didn't get is how many have really applied, and how many applications are in front of you now. I would suggest probably 7,000 are after power. That isn't much to ask. Why can't our rural citizens have power when our urban citizens not only have power but have transit? I don't deny them that, but there is not equity here, where $3 million is all the citizens in the interior get for power extensions. It doesn't all apply to them either. I understand there are also problems on Vancouver Island, close to some urban areas, because of the lack of funding of rural electrification.

I would like to hear what the Minister has to say in response to that, and I would like to ask him, as the director, about the supervision of the Hydro and Power Authority. As I said, the people of B.C. are now in debt to the tune of $3 billion, and it is estimated it is going to $6 billion, but in the last statement I have seen of Hydro, as of March, 1974, in that year alone their operating revenues were $384 million — take-in, go-out $380-odd million dollars — and I'm quite concerned that there is really not enough supervision there.

This Minister is a busy Minister, but I would like to hear his concerns, as I have heard the Premier's, about this large Crown corporation.

I would just like to report in my other capacity as chairman of the public accounts committee that they don't even seem to care. I just had a phone call. I had to leave the House half an hour ago due to a letter I wrote to Mr. Cass-Beggs. I don't know where he is. Is he skiing in Europe? We can't get any response from him. This is the second letter. The second letter has gone out. I got a phone call from a senior official of Hydro, and he says that he's the only one who could attend a public accounts meeting this Thursday. It was called in writing and he has had the letter since Friday of last week.

These are things that concern me. There are a lot of senior people over there, and it concerns members of the public accounts committee. We can't even get them to the meetings to question them on details. I'm very concerned, due to the large amount of money that is involved.

I'm not implying in any way that the Minister is keeping these people away, but I don't think that the Legislature or any of its committees, when they give out written notice...I think that should be a priority item with those senior people. Wherever they are, they should drop what they are doing and come

[ Page 2934 ]

to that meeting, given reasonable notice. That does not seem to be the case, so how do we get into this large Crown corporation and find out what is going on? I'll end my remarks now and hope the Minister has a few answers. Thank you.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We are aware of some problems in the question of the Litter Act and have been pursuing some aspects of the difficulties the Member raises. In terms of details, it is the Water Resources and it is the pollution control branch. There is detailed information available from the PCB with respect to the regulations. That would be readily available.

Project SAM is also within Water Resources now, transferred from Recreation and Conservation. SAM stands for salvage, assembly and manufacture. The number of vehicles crushed in the past year was 19,000, I believe. The number of staff is 15 in the programme. The budget is $733,000, a considerable increase from last year.

There are difficulties — many of them inherited, I am afraid — with respect to a long-term contract approved by the former Minister in terms of delivering the compacted vehicles to the Richmond salvage operator. The arrangement in terms of what the province receives for the salvaged vehicles is most unsatisfactory. We do not receive the real market value of the material as a result of the contract that was signed by the former Minister responsible, Mr. Kiernan. The contract was entered into in 1972; it runs for a period of 10 years. It was a most imprudent contract by the former government — one, unfortunately, that we are stuck with. These things keep popping up. That is one of the major difficulties with respect to the SAM programme.

Regarding rural electrification, as the Premier indicated, that is something we are certainly prepared to look at further. I can't really give any further details at this time, except that I have some sympathy with respect to what the Member says.

With respect to B.C. Hydro and its operations, the board of directors, of course, includes the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), whose primary interest is urban transit, and carries a considerable responsibility in that regard with respect to B.C. Hydro, myself, Mr. James W. Wilson, who is executive director and extremely well qualified, as is Mr. Cass-Beggs, the chairman, both of them with fine academic backgrounds in power and engineering fields, and in the environmental field in the case of Mr. Wilson. Considerable redirection has taken place within B.C. Hydro, particularly in relation to environmental management. I think Hydro's activities in this area are just a 180-degree turn in terms of former policies within Hydro.

With respect to availability of staff and the public accounts committee, that is not one I have taken up with management staff but it is certainly one that I will take up as the Member suggests. The member responsible for finance in Hydro has been available to the committee — Mr. Beard. That never happened before under the former government. Such Crown agencies were never available to committees of this Legislature. I certainly have no objections to other staff people being available personally. Mr. Cass-Beggs has been at an international energy conference currently. I am just not too sure when that is over, but I will pursue that matter.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would just like to have a few questions for the Minister under his salary vote, which is $150,833. Maybe this Minister's office vote should be a little bigger because we are dealing with the estimates of the most powerful Minister in British Columbia, the Minister who is really the architect of all of the government's policies, not just in the Department of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources but the man responsible and the architect behind Bill 42, the man who is the architect of the mining legislation....

AN HON. MEMBER: Was Graham Lea on the boat ride to Seattle?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: This man is even more powerful in British Columbia than the Premier himself. Not only is he the most powerful man in British Columbia today but he is the man whom most British Columbians are frightened of. They are frightened of him more than they are of any other person in British Columbia. It is sad to say, Mr. Chairman, that for the first time in British Columbia the ordinary citizens of British Columbia are afraid to speak out and say what they think about government policy. Freedom of speech in British Columbia is dead, so far as people feeling free to criticize the government in general, and in particular, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

MR. CHABOT: They are afraid of retaliation.

MR. PHILLIPS: I didn't think I'd ever see the day in British Columbia when people were frightened to speak out. Yes, they are afraid of retaliation. Anybody who deals with the government is frightened to speak out because they are afraid of retaliation. They are afraid of recriminations from this Minister.

While this Minister will take people into this office and maul them — literally maul them — in the safety of his office.... This is not only the common, ordinary person or the person who wants to talk to the Minister with regard to some of the forestry

[ Page 2935 ]

policies or grazing policies, but he literally has mauled the mayors of our two leading municipalities in British Columbia — the mayor of Victoria and the mayor of Vancouver.

More specifically, I'd like to ask the Minister what has happened to Dr. Gaffney and the Policy Analysis Institute of British Columbia, for which Act this Minister is responsible.

AN HON. MEMBER: I never heard of Gaffney.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like the Minister to advise me what benefit the people of British Columbia have received, and what value they have received from the interest on the $5 million which was taken out of the general revenue to set Dr. Gaffney up at the University of Victoria, and to fund his analysis institute. I would like to know how often the Minister meets with Dr. Gaffney, or how often he meets with the people from the analysis institute.

MR. CHABOT: When was the last meeting?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, when was the last meeting? How many meetings have taken place in the last 12 months since the institute was set up? How large is the staff at the institute?

Does Dr. Gaffney attend any of the cabinet meetings to advise the cabinet on economic planning? Do any of the cabinet Ministers confer with Dr. Gaffney on policy? Does our new economic planning adviser to the cabinet, Mr. Eliesen, confer with Dr. Gaffney?

I'd like to know if Dr. Gaffney is doing any specific research projects for the government at the present time. Is Dr. Gaffney available to the B.C. Energy Commission? Does Dr. Gaffney advise the B.C. Petroleum Corp.? Is Dr. Gaffney being used by the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority with regard to future energy needs? Is he being used by the assessment authority with regard to assessment policies in the province? Has he met with any of the staff of the Department of Mines? Is he being used by the Department of Forestry on economic planning? I'd like the Minister to tell me how long Dr. Gaffney's contract has to run.

I think the Minister should level with the House and advise us if Dr. Gaffney has been put to pasture, to graze out the rest of his contract, to be kept out of the eye of the public.

MR. FRASER: Send him to Blackwater River — lots of room there.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just tell us. I'd like the Minister to tell us just what Dr. Gaffney and his policy analysis institute is doing for the people of British Columbia. Or am I to believe that Dr. Gaffney has been duped by this Minister? Brought in here from the United States of America to do what obviously was going to be a very challenging job of establishing policies of this new socialist government, now the good doctor seems to have been led down the path of oblivion.

I would think that Dr. Gaffney — nothing against him personally — would feel that he has been misled by the Minister. I think he was probably brought here under the basis of establishing new, dynamic policy, and the only policy that I know he tried to establish at all was the policy of site taxation on land, which he tried to sell to the municipal matters committee last summer when he met with them.

Mr. Chairman, at that meeting it didn't take too long for the committee to realize that Dr. Gaffney really didn't know what he was talking about as far as the Province of British Columbia was concerned.

I don't know how we're supposed to take this policy analysis institute. Has it been replaced by Mr. Eliesen, who is the new economic planning adviser to the cabinet? Or is Dr. Gaffney advising Mr. Eliesen? The institute is under the direction of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, but there is no vote in his estimates because the money was taken out of general revenue and the interest is being spent. I'd like the Minister to advise the House just how much of the public's money has been spent on this policy analysis institute and answer the questions that I have asked with regard to what benefits the taxpayers of British Columbia are receiving from this institute.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Economic Policy Analysis Institute at the University of Victoria, as the Member is no doubt aware, a board of directors was established some months ago.

MR. PHILLIPS: At last.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The staff are under the supervision of that board of directors, who are all extremely able people. The staff of the institute comprises currently, I believe, some three economists in total and two clerical staff people in addition.

Have staff members of the institute worked with various arms of government? The answer is yes. Have they carried on discussions or some joint analysis on occasion? The answer is yes, with respect to the Energy Commission, the B.C. Petroleum Corp., the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat, the Department of Transport and Communications and various agencies in government. They have also worked with the Forest Service with respect to various policies, with respect to revenues in that sector as well. There have been numerous conferences taking place both in Vancouver and in Victoria, with

[ Page 2936 ]

eminent people from around the globe participating in terms of economic matters that are of importance to the province. Many of those conferences' proceedings are in the process of being published and will be available to the general public so that worthwhile academic materials with respect to important aspects of economics in British Columbia in particular will be available and of benefit to all of the people of British Columbia.

In terms of specifics of expenditure, we haven't been spending anything near what would be possible under the legislation, but if a question is filed on the order paper we would be pleased to provide detailed answers.

MR. PHILLIPS: I appreciate the answers given by the Minister, Mr. Chairman. Are there any specific areas delineated as to where Dr. Gaffney is doing his advising so that you wouldn't find Mr. Eliesen giving the cabinet advice on one particular subject while Dr. Gaffney is doing the same thing, so that there aren't these two economic advisers working along the same lines? If there were a conflict or different advice given by the two men, which one would have priority? Does the Minister not feel that there is a possibility of a conflict of interest between the two economic advisers, or are there areas delineated so that you won't be overlapping in the work of the two?

[Mr. Skelly in the chair.]

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The Member seems to think that different sources of advice are a problem. We don't find that to be the case at all. We find it to be strengthening and worthwhile to have good minds applied to questions in which there might be differences — frequently there may not be. There's nothing wrong with having good minds applied to problems from different directions so that policy makers can in turn make the decision in relation to that worthwhile kind of academic activity. I know the Member will find that difficult to appreciate, but that's the case.

MR. PHILLIPS: Do you have to be facetious?

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, just a few words and a few questions, because there is some concern in the area I represent in the province regarding the administration of the forest resource, the forestry policies of this government and the forestry policies of that Minister over there.

First of all, I understand that there's been a reinventory of the allowable cut within the Windermere PSYU which will have very dramatic economic effects on the area I represent, denying certain people the right to live and earn a living within the confines of the Windermere Valley. I'm wondering whether the Minister would say whether his policies of establishing and expanding provincial parks and establishing wilderness conservancy areas have had a detrimental effect on these people having a right to earn a living within the Rocky Mountain trench.

First of all, the government expanded the Assiniboine Provincial Park, taking in the large area to the west of it, including the Mitchell River area where I understand 70 million cubic feet of mature timber has been removed from the PSYU in the area. It makes it difficult to find replacement timber in an area that has a long growing cycle. Other massive timber areas have been removed, not necessarily from the Windermere PSYU but just over the hump, over the Purcell range and Hamill Creek where 100 million cubic feet of timber are available for harvesting that have been denied now because of its inclusion within the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy. This must have had a tremendous effect on the forest industry in the Windermere PSYU and in the area where the existing quota-holders are looking for timber. It is difficult at this stage of the game to find large pockets of timber that are economic to harvest. Road construction in the southeastern part of the province, in the Rocky Mountain trench, is very costly.

I am wondering what the Minister intends to do in view of the fact that he has removed virtually of his own volition, and for his own reasons substantial volumes of timber from the area. What does he propose to do to reinstate what I am led to believe is going to result in a 25 per cent cutback in the allowable cut of timber in the area?

The Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) touched on the question of chip supply to pulp mills. We are facing a very severe problem in this respect in my area. When I talk about small sawmills, I mean some are sawmills with 30 employees. They are forced to burn their chips on a daily basis or use them for landfill because of the fact that the pulp mill will not purchase their chips at $35 per unit when they can produce the chips at a substantially lower cost on the $1.10 wood using round wood for chips to the detriment of the small sawmills in the area. In fact, one sawmill operator told me not too long ago that he would be willing and happy to get $20 for that, providing he could sell his chips. The market doesn't exist any longer because of the tampering of the Minister in the marketplace. His tampering has destroyed the market for those small sawmills within my constituency.

I am wondering if the Minister is proud of the fact that he is destroying jobs within the area I represent. What does he propose to do to ensure that these jobs continue to exist within my constituency? What does he propose to do to put replacement timber in the area which he has removed by expansion of class A provincial parks and the superimposition of

[ Page 2937 ]

wilderness conservancy areas in my constituency?

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you against parks?

MR. CHABOT: Well, just one moment. The Minister says I am against parks. I have told the Minister on numerous occasions that we have more parks in my constituency.... I know that the government might like to make my entire constituency a park and that way they could get rid of me, but I don't think the people there would accept that kind of nonsense.

We have in my constituency three massive national parks: Glacier National Park, Yoho National Park, Kootenay National Park. We have three massive class A provincial parks as well. We have the Assiniboine Provincial Park; we have the Bugaboo class A Provincial Park...

HON. MR. KING: You're the bugaboo.

MR. CHABOT: ...and we have the Hamber Provincial Park. Lo and behold, how we have the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy superimposed upon the area I represent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Poor Chabot!

MR. CHABOT: Not only did we have the Assiniboine Provincial Park, but it has been expanded to make sure that the accessible and merchantable timber is removed from those people who are attempting to carry out an industry within the area and provide jobs for the people.

It's not a question of being against parks. I am a great supporter of parks in British Columbia.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, yeah!

MR. CHABOT: I am a great believer in parks, but there has to be a limit. The line has to be drawn somewhere, Mr. Minister. We have exceeded the drawing of the line in the area I represent.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: With respect to the question on allowable cuts in the Windermere PSYU, Mr. Chairman, that is a matter that is still under investigation. The Hon. Member is really just pulling a number out of the air. There is continuing dialogue and excellent discussion, in fact, between the various members of the community in the East Kootenay and the Forest Service staff. The assistant chief forester, Mr. Young, has spent considerable time in the area, and the discussions, in fact, have been most productive.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

I think almost all of the parties involved have agreed that the process is most worthwhile, so that what's going on is discussion within the region and within the community prior to some resolution of the questions, and that seems to me a pretty sound process.

With respect to the Timber Products Stabilization Act, it is just a bit ironic to hear the Member for his riding talking about the legislation and indicating his opposition to it and what's happened because Crestbrook and the East Kootenay was an area that was getting the lowest prices generally in all of British Columbia.

MR. CHABOT: Can-Cel! Can-Cel was the worst offender of them all, and you know it.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, no! During the intervening period Crestbrook took the cake, I am afraid to say.

MR. CHABOT: Can-Cel took the cake, and you know it.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: And you would have thought that Crestbrook would have been making a huge profit. I don't know how you satisfy yourself on the profit question when Crestbrook barely gets by and was paying incredibly low prices for chips. But it, in fact, was not making much of a profit. So it just doesn't hang together, the two arguments, with respect to Canadian Cellulose and with respect to your own region. But since Canadian Cellulose is not located in the Columbia River riding, I guess that isn't really a problem for the Member.

It is also difficult to hang some of the other arguments together in that the Member argues that the Timber Products Stabilization Act has created these problems and then he says that there isn't an export market for the chips.

MR. CHABOT: I didn't say that.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, well, other Members have said that, in your claque.

MR, CHABOT: In my what?

AN HON, MEMBER: Claque, claque!

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You know, the point is that in the American northwest there is no Timber Products Stabilization Act. It's clear that there is a softening in the pulp market and that, in fact, is the real problem all of us face in this industry currently.

MR. CHABOT: Just a brief question. The Minister talked about a softening in the pulp market and I

[ Page 2938 ]

think that's a pretty fair conclusion you have reached, Mr. Minister. But I'll never forget that just a few months ago you were bragging about Can-Cel as being the only pulp mill in the province and Kootenay Forest Products being the only employer in the province that had not laid off any men. Now we read a lot of newspaper articles from time to time and now we see where Can-Cel, the great government, 79-per-cent-owned pulp.....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: 82 per cent.

MR. CHABOT: Is it 82 now? It's dribbled up a little bit. But as long as there's no dilution of the shares, it will stay at 82 apparently. But anyway, 82 per cent owned, as the Minister corrected me, from 79 per cent. Now they are going to be laying off men. Can the Minister tell me for what period of time and for how long you are going to lay these people off for? Where are they going to find alternate work? It's of concern in British Columbia at this time where there are over 100,000 people unemployed. How long are you going to shut this mill down for and deny these people the right to earn a livelihood in this province?

Now the Minister, if he wants to be straightforward, will admit that the worst violator as far as stealing chips in this province is concerned has been consistently Can-Cel. I have the figures and if you want to wait for a few moments and declare a little recess, I will come back and quote you the figures, because I have them in my office. It was the worst violator as far as chip price is concerned. No wonder you showed a profit. You took that profit off the backs of the small sawmills in northern British Columbia and around the Castlegar area as well. That's exactly what you've done.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Rim Forest Products?

MR. CHABOT: That's exactly what you've done. Right off the backs of the small operators. The small operators would be glad in my riding, and probably in other areas of this province as well, to get $20 a unit for their chips, provided they could sell them. But the Minister is willing to allow round wood to be put through a chipper and sent to the pulp mill so that the guys who have the residue and who have set up chippers and are utilizing the residue....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Do you want to change the stumpage? Is that what you are saying?

MR. CHABOT: No, I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that you tampered with the marketplace by establishing an arbitrary $35, and you caused a problem and you have to face up to the problems you have created. I am sure you realize and I am sure you will admit to yourself, at least, that you caused a problem and you have a responsibility to examine the direction in which You are leaving the forest industry in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Find the solution.

MR. CHABOT: It doesn't look like a good direction. It looks like a hard left turn.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, really?

MR. CHABOT: A hard left turn — which is not always in the best interests of the people in this province.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): A hard left turn straight down.

MR. CHABOT: The Minister talked about.... I used a figure of 25 per cent. It's a figure that's been quoted to me by sawmill operators in the area, a cutback of the allowable cut of approximately 25 per cent in the Windermere PSYU. They probably could be mistaken, but I was wondering if the Minister could give me some idea if there is going to be a cutback in the allowable cut in the Windermere PSYU.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The data is not in yet.

MR. CHABOT: When do you expect the data?

AN HON. MEMBER: At the appropriate time.

MR. CHABOT: Will you apologize to me if the figure of 25 per cent is correct?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I might ask you who your source was.

MR. CHABOT: It will be the first time, if you issue a press release, that I have ever been mentioned in a government press release. Say:

"The Member for Columbia River during the debate in the Legislature on June 2 announced that there would be a cutback of approximately 25 per cent in the allowable costs in the Windermere PSYU. The Member had great vision and the Member is greatly concerned about the results of this cutback in the Windermere PSYU, the kinds of jobs it will create and deny to those people he represents in the Columbia River constituency."

Interjection.

[ Page 2939 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister of Economic Development make his interjections from his own seat?

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman, if that Hon. Minister who is saying to this Member that he should know the date and if he doesn't he should resign...if that was the worst mistake that Hon. Minister made, Mr. Chairman, we'd be in awfully good shape in this province.

I want to bring the conversation back briefly to this matter of the PNE. The only point I was going to raise on it before the discussion that took place earlier on this afternoon....

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that an independent view of this problem or Liberal?

MR. GIBSON: I am taking a fair-minded view of this problem, I think, Mr. Minister.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Is that independent or Liberal?

MR. GIBSON: You just wait and see and judge, but I'll tell you that it's not NDP — not in this case.

Mr. Chairman, the only point I had planned to make earlier on was to say that the PNE is a regional institution. It's not a Vancouver East community centre; it's something that affects people all over British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a B.C. institution.

MR. GIBSON: The representation I wanted to make to the Minister was that it should have better regional representation. It shouldn't simply be composed of Vancouver aldermen and a few bureaucrats. It should have regional representation on that board from all over this province.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We have the mayor of Burnaby.

MR. GIBSON: Well, that's a good move. And the president is from Squamish. That's fine. You are starting to get regional representation, but I would like to see a lot more — maybe the North Shore.

That was the only point I had to make to start with, but then we came to this question of the PNE versus Jericho versus False Creek versus this little park in downtown Vancouver. I was distressed by the Minister's response to that situation. I had hoped that what I had been reading in the newspapers wasn't really the government view and that it would be better explained here today. I was listening to Jack Webster the other day and I heard Mayor Phillips on Jack Webster. Do you know what he said, Mr. Chairman? He outlined this deal and then he went on to say that in his time he had voted for every political party in British Columbia except Social Credit — I have to put that in, that he said he hadn't voted for Social Credit — but every other political party, says the mayor of Vancouver. But then he said he would never again vote for the NDP with this Minister in the cabinet after he had gone through the history of this disgraceful pressure play on the PNE.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: But he votes in Kerrisdale.

MR. GIBSON: I wrote him and said: "Good for you." (Laughter.) I said: "Good for you for taking the gloves off." There have been so many people in this province who have allowed themselves to be pushed around by this Minister and by this government — particularly by this Minister.

The Minister talked today about a double standard. I'll tell you, the double standard is a provincial government which stands there raking in all the money from around this province and passes it out in little tiny dribs and drabs to the municipalities. So the City of Vancouver might get $1 or $2 million from the provincial government. Isn't that a shocking thing? My own municipality in North Vancouver doesn't get a penny off the BCR taxes. That's the kind of double standard we have operating in this province. The Minister said that if we can get together there are matters for discussion. Mr. Minister, a deal is a deal. Certainly you don't need to discuss that. There was a commitment given by a previous government. Are you going to go back on all the commitments of that previous government? This has a commitment given from the then provincial government to the then federal government. It was a moral commitment to the citizens of Vancouver. It wasn't a commitment given to one of those multinational corporations you don't like; it was given to the people of Vancouver. Just because you are the Minister for Vancouver East, are you opposed to additional parklands in another part of the Greater Vancouver Regional District?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No.

MR. GIBSON: Did you have something to do with the fact that after the Capilano parklands purchase had been approved by the land use commission it was turned down by the cabinet committee?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think there was unanimous agreement on that question.

[ Page 2940 ]

MR. GIBSON: Well, there sure wasn't in the Land Commission. A deal is a deal, Mr. Chairman. That's the basic fact here. The Minister said that maybe the matter can be resolved. I'll tell you when it will be resolved. It will be resolved at the next election.

AN HON. MEMBER: When's that?

MR. GIBSON: I want to ask the Minister a few questions about various items under his jurisdiction. A few days ago or a couple of weeks ago in this House after a lot of questioning, he finally came out and said that no, he was not going to table the contract with Gottesman that was discussed in this House last spring at such length. He didn't explain why, and I would like to hear why now. His grounds at this time last year were that it was a question of commercial confidentiality, that we mustn't let our competitors see the kind of deal we have for the marketing of Ocean Falls production. That contract is now expired. I want to know why this deal, made by a public company that is no longer in force, is not a matter of public record.

Next I would like to know from him what the current planning is on the endowment lands. I'll say no more on that until I hear something of his answer.

I'd like to know what is the time-frame for the British Columbia Hydro inquiry that was promised to this House now almost three months ago. Why the delay? Is the government afraid of this inquiry? Is the government afraid that it pumped up expectations of a scandal that this inquiry won't turn up? Has it approached people to head this inquiry and had them refuse to do it? What's the story on this foot-dragging?

I want to ask the Minister a philosophical question. Back in the Province of July 27 there was a little newspaper dialogue between the Minister and Mr. Gordon Shrum, and I'll just quote from the story. It says:

"Williams noted that Shrum had been particularly horrified about the rate increases of as much as 70 cents to industrial users, and said these increases would only give Hydro a fair return on its investment, a return of about 9 per cent."

As I say, this is a philosophical question, and I would just like the Minister to confirm that he does indeed think that a fair rate of return for a utility like B.C. Hydro is about 9 per cent.

I'd next like him to give a few more details when he takes his place in this debate as to why the Sukunka project was dropped. I'm not arguing with that decision to drop it, because I don't know why it was done. It was just a question of curiosity at this stage. The Minister said in his press statement that it was because the size had been scaled down. Now if it,was still a good deal, I don't understand his dropping it. I want to make it very clear when I am saying this, Mr. Chairman, that I don't as a general principle approve of the provincial government getting involved in mining developments, but I am asking this question out of curiosity.

I would like the Minister, if he's in a philosophical frame of mind, to tell us a little bit more about his ideas of industrial democracy, which he exposed to some extent to this House last year. I think he was talking about Can-Cel at that time, but since then he has issued a press release suggesting that there should be worker representation on the board of Kootenay Forest Products. I would like to ask him how that experiment is going along and how his thoughts have evolved in that direction in the last year or so.

I think that is probably a reasonable set of questions for the moment, Mr. Chairman.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: With respect to contracts between the Ocean Falls Corp. and the Gottesman Co. in New York, that contract has not expired. The reasons for not releasing the contract are the same as they were previously.

Regarding the University Endowment Lands, the analysis that has taken place is primarily ecological analysis by departmental staff in the lands branch and by Dr. Crenna from the University of British Columbia. That still is to be reviewed in some detail by the government, so there is still a considerable amount of work just in that regard. In terms of design per se, there has not been design work undertaken.

Regarding Hydro and the questions on inquiry, I think those have been answered in previous question periods in the last couple of weeks and I have no comment beyond what has been made previously.

Regarding the rate of return in the industrial sector of B.C. Hydro's charges, the determination of the board of directors was that the 9 per cent rate would be a fair rate of return for the utility in that area. There are sectors, of course, that we actually subsidize on a considerable scale in the small residential and rural sectors, and so that industrial rate of return will be used to meet some of those other costs in terms of social policy within the authority.

With respect to Sukunka coal, the decision was simply one by the government to not exercise an option that it had. The scale was much more limited, and on the basis of the proposal the government was not interested and simply didn't proceed. It's the kind of option one has in any situation such as that.

With respect to industrial democracy, we have held discussions with both management and members of the unions in different corporations that we have ownership in. The only corporation that does have worker-directors in British Columbia is Kootenay Forest Products, which is based in Nelson. Mr. McCandless and Mr. Offerman are both

[ Page 2941 ]

representatives, one from the sawmill operation and one from the plywood plant, They have been extremely productive, extremely helpful. It has been an experiment, of course, in terms of involving workers on the board of directors.

Our experience is such that I am not at all discouraged. In fact I am very encouraged. Kootenay has more difficult operating problems than any of the Crown entities in the forest sector, so one would expect worker-directors to have a tougher job in this corporation than, in any of the others. I think that is so and I am extremely pleased with the work of both these men. I think we'll still continue to feel our way in terms of determining where this process might proceed, but on the basis of the work to date, I think it's one of the more worthwhile experiments we've been involved in, to the credit of management and, I think, even more to the credit of the worker-directors. They have pursued this, have been diligent, productive and creative. I have just nothing but praise for the two individuals who have been involved in this process. I hope that they will be able to spend time with the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) and his staff in terms of working beyond their present framework.

MR. GIBSON: Just a few follow-up questions, Mr. Chairman. My distinct impression was that the Minister had announced last fall that the Gottesman contract had been renegotiated.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's still a contract, you know. There have been changes over time, but it's still a contract.

MR. GIBSON: Well, surely then, if there have been changes — and I take it they have been significant enough chances that it did call for renegotiation, particularly with the great changes in the world pulp market — I wonder why at least the original document couldn't be made public.

The next follow-up question relates to the B.C. Hydro inquiry. Would the Minister at least tell us that the terms of that inquiry will be announced before the end of this session? Could he give us an...?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: If you could name the end of this session....

MR. GIBSON: Well, then, say within the next month.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We would certainly anticipate that.

MR. GIBSON: That gives us a target to shoot for, Mr. Chairman.

HON, R.A. WILLIAMS: As the weather gets better. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: The final follow-up question: at this point the Minister indicated that the B.C. Hydro board of directors thought that a 9 per cent profit was fair, so I assume the Minister thinks that's fair, as one of the ranking directors on that board.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We used it to subsidize other things, as I indicated.

MR. GIBSON: What I'm trying to get at is: without asking him to fix a number on this next target, would he agree that something somewhat higher is fair in risk situations in risk industries in this province?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I don't think it's a matter to which I've given enough thought to comment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I'd like to ask the Minister who are all the fine gentlemen behind him. In other words, relate the staff you have to the House.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, my apologies, Mr. Chairman, I'd be pleased to: Mr. Stokes, the Associate Deputy Minister of Forests; Mr. Young, the chief forester for the Forest Service and the comptroller for the Forest Service.

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: And Lands and Water: Mr. Crerar, the Director of the environment and land use secretariat; Mr. Marr, Deputy Minister of Water Resources; and Mr. Pearson, the Deputy Minister of Lands.

MR. FRASER: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. That's of great help. We welcome them here, I'm sure. I've been watching them and I know that they're enjoying themselves. (Laughter.)

This is a question on staff. How many executive assistants do you have? You might just make a note of this because I want to get to some other matters.

Water Resources: I'd like to find out what money is provided in this budget for bank revetment, and how it is given out. Is it the squeaky wheel that gets the grease, or is there a formula? How do municipalities find out what the formula is? How much is available, and so on? I'm thinking particularly of large areas like the Fraser River, Thompson River — how much was spent last year on bank revetments?

[ Page 2942 ]

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: In the total?

MR. FRASER: Yes, in the total province. What percentage of the total cost was that? I understand it's 75-25, but I think it needs some clarification from the Minister.

Back to the pre-servicing of Crown lands. I've spoken many times in this House about the pre-servicing of Crown land, and I'm referring to Crown land subdivisions. Up until, I believe, last year the pre-servicing of this land has been done by the Department of Highways; consequently they aren't doing their highway work. My understanding of this is that they get an estimate from the Department of Highways and then say to go ahead. Now there are no tenders called for this work from the private sector of contractors. I would like to know if there is going to be a policy change, and I think there should be. I don't think the Department of Highways should in any way take part in the development and pre-servicing of Crown land subdivisions.

They're being distracted from their work and the highways suffer for it. I don't think the Department of Lands, contrary to the Lands department's opinion, is getting a good deal. I think you'd get a better deal if the construction of roads and lanes and so on in Crown subdivisions were put out to public tender. The excuse I have had over the years is: "Well, we haven't got any engineers to draw up the specs." Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, that's just not good enough. There are engineers around. I think they're in the Lands department, but if they're not they're in the Forests department.

On the subject of Crown land subdivision, the Minister asked me and I failed to answer what my opinion on Crown land subdivision was. I will give my opinion on Crown land subdivision. I'm referring back to the 5,000 lots that you announced last November. I believe 400 or 500 were announced in the riding of Cariboo. I appreciate that, but one proposal that I have in mind in north Cariboo was for 200 lots. I think that that's a little too many to impose on any one area. I think it should be scaled down. I don't think any Crown subdivision in a rural area should be more than a maximum of 100 lots, because it creates no end of problems in a rural area. To impose that we will have to assume that 400 or 500 would finally live there. It puts more strain on that probably class 2 road — they're not close to main highways. It puts strain on the roads, and it puts strain on the school system that causes the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) problems — they're hollering for more buses and more schools, as far as that's concerned — and of course the water supply and so on. I think that I would like to see — you asked me — that any Crown subdivision not be more than 100 lots maximum because of the strain it puts on the existing services such as roads and so on.

Another thing, Mr. Chairman, back into the Forest Service side of the portfolio, is Ocean Falls. I would like to hear from the Minister when the new pulp plant is going to be built at Ocean Falls. I would also like to know where the timber is coming from and how much timber is going to be taken away from the Cariboo forest district. It is my understanding they are reaching inland from Bella Coola some 150 miles; of that, about 100 miles of that timber has always gone east to Williams Lake. So again we'll have a chipping away at a quota system. In the end we'll probably not have viable operations in the interior of the province — in this case at Williams Lake — because our quota has been diverted back out to the coast so the government can build a new pulp mill at Ocean Falls. I would like the Minister to comment on those remarks.

The last, but far from the least, Mr. Chairman, is Plateau Sawmills. I'd like to hear a report from the Minister on Plateau Sawmills in Vanderhoof. I know that the Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) wants to hear. He tells me he can't find out either, so I'll try. Really, what I want to know is: have their expansion plans gone ahead, have they started construction and what are the estimated costs?

I want to go back to last year — you have some very knowledgeable forestry people there — and find out who paid for the road that was run south from Vanderhoof for, I believe, some 45 miles. I'd like to know what vote the Forest Service charged the cost of that road to. Or did they charge it to Plateau Sawmills, where it belongs? It is my information that it is charged to Forest Service roads. This is how Crown sawmills and operations have a gain on private operations and private operators.

MR. CHABOT: It helps the Minister to brag.

MR. FRASER: It helps the Minister to brag about the huge profits. There have been 50 miles built; they ran south from Vanderhoof down into the Cariboo riding. That timber was all originally, as I've said before, designed to go to Quesnel; it now goes north to Vanderhoof. I can't understand the rationale of the Forest Service under this Minister. There was lots of timber available for the Plateau Sawmills going any other direction but south, but that's the direction they went. Who is making these kinds of decisions? That's what I'd like to know, because it's my information that there is lots of timber available to Plateau Sawmills going northeast or west. The Forest Service decided to go south while there was an uncommitted working circle — I forget the name of it.

Now it's all been gobbled up. Now the operators from Quesnel have arrived out within two miles of this road and nobody knows who's going to get the

[ Page 2943 ]

timber. Well, I know who's going to get the timber, but the individual operator would sure like to know. He would have loved to have been told two years ago before he spent $1 million building his road running from Quesnel due west. It has now been built. All these environmentalists didn't say anything about that when it has opened up a whole remote country. Where is your friend, Mr. Otway, on that subject? A road was built by a private operator to go into a working circle of timber. Now he finds that when he gets the road built he's not going to get the timber.

It's going to go to that great big Crown corporation, Plateau Mills, If Mr. Otway wants to get off that plush office — like you've got — and get up in the boondocks and see what's going on....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mine is the same as Williston's.

MR. FRASER: The Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) knows about these things, but he tells me he can't talk. He's asked me to bring this up on behalf of him.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

Interjections.

MR. FRASER: He's worried about the next election.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Don't get political.

MR. FRASER: As a matter of fact, there's a rumour flying around that he might be the fourth independent.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the Minister's vote.

MR. FRASER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I get wandering away once in a while. I'm sorry.

But just in conclusion on that, Mr. Minister, I know that you're certainly watching the political scene in the Province of British Columbia. If that Member goes to the independents, I think all the established parties better take a hard look at this very strong party. Next thing you know, it might be 30 Members there.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Is this an announcement? (Laughter.)

MR, FRASER: Oh, I'm just telling the troubles of the Member for Omineca.

But getting back to Plateau sawmills, basically I want to know who paid for all that road work in 1970-1974. Certainly it was public money, but was it debited to Plateau sawmills operation or is it a debit for the Forest Service? I don't want any of you people to say you don't know. I've given you two years to find out.

The other thing is about the expansion plan for Plateau. It's my understanding that these plans have started. I would like to know from the Minister: have they started? How long is the expansion going to take place — that is, the construction for expansion — and how much money will be spent? Thank you.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): Point of information. I object to that Member using my name and making false statements. The fact is that if I want to find anything out from the Minister, I'll ask the Minister. I don't go around to Members of the opposition asking questions as to what is happening in my riding. I object to that Member making those kinds of statements which are completely false. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WALLACE: I just want to ask a question on a local concern in the greater Victoria area. I think there's been general approval by the community at the government's purchase of the Marguerite. The business community certainly appreciates it.

I would like to raise the issue of the legislation under which the Inner Harbour property was acquired. It's my understanding that the money was made available under the authority of the Green Belt Protection Fund, The question has been asked as to how that fund, which is specifically designed to encourage the establishment and preservation of areas of land commonly known as greenbelts throughout the province.... As the Minister knows, this area could hardly be described as a greenbelt. It's parking lots, blacktop, concrete, buildings, a small airline terminal, some machine shops, a sailing school — I forget all of them — wax museum, et cetera. So my first question would be: how constitutional or correct is it to use that piece of legislation to acquire what can hardly be described as a greenbelt, even though the purpose in acquiring the property might be quite valid?

It does raise the question that if this kind of property can be acquired under the greenbelt fund, one would have to ask, really, if there are any holds barred. You could acquire just about anything. If it's got 10 square feet of green grass, presumably the other 10 square miles might help to qualify it under....

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: That is one valid question which was asked some time ago at the time of the

[ Page 2944 ]

acquisition.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Oak Bay has the floor.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I just hope the date of acquisition, which was April 1, has no real significance in some of the validity behind the acquisition or the legislation under which the property was acquired.

That's the first question. I'm sure, by the way the Minister's grinning, that he's got some simple answer to my question. But, seriously, if the guidelines or the interpretation of the Green Belt Protection Fund is that flexible or can be stretched that far, it does seem to me a legitimate question as to whether the government might use this legislation for other acquisitions, and render the legislation somewhat questionable.

The second part is the legitimate concern of the City of Victoria as to the government's plans for the continuing development of the Inner Harbour area. There is no doubt that big strides have been made regardless of some of the disharmony that might have been created among different levels of government and different people involved. But, as the Minister knows, the City of Victoria is very eager to be a consulting partner, or to participate in the Minister's plans to develop such locations as the Reid Centre site, which never became a Reid Centre, the plans to move the Black Ball ferry, presumably over to the other side of the harbour, and the whole question of whether the wharf will be demolished. The City of Victoria would like to have the opportunity to be an active, participating partner in both the planning and the implementation of these plans.

The Minister received a letter from the mayor of Victoria back in April pointing out that there were now at least four or five different agencies or groups of people involved in this whole project. He mentioned the federal government, the City of Victoria, the Capital Improvement District Commission, the Department of Public Works and the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Inasmuch as this Minister was selected by the government to be the Minister responsible for the Marguerite.... That in itself is a little surprising, that the Minister of Lands and Forests should get into the ship business.

AN HON. MEMBER: Water. Water resources.

MR. WALLACE; Well, water — I guess you really can't sail a boat without water, although some people have tried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name names. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: I am just suggesting that we already have a Minister who had a great deal to do with water and ships. This Minister, as far as I know, unless he sails ships in his bath or something, had no previous connection with ships and government business. But anyway, we have been all over that and we have never received a satisfactory answer, and I don't suppose we are going to get one now.

But it does seem as though this Minister was given pre-eminent authority in the Inner Harbour area. He froze the land, which stopped development on the Reid site; he has been given a responsibility to resuscitate the Marguerite service. I think it is a fair question to ask, on behalf of the City of Victoria: in this Minister's salary vote could he outline in a little more detail than he did in answer to a question earlier on, when we debated his salary vote, what general policy of involvement by the city he envisages for the continuing planning in the Inner Harbour region?

It holds tremendous potential, as the Minister knows. I am not sure that we haven't lost part of the ball game already with that enormous development that is going up on Laurel Point. I know the Minister can't be held responsible for that. But there has been a great deal of talk and a great many levels of authority of different governments involved. I think it is a very legitimate request by the mayor and the council of the City of Victoria to ask the Minister, if he is not willing to give public information at this time: will he at least outline the degree to which he plans to consult with them and take them into his confidence in the very near future?

Time is running by. I can't remember the exact date, but I think that land on the Reid site has been frozen for at least a year now. Everyone who has an interest in the city and the tremendous potential to make the Inner Harbour attractive is very eager to know that we are not getting bogged down in a whole lot of bureaucracy among different levels and different departments.

The only other subject I wanted to touch on at this point is the whole question of the Minister's position in regard to Indian land claims. I spent yesterday at the annual convention of the Association of Non-status Indians. While they had a great deal of difficulty deciding how to arrange their three-day agenda, the reason they were having difficulty with their agenda was the one, central, all-encompassing concern about the land situation.

I think that for the first time, the issue of land claims, as far as the non-status Indians are concerned, is to develop some kind of united front with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. It is my understanding that the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs will be

[ Page 2945 ]

presenting a brief or an outline of their position at the annual convention of the non-status Indians tomorrow or Wednesday.

This Minister has clearly taken the position.... Perhaps I should put it another way. I would like to know to what degree this Minister is involved in the development of plans for the meeting of June 26 and 27 which was announced by another Minister, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), responsible for Indian affairs. As this Minister has just pointed out, he has quite a bit to do with water, and I suggest that he has quite a bit to do with land. Therefore I don't think we can assume that the leading role in this very important issue would be played by the Minister of Human Resources.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: We've got a Punch and Judy act going on over there, Mr. Chairman — each saying, "After you, Alphonse," or whatever Punch said to Judy.

Seriously, this was the issue around which the non-status Indian convention is centering most of their attention, and with the fact that the B.C. Union of Indian Chiefs are developing or encouraging a united front I think that this province faces real problems in the handling of Indian land claims in the very near future. We used to talk about the long, hot summer in other respects, but I would predict that unless this government makes some real progress in the meeting of June 26 and 27, this province does indeed face a long, hot summer in the face of rising Indian discontent regarding the government's attitude to land claims. There is a real feeling of intransigence and delaying tactics by this provincial government.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Oh, come on Scotty. It's been going on for centuries.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Shuswap says it's been going on for centuries. I wonder if that's the government's attitude. Does he speak for the government when he makes that stupid statement that because it's been going on for centuries we just let the thing sit down and leave it to boil over until someone gets killed or there is a riot or violence? Is that what the Member is saying?

MR. LEWIS: You want everything done in two and a half years. You never did anything when you were in.

MR. WALLACE: I'm suggesting that at least we stop the dilly-dallying around and sit down around the table with the federal government, the provincial government and the Indian people concerned. At least that would be some progress, and that's been asked for for a long time. I don't think that I should go and take part in the kind of meeting I took part in yesterday, and sit here and say nothing, because it is the feeling of these Indian people that they are not being listened to and that both levels of government are stalling.

If you like to say governments have done nothing down, the centuries, that's your choice. What I am saying is that when you took office and when you ran for election in 1972, that isn't the way you talked — that it's been around for centuries and nobody did anything about it. You were the party that were going to do something about it! I'm saying that if you talk to the Indians and listen to their position yesterday, and listened to the Indian chiefs, they are very unhappy. When we have them taking unilateral action to block logging roads and block highways, and the government takes the position, "Well, we just want to keep the peace," you are headed for trouble, my friend, if that's the very offhand dilatory attitude that you are developing. I'm just shocked at the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) to suggest that just because we've had this problem for 100 or 200 years, this government needn't get too upset about it. That's not the position you took on the election campaign, and that is not a position which the Indian people of this province are prepared to accept.

I don't say this because I expect you to come up with solutions overnight; I have never said that. A problem that has festered for 100 of 200 years cannot be solved overnight, but nor can the situation be helped if you sit back and say, "Well, it's a terrible problem — we've had it for 200 years and it's very difficult to solve," and throw your hands up in sheer futility and say, "Well, maybe we'll leave this to another day."

That's the impression the Indian people have, both the non-status Indians and the Indians on the reserves. If they're not getting that message across to this government, then I'm quite concerned. I'm convinced that they are as human as the rest of us and their patience has a limit. I think of the evidence we've already had of civil disorder in the blocking of highways, the occupation illegally of federal offices, and the disruption and fighting that is going on between the federal and provincial Ministers, when the stupid federal Minister makes the statement about our Attorney-General, which just inflames the relationship between the federal and provincial levels and contributes nothing to a harmonious solution of the three parties. When we have this, we have trouble ahead of us in this province.

I'm just saying that if we don't make some real effort to get the federal and provincial governments around the table with the Indian people, and try to take a constructive and unbiased approach to the problem, even if it has lasted this long, then the people of British Columbia had better start worrying

[ Page 2946 ]

about some of the civil disorder and worse that we might well be faced with during the summer months.

This meeting that is taking place on June 26 and 27, I would suggest, is long overdue. It seems to me that both levels of government have been hoping that one or the other would come up with some of these simplistic solutions which one of the Members interjected was impossible.

But as far as the federal government is concerned, we have a statement back here in January that the federal Minister, Mr. Buchanan, made in one of his more temperate moments that the Indian people have a legitimate concern and a legitimate claim. When you have half of the Supreme Court of Canada going along with the decision that the Nishga tribe in the Nass Valley have a legitimate claim on the land, if we are not prepared to pay attention to that kind of decision, then indeed we are turning our backs on the very fundamental concept that the Supreme Court of Canada is the court of ultimate decision in vital issues. I can't think of an issue that could cause more serious disruption to our society than the situation faced by the Indian people in their apparently impossible task of trying to get both levels of government to meet with them fairly and honestly around the table.

I just want to ask the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources if he could, as with the Inner Harbour question, give us some specific outline of the route he plans to follow and what we can anticipate after June 26 and 27. In other words, as the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) interjected, you are not going to solve it overnight. But what is the staging? Is the meeting on June 26 and 27 to be followed by some federal-provincial Indian conference? What kind of channels does the Minister have in mind to try and tackle this very serious problem in a rational, modern and sympathetic way? It is not going to go away.

That is often the other implication which this government has left: if you just leave the situation, it will go away somehow. It is with us. Without some very serious effort by the two levels of government to come to some compromise, I really believe the situation will only get worse and result in some pretty ugly scenes in this province.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: With respect to Indian land claims, I certainly am in sympathy with much of what the Member says regarding this problem. But it is a matter the direct responsibility for which, in terms of this government, is with the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi). So in terms of any sort of detailed programme, I would have to defer to the other Minister.

I think that we have already indicated that we are concerned. We are developing a process. That meeting is one part of the process. We have worked with numerous individual Indian groups in the province. There continued to be consultation and discussions in the last couple of weeks regarding a range of problems in terms of their frustrations and in terms of resource development. We have an active economic development programme we never had before in British Columbia. There is a range of things going on. Discussions in terms of future logging in numerous parts of the province at the moment with Indian people is an example, none of which have received any publicity. But that is really an ongoing process in terms of working with these people. It is righting some of the wrongs of the past. We still have a considerable way to go down that particular road.

The Inner Harbour question is one that we saw as related to the operation of ships in this harbour. The fact that the Marguerite remains here as part of the harbour and brings life to this harbour I think is significant and important in terms of the shoreline lands in the Inner Harbour basin. Some of the team who have worked on that particular project will in fact continue on and work on the Inner Harbour project as well. It is to be hoped that the kind of spirit and involvement that has gone into bringing the Marguerite back into service in fact will be the kind of thing that happens in the Inner Harbour itself. So there is a kind of spirit and involvement and excitement in that process. I think that since the same people will be involved, that will be possible. The city will be involved in that process.

With respect to Ocean Falls, the studies that have been undertaken wouldn't, as far as I am aware, have any significant impact — I suspect no impact — on the Cariboo itself. We are really talking about areas that are not directly related to the Cariboo or the towns in the Cariboo currently.

The question of bank protection. The 75-25 programme is vote 158 in the estimates. The figure for that is $850,000. The local groups would pay 25 per cent. That is based on engineering analysis and study. Priorities are basically determined on the basis of those engineering studies. The vote this year is the same as last year. However, the major bank-protection programme is the federal-provincial agreement on the Fraser. That is some $14,625,000 this year and was some $10 million or $12 million last year.

Regarding pre-servicing of Crown land, we have some sympathy with the idea of more contract bids and, in fact, have been proceeding that way in some instances. So I have some sympathy for what the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) said with respect to that.

With respect to the greenbelt fund, the former government drew the legislation so loosely that it did, in fact, take care of the Princess Marguerite. I suppose one's argument would be with the draftsmen for the former government or policy makers there. It's our

[ Page 2947 ]

expectation, however, that the fund will be reimbursed with respect to that particular aspect, despite the fact that the legislation, according to our advice, would cover that.

The acquisition of these lands in the harbour seems to us to be most reasonable in terms of greenbelt protection and developing exciting open space in the capital city.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. King files answers to questions. (See appendix.)

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

APPENDIX

152 Mr. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Labour the following questions:

Regarding the Fifty-eighth Annual Report of the Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia for the year ended December 31, 1974 —

1. How many copies of the report were printed and what was the total cost of printing?
2. Is the mailing-list for the issue of this report to the private sector compiled on the basis of requests for the report?

The Hon. W. S. King replied as follows:

"1 and 2. Under section 58 of the Workers' Compensation Act, my responsibility relating to the Annual Report is for the tabling of the Report in the Legislature. Printing and other distribution of the Report are the responsibilities of the Board. The question has, therefore, been referred to the attention of the Board."