CONTENTS

Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 107). Hon. Mr. Nimsick. Introduction and first reading — 3003

Fair Fees Act (Bill 121). Mr. Curtis. Introduction and first reading — 3003

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

On vote 126. Mr. Fraser — 3003

On a point of order. Mr. Chairman — 3025

Point of order Naming of Mr. McGeer — 3027

Division on motion to suspend Mr. McGeer from service of the House — 3027

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

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

Leave granted.

Introduction of bills

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

Hon. Mr. Nimsick presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1975.

Bill 107 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

FAIR FEES ACT

On a motion by Mr. Curtis, Bill 121, Fair Fees Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day

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

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

On vote 126: Minister's Office, $150,833 — continued.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I don't think we should rush these things. There's $144 million here, don't forget. I have a few short questions for the Minister.

I would like to know the Forest Service's policy on cedar. Where it is in sustained units, it is my understanding that cedar is being burned on the orders of the Forest Service, I believe there is a market for this and I believe there are people who would go into sawmill setups. I don't think it's a large item but the public demand is for the cedar product.

In my riding in the Cariboo east of Williams Lake there is quite a bit of cedar, decadent and otherwise, and I understand that people are trying to find out whether you can get this to cut. They just get a runaround from the Forest Service. I was wondering if the Minister has had this brought to his attention. I would like to hear what he intends to do about it — to let the quota holders continue burning it, or would he encourage an industry to set up to cut this and have something for the public demand for it?

Yes, I realize that the Minister has had some advice from behind and some of the quota holders might be a little upset. But I am thinking of the public demand for this product and I think something could be devised if a little effort was put into it so it could be segregated out, and the Crown could get some revenue from it and the public of the Province of British Columbia would get a product they want.

Another observation I have is that in the budget this year — the budget of $3.2 billion — on the revenue side there is an amount of $135 million to be derived from revenue from stumpage. In view of the fact that the accountant of the Forest Service is here and I know they are very up to date, I would like to know what they received in the first month of the new fiscal year, April, 1975. It is my opinion that of the budgeted amount of $135 million they will only get about half this amount. This should have shown up in the April summary that was taken off. I realize it is too soon to know what happened in May, but in that one month of April maybe it would set the course where we can have an idea whether it is going to be $135 million.

I am not suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that the stumpage be raised because of economic conditions of the market and the operators. What I am saying is that I think there is an overestimate here on the revenue side. Maybe it should be adjusted. The Minister of Finance will certainly be upset with this Minister if he wakes up at the end of March, 1976, and finds out that $70 million has been collected. Really, what I am trying to do is keep the Minister out of trouble with the Minister of Finance at this early stage in the game.

I want to go back again to the Indian problems. I watch closely all the news media and public comment regarding Indian land claims and such — they are going to do this, they are going to do that. But they have already done it in the riding of Cariboo, and it is a year old — they have blocked off forest roads. It is on this Minister's desk and nothing has happened.

The native Indians have blocked off a whole area in the Cariboo, and will not permit logging in the west side of the Narcosli forest district.

Again, for the benefit of Hansard, I refer to the area from Nazko — spelled N-a-z-k-o — to Baezacko — and I am not going to try to spell that. But that is the area of the Narcosli forest district.

No logging has been able to take place since May of 1975 because they threatened the quota holders.

They took a lowbed with a D-8 on it to build roads, and the natives stopped them. That little problem is that they have been there for a year.

[ Page 3004 ]

I would like to know if what I hear is correct, that the Minister is finally going to face the music and meet these native people. My information is he has a meeting scheduled for June 19. I think this certainly will be a breakthrough if he will at least discuss this problem with them. I would also like to know from the Minister if he is going to have a meeting and suggest to them that they could have some of the quota timber in this area, namely the Narcosli forest district. Is he going to suggest that they take down their barriers and for that they get a quota of timber that they can have for going into the sawmill business and have a sawmill? Or is he looking at a tree farm licence? Just what is taking place? I understand one of the senior people of his department has been up there surveying the scene, so I would like to know just what he is going to do and when because it has gone on now for 12 months.

I am fully aware of what the Forest Service has recommended on this. It is all on the Minister's desk, and no decisions have been made. I think it is most unfortunate for the natives as well as the quota holders.

The longer it is put off, we will only look at the day when employment at the railhead will be cut. I have no idea by how much, but it could be as much as 20 per cent unemployment because of the lack of timber quota that can't be cut and hauled to manufacturers. I think it is a total community problem. I would like to hear from the Minister what he intends to do about it and when.

I was happy to hear the Minister announce today that there will be a royal commission to look into the forest industry. I agree and our party agrees that it is time that we had a royal commission to look into all past tenders and where this industry is going in the future. I believe that the last time this happened was 1957, by the late Chief Justice Sloan.

I have questions I have to ask on that. When will this be set up, in the opinion of the Minister? Once it is set up, how long does he feel it will be before they report? In other words, is he contemplating setting this royal commission up in 1975 and hoping for a report back from them in 12 months or two years? Just what guidelines has he in mind for the royal commission?

With that I will sit down and hope I get a few answers.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): The question of utilization of cedar is a matter that has concerned us in that there hasn't been the utilization we would like to see. However, in your own region, the Cariboo-Coast region, where you do have decadent cedar, especially in the wet areas towards the Quesnel lakes, there has been a utilization problem. The fact of the matter is, however, that cedar is not a quota item, and has not been for some two years now. We have worked to encourage utilization in other areas more successfully than your own.

There have been new projects developed — in Salmo and the Nelson-Creston riding, for example — that are proceeding reasonably satisfactorily. But in your own riding, the bulk of the cedar is now being decked. When cedar is coming out of a particular cutting area, it is being decked and is stored there at roadside now. If there is going to be a plant developed, this material might well in fact be used.

There is a small mill partially constructed near the Pinette & Therrien operation in Williams Lake, but there have been very serious financial difficulties. The intent was to have that plant use cedar in the Williams Lake area. Until those financial problems are resolved, I don't think that will be the case.

The question of the Indians is complex and no-one that we have ignored. When I was in Williams Lake a month and a half ago or so I met with the 15 bands — the council of Indian bands in the region. We met for a couple of hours. Their main spokesman was Mr. Irving Harry, who made it very clear what their major concerns were. At that time I agreed to a later meeting in the Chilcotin with the bands. That will take place in June on the 19th or in that general area.

I might also say that we have had some of our staff in the region in the intervening period. Mr. Crerar of the Environmental and Land Use Committee secretariat, who was responsible for the successful work at Burns Lake, has been in the region for most of the week and met with bands in locations such as Redstone, Alkali Lake, Dog Creek and various parts of the region. As a result of those meetings, I think we have a better picture, other than the land claim statements and comments, of specific areas of contention, some of which we consider quite legitimate in terms of the concern of the Indians. So the meetings to date have been really quite productive and I think will mean that future meetings will be worthwhile.

I am personally encouraged. My initial meeting with loggers and sawmill people in Williams Lake earlier gave me the feeling that there might not be any possible area of discussion with the Indian people, that their frustrations had possibly led them to the point of no return, almost. But it's not the case. Out first meeting was productive; the recent meetings, I think, have been productive; future ones will be productive. The fact that we have projects such as the Burns Lake project and the Port Simpson project, the Ehattesaht project, others underway and others being negotiated, I think, is a bit of a beacon for these people. I hope that the Indian people in the Cariboo will get to visit Burns Lake prior to my meeting with them in the Chilcotin so that they have a better idea directly from the Indian people at Burns Lake of just how it's going from their point of view.

[ Page 3005 ]

So we're certainly not averse to trying to resolve some of the legitimate areas of conflict.

We also made it clear in the last of weeks that we were not prepared to tolerate harassment in specific areas such as Alkali Lake. We've indicated that we do understand their legitimate concerns, that we're prepared to work with them and cooperate with them and that the meetings were set, but we were not prepared to see harassment activities in that area at this time. It would only hurt any goodwill or the possibility of major cooperative programmes subsequently.

In the general sense I think that's the concern of government — that the Indian people might, in fact, build up a climate against themselves in this process. This government has indicated that it's prepared to move, to cooperate, to change things and to give them a chance with respect to the resources that they share with the rest of the people of this province. I think it's a real sign of strength on the part of the people at Alkali Lake, for example, that they agreed that this was, in fact, a reasonable course of action. We'd had people in the field, we'd shown a spirit of cooperation and they saw that it would probably hurt their cause more than anybody else's to pursue an harassment course. The loggers would be affected in that particular area pretty clearly. So that, in fact, happened.

We have cooperation. I'm looking forward to the meetings and the further steps in the process. It's extremely difficult but it's very worthwhile. It's a new one for us; it's a new one for all the people of the province. It's unfortunate that it didn't happen earlier because the degree of frustration felt by these people probably wouldn't be as deep if the process had begun many years ago.

MR. FRASER: He didn't refer at all to my question on the royal commission — when it might be appointed, the length of its tenure and so on.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think those details are a matter for cabinet approval. Cabinet has approved in principle proceeding with respect to a royal commission on forestry matters, primarily tenure. In view of the general support that seems to be there on the other side of the House, I would hope that we could proceed very quickly.

MR. FRASER: By "very quickly" do you mean it might get started in 1975?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Absolutely.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to ask the Minister briefly something about the land leasing policy in the northern parts of the province. I have a case here about which I have written to the Minister some two months ago and on which I have received no reply. The Minister has all the details. I don't have the permission of the particular person to use their name and I don't want to embarrass the Member for the riding concerned because I know he's been making the same kind of representations.

I'll just briefly outline the case. This particular gentleman started in November, 1971, to try to get some kind of more permanent tenure on the land he is occupying — but has no long-term permission to use — in the northern part of this province. He contacted the Member concerned in September, 1972, and March, 1973; he filed a brief in February 1973; he telephoned the, I think, then Deputy Minister in December, 1972. In March, he visited the offices of five or six of the officials in the Minister's department. I'll just quote briefly from a letter to the Minister, of which I have a copy. He says:

"I have the necessary credentials and, more importantly, the enthusiasm and desire to put what I've learned to use, not only for my own benefit but for the benefit of my family and my fellow countrymen. I am a member of the Canadian Institute of Mining Engineers, B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines, Resource People Canada, an affiliate of the Association of Exploration Geochemists, as well as a member of the Society for Pollution and Environmental Control. I am concerned for the welfare of my country. I'm not interested in obtaining land for land speculation. I am only asking for five acres of land so that I may work in my field.

"I realize that, although the mining industry is the No. I primary interest in Canada, the other industries have also a great importance to the economy of our country. In no way do I wish to obstruct the other industries."

And then he goes on to mention the particular forestry companies which hold tenure in that area.

What I'm concerned about is why this man can't get an answer from the Minister, why I can't get an answer from the Minister, why the Member concerned can't get an answer from the Minister on this particular question of some kind of extended land-lease tenures in the northern part of our province, where there's still some pioneering going on today. I don't want to make a cause célèbre of this; I don't want to ask the Minister when there is going to be some kind of policy that will allow this kind of person to....

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, with respect to Germansen Landing, it's within a provincial forest. We have taken areas out of provincial forest where settlement seemed a more reasonable use. We've done

[ Page 3006 ]

that on a considerable scale recently in areas like the North Thompson, Barriere — locations such as that. At Germansen Landing....

MR. FRASER: Germansen Landing is in the riding of Omineca.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's one of the spots I haven't been to. I've been to quite a few. I just didn't want to use that rickety mining road that goes wandering up the Omineca country. I'm sympathetic to the basic problem at Germansen Landing, and I frankly don't know what the problem is in terms of the two jurisdictions, Forest Service and lands branch, but we'll follow that in more detail. There's a fair settlement there, I know. I'm aware. I've looked at the photographs of the building that has taken place. Many of them are find log structures, and it appears to be quite an attractive location. In principle I am not opposed, in this situation, to seeing to it that some form of tenure is established.

MR. GIBSON: I thank the Minister for that kind of undertaking. I very much ask him within the next two or three months to come to a conclusion on this and legitimize the pioneering efforts that are going on.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I'd like to go over two or three small points with the Minister. The first goes back to a situation I have been following through the question and answer period, and that's regarding the Thompson lease of 160 acres in the Meyers Flat area. The Minister laughs and says, "Oh," but I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that those people are more than laughing and saying "Oh." They're crying.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I wish the Hon. Member wouldn't speak into Hansard items that just aren't the case. I'm tired of reading in the newspaper about sneering and saying things I haven't said. Just for the sake of Hansard, on this one occasion, I'd like to make it clear that that is not the case.

MRS. JORDAN: I think if he stopped catering to his political image and catered more to the people of British Columbia, there wouldn't be the problems we're faced with today. One includes the problem of the Thompson family, which relates directly to the criteria this Minister is using for establishing upset prices and lease prices on grazing land.

In the Thompson case, in the Meyers Flat area — just to review it briefly — they had 160 acres under lease in this particular instance. They had had it for many years. There had been, to my knowledge, no complaints by the grazing division or the Agriculture department on the handling of this land. But also there was a great amount of enthusiasm in these two departments since Mrs. Thompson had taken over the operation of this ranch at the death of her husband. It was a shock to her to find out that this lease was not going to be available to her, nor the option to bid on it, and that the government had set an upset price of $150,000-odd as sale on this 160 acres, or a lease price of $7,500-odd per year lease, under the guise that this would be great land for alfalfa production. An examination of the land revealed that some of it could be used for alfalfa, but in fact it was a major rehabilitation problem.

The only water available would be through a well which is not now in existence. There would be a massive drainage programme required plus the rehabilitation of the land, which suffers from extreme alkalinity since it's been subject to flooding conditions and erosion for years. Plus there would be fencing and all the other input that would be required by a producer to put it into alfalfa production. My understanding from very knowledgeable people who are aware of the economics of agriculture is that at today's prices for hay there is no way at those prices set by the lands branch that this unit could be economically viable.

I appreciate the point that the Minister has not accepted the two tenders, and has taken the land back for consideration and reappraisal, but what we do want to know is: Who is going to do the appraisal? Will there be consultation with the grazing division? Will there be consultation with the agricultural department? Will Mrs. Thompson have the opportunity to have the first refusal on this land so that they can maintain this viable production unit that they have built up over the years?

This leads into the grazing policy of the Minister. I realize that the McLean report is pending, and on that I would just comment very briefly to be sure that those producers who are not essentially in the dry lands area discussed in detail by the McLean report have an opportunity to make their input. I speak of the Bulkley Valley area, where the grazing conditions and the grass conditions are very much different than those which were directly under Dr. McLean's attention.

In so doing — and the Minister is shaking his head and I appreciate this consideration — they not only need time to make a presentation, but they also need assistance of expertise in how to make this presentation. They're competing on pretty high ground and they're concerned that they don't have the technical knowledge at their fingertips to validate their presentation. There's no question that a blanket policy for the province in terms of permits or grazing leases or licences or whatever the government chooses to enter into is not going to be realistic because of the nature of the various grasslands around the province

[ Page 3007 ]

and the differences in their handling.

So I would ask the Minister just on this point to assure that those ranchers from the northern part of the province have the time to make their input into the McLean committee, and that some expertise be made available to them so that their report can be substantially authentic insofar as technical approach and that they may express it in the manner that they need to in order to have a substantial hearing.

I would also ask that when the final decision is made by the Minister he would take into consideration that a ranch unit is dependent upon its grazing lands, particularly in British Columbia, and that we produce a very small portion of the meat utilized in British Columbia. The chances of becoming self-sufficient in meat production are limited by a number of factors, including the shortage of grazing lands, unless the producers can be assured that no one is going to be consistently hacking away at their grazing lands and that as long as they meet responsible management of these lands they are going to have the right to have some security of tenure in the term of years as well as the opportunity to renew their lease. In my view the only reason for cancellation of these leases or permits, whatever system is adopted, should be for failure of competent handling of that land.

We have on one hand an effort by the public and the Minister of this government and many other people to develop agriculture in British Columbia on an economically viable basis; and on the other hand to date we have a department that is literally hacking away at these grazing lands which are so vital. We've already canvassed the need for multi-land use. Contrary to the opinions of the Minister, I won't read them but I have a number of letters on file and certainly have spent a good deal of time with producers, ranchers in this province. They are well aware and they are convinced that multi-land use can be accomplished. But what has to be remembered is not only the economic factor in terms of public understanding that we discussed yesterday, but the fact that the procedure himself is solely responsible for the financing and the operation of his own unit. It's his money that's on the line and his production unit. He simply must have a degree of security in his tenure. If he goes to the bank for capital to engage in improvements on grazing lands he simply cannot get the money on the basis of a one-year term. I think a minimum of five years with an option to renew for 10 years should be considered, and frankly I personally favour a much longer term.

So I would ask the Minister this along with the other questions regarding the Meyers Flat area, because this is a key case. What the Minister does in this case will indicate very strongly what the attitude of this government is going to be in the future. We can accept the fact that perhaps there was an error made in the department which I would assume the Minister would stand responsible for, but we can't tolerate this type of action longer, if agriculture in the form of cattle production in this province is going to be able to weather the difficult times that they're having now, and look forward to a degree of security in the future.

I believe the Minister should make public the reports upon which the upset price and the lease price for the Meyers Flat 160 acres of land was established. I would like to know in the future what authority he will be relying upon to establish these lease prices or upset prices.

I'd also like to just touch for a moment and ask the Minister's commitment for a stronger policy in the reclamation of agricultural lands which are lost by flooding. I'm not at this time because my colleague for Langley (Mr. McClelland) has spoken on the lower mainland area. I wish to address myself briefly to the interior of the province where lands on the Shuswap River, Adams River, any number of rivers in the central interior and certainly the northern interior are being eroded by flooding conditions which are increasing because of the encroachment of man and various forms of development.

One certainly wouldn't expect the government to assume all these costs, but I would like the Minister to undertake to make a stronger policy in terms of financial assistance as well as technical assistance to aid these producers. It seems positively sinful, while we face a world food shortage in many areas and the problems perhaps of overproduction in other areas, and the efforts that are being made on one hand, and then on the other hand for a balance in production, when we talk of the precious land of British Columbia, that we should be seeing literally thousands of acres eroded and lost to flooding. It's a massive undertaking; no one expects it to happen overnight. But with modern techniques I believe that we could expedite this programme and that a commitment of money to the water rights branch at this time would be helpful.

I'm not familiar with the exact budget that is established for this year, but I understand it won't even take care of prior commitments, and those requesting assistance this year won't have an opportunity to have any assistance at all. I urge the Minister to shuttle some of his money and increase the input in this area.

I'd like to also mention a matter in relation to the constituency I represent. I think it's a shame. It does involve Cosens Bay and the Coldstream Ranch. There's nothing I'd rather do than stand up and praise this Minister for carrying to conclusion this purchase, but I feel very sad that the Minister chose to tarnish what should be a very proud moment by flaunting it in the political arena.

[ Page 3008 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: That was shocking.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes it is shocking, Mr. Minister. I think this shows how completely insensitive the Minister is to the general attitude of people outside his particular riding. The Minister chose to announce this purchase at an NDP political meeting to a very few people at a time when the valley itself is deeply concerned....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Aldermen were there and all kinds of people.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Minister, I suggest you talk to them because they feel very upset. They feel upset that the Minister has tarnished what should be, as I say, a jubilant time for everyone concerned on this. Contrary to what the Minister's ego keeps telling him, people have worked on this project for years.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Some not quite hard enough.

MRS. JORDAN: Of course, the Minister's answer would be to just confiscate the land; this is what he likes to do. But those who worked on it before, Mr. Minister, felt that a sale between a willing buyer and a willing seller was important.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It hurts, doesn't it?

MRS. JORDAN: No it doesn't hurt at all.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Sure it does. Come on now!

MRS. JORDAN: You talk to Mr. Bud Anderson, you talk to Mr. Eldon Seymour, you talk to Miss Lydia Bishop, you talk to Mayor Russ Postill, you talk to Alderman John Kosty, Mr. Minister, and then you will find out what's disturbing the people up there. You had the golden opportunity to emerge as a hero; unfortunately you stumbled over your own ego.

For the record, Mr. Chairman, I am going to review a few details. Contrary to what the Minister would have his close followers believe, the first person to actively engage in the acquisition or the thought of the acquisition of Cosens Bay for public use was not the Minister, was not the Member of the NDP; it was not anyone he knows. It just happens to be a local guy who is a rancher, a farmer, who has worked all his life, who took a look at that land years ago in the 1950s — Mr. Bud Anderson — and felt that there should be an effort made to have this land acquired by the public when the owners chose to sell it. It was he who took the then MLA, Hugh Shantz, and Mr. Kiernan, who was the then Minister of Agriculture, out to view the land. It was in those years, Mr. Minister, that overtures were made by Mr. Bert Hoffmeister, who was then the agent-general in London, to the Buchanan family, that it was the desire of the people of British Columbia to have this land for public use when they chose to sell it. They chose not to sell it; that was their right.

The land was being properly managed and it was being used for agriculture. But it was conceded that this should be public land and the government of the day was given the letter of first refusal. It moved off and on through the years.

When I came into office, it wasn't my idea that this should become a public park, but it was certainly my commitment to continue all effort to see that when it was sold, it would go to the people of British Columbia.

In the ensuing years Mr. Burt Hoffmeister has played a role. Mayor Russ Postill, the mayor of Colstream, the municipality in which the majority of this land lies, and the man who was completely excluded from any of the Minister's thinking, worked towards the acquisition of this land. It was Alderman John Costi. It was a private citizen by the name of Eldon Seymour who took a plane and a camera and devoted his time and effort to doing a complete series of aerial photographs of this land, which are today housed in the Department of Recreation of Conservation, and which I'm sure the Minister used in some of his presentations.

There were meetings set up between the Minister of Recreation — Mr. Kiernan at the time — and the board of directors, including a late director, Mr. Philip Sterling of Vernon, who was dedicated to seeing that when this land was finally sold it should, in fact, go into public hands. There was a commitment given by him that this opportunity should be achieved by the provincial government.

The Minister made it somewhat distressing to the local people when he announced it, he took it upon himself to suggest that he had made the overtures to the Second Century Fund.

I would like to record for this debate a number of letters, which I won't go into in detail. One of the letters is from Neil Realty in Vernon, dated March 9, 1972, which did an overview and assessment of the value of that land on a voluntary basis. I would like to put into the record a letter from Mr. George Nealy, April 14, 1971, who was chairman of the reactivation of the Cosens Bay committee. For the record I will just read a portion of these minutes because it was at this meeting that a number of community people were involved, including: Mr. Bob Aarons, director of the parks branch; Mrs. R.J. Woodly; Miss Lydia Bishop; Mr. Ross Whitney; Mr. Al Desimone, fish and wildlife; Mr. Norman Spackman, naturalists' club. There was Miss Lori King representing the students; there were people from small businesses.

It was this group, Mr. Chairman, who put together

[ Page 3009 ]

a very impressive slide-presentation documentary which was shown to service clubs and to Members of the government in order to stimulate public interest in the purchase of this land. At the same time, overtures were constantly being made to the Buchanan family and the directors of the Coldstream Ranch that this land should be purchased and made available for public use. It was to the dismay of all those who were interested to find out that, in fact, some of the directors from British Columbia were not as enthusiastic as were other directors and the public involved.

However, there was a meeting that took place in 1971 between Mr. Kiernan and the late Phillip Sterling. At this time it was made very clear by the then Minister of Recreation and Conservation that this land was to be for public use, but the government would not enter into any confiscation programme, they wished to settle on an arbitrated price from a willing seller to a willing buyer.

I would like to read into the record a letter from me to the Hon. Jean Chretien, dated June 22, 1971, in which the MLA for North Okanagan, with the support of the then federal Member, Mr. Doug Stewart, requested the assistance of the federal government and any interest they wished to show in acquisition of the park and also the incorporating of the Grizzly Mountain area as a major contribution by the federal government in this development.

There is a letter from Mr. Chretien to the Hon. Patricia J. Jordan, Minister without Portfolio, Province of British Columbia, of July 16, 1971, in which, in essence, he offered the assistance of his staff and his support in trying to assist us in the acquisition of this land.

There is a letter to Major-General B.M. Hoffmeister, as of July 13, 1971, from the North Okanagan MLA, Patricia J. Jordan, which says:

"During a conversation with the Hon. Jack Davis, Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, the Minister advised you would be chairman of the new Second Century Fund for British Columbia. Both Mr. Davis and I felt the purchase of Cosens Bay on Kalamaka Lake, when it came up for sale, would be of interest to you and your assistance would be much appreciated."

And so on. I won't go into all the details. The correspondence is available to anyone.

I feel that Mr. Hoffmeister's visit and interest in this area should be congratulated, and I have little doubt his influence had a great deal to do with redirecting the Minister from some of the programmes that he suggested for Cosens Bay after his election as Minister.

I would also like to put in the record the Minister's own report when he was hired by the Coldstream council for a very handsome fee to do a planning scheme for the Coldstream Valley. At that time when he sat in opposition as the champion of the preservation of land for the people, he recommended that Cosens Bay be purchased by the provincial government in cooperation with the federal government for the people of British Columbia. We applauded this report and we appreciated his support. But, oh my, how the tiger changed his stripes when he became Minister. All of a sudden he didn't feel that it should be purchased by the provincial government and the other senior government. He felt that the local people should cough up the dough. Mr. Minister, that's where you and I had a falling out because as far as the MLA for North Okanagan....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's the only time.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, it was the only time, and I look forward to a long and harmonious planning relationship with the people of this area and you in the wise use of this land for the public of British Columbia.

However, Mr. Minister, now that we have overcome your efforts to make the local people make a financial contribution to this area and the land has been purchased, I congratulate the Minister for purchasing it, and I hope from now on he has learned a lesson and that he will open his attitude to the people of this area. Frankly, the council in which this land lay and the people who worked very hard initially on hoping to achieve this land can't understand why this Minister wouldn't take them into his confidence and why he would entrust this to a few select individuals who happened to carry the same political card that he did. I would suggest to you, Mr. Minister, that a continuation of this attitude will destroy the goodwill that should develop through the purchase of this land.

I would like a commitment from the Minister tonight that he will put it out of the political arena. I think he stood up this afternoon and pleaded with the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) not to enter into politics on one particular discussion and to accept it at its face value and work with him, and I now ask the Minister to drop the political facade, get on with the proper use of this land and involve the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford).

It is quite interesting to the people of our area that the news release that came out from the Minister at that political meeting.... Oh, yes, I must say this. He said so boldly what a wonderful government he represented and what a wonderful Minister he was and how the MLA for the area had never done anything about parks in the area in six years as a Minister of the Crown and that there were no park lands in the North Okanagan. Mr. Minister, I don't want to discuss it too much, but for your information 

[ Page 3010 ]

I would just like you to know that in 1971 the Crown provincial, the Government of British Columbia, the then Social Credit administration, with the assistance of many local people in the Lumby-Mabel Lake area, and with some effort on the part of the MLA for North Okanagan, acquired one of the most beautiful park sites in British Columbia, and that's known as the Mabel Lake park. That was the Siglet Shields property, a beautiful piece of waterfront covered with marvelous pine trees.

They made a commitment to the people of this area that there would be a five-year development plan, which died in its tracks when the NDP took over. On this point I would like to ask the Minister, in view of the fact that he's controlling the Department of Recreation and Conservation, to proceed with the commitment made by the former administration.

It was the former MLA who had a map reserved and a freeze put on the Mabel Lake area in order that the provincial government could consolidate the Crown holdings, that there would not be alienation of those shorelines from people outside British Columbia and who initiated the study, which I hope will eventually result in the declaration of the north end of Mabel Lake as a wildfowl sanctuary. And there was the MLA who encouraged the former administration to buy an extension to Ellison Lake Park, to release two areas of the Okanagan forestry reserve for parkland, that aided in the development of three ecological areas within the district, including one in Shuswap, and one to be used by our schools. It was the same Member who encouraged and took part in the development of Manning community park, Oyama community park and Justice Court, which I'm sure the Minister wouldn't have the courage to stand up and say he saw and admired. The Swan Lake wildfowl preserve. Mr. Minister, lots of people have worked before you got here, and lots will work after you leave. But the important thing is that these lands are designated for people and that they are not confiscated...

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Confiscated?

MRS. JORDAN: ...but bought in good faith and utilized for the public benefit.

Just before stopping on Cosens Bay, I would like an assurance from the Minister that he isn't going to utilize Cosens Bay park area as part of a sewage disposal programme for the city of Vernon, as he advised might well happen, and also that in the development of this area there will be no housing, there will be no intrusion by organized recreational facilities and that it will essentially be kept as an area for people and for leisure recreation.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think in view of the response of some of our Members, no comment may be necessary.

MR. WALLACE: That was one of the biggies.

MRS. JORDAN: You wouldn't know, living in Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Meow, meow, meow, meow. Laughter.)

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It just makes me think of Macbeth, you know. Sort of "Out, out, damned spot" or whatever it is.

MRS. JORDAN: No, it's "Out, out, damned NDP."

Interjections.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I accept that in the spirit in which it's given.

You know, this seems to be an annual kind of get-together which the Hon. Member for North Okanagan and myself share.

Interjections.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I almost hesitate to repeat it but I think it's necessary in view of all of the weighty evidence that was given to Hansard a few minutes ago.

MRS. JORDAN: I've got a lot more if you'd like it.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I've yet to write a letter to myself, so I have nothing to contribute in that vein. I must say that if the government of the day, with a Minister from the North Okanagan and a Premier from the South Okanagan, really cared about Cosens Bay, they would have seen to it that it was acquired and preserved as a park in perpetuity. If they had done so, then we might well have been talking about a purchase price that was, what? — a quarter of what we ended up paying as a government.

We ended up paying pretty well $2 million for the Cosens Bay land. It's worth it, but that was the price agreed upon between the government and the sellers. The Member is so tied up in her own kind of narrow ideology that she finds it necessary to talk about confiscation. This was a one-year negotiating process — a year of negotiation. We took it that seriously. We saw it as that important, in terms of the greenbelt fund acquisition, that we were prepared to carry on negotiation for a full year. Now if there'd been that kind of attitude by that former Minister, when she had so few real responsibilities as a cabinet Minister Without Portfolio — if she'd only put in 10 per cent

[ Page 3011 ]

of her time during her tenure as a Minister — I'm sure she could have seen to it that the land was obtained, and probably the price would have been 25 per cent of what this government finally agreed to pay — that is, the negotiated price agreed to by the seller and the buyer. That's the system that we accept in this society at this time.

But, you know, the Member says she wrote Jean Chretien and said that, really, this is a worthwhile spot, and she talked to Jack Davis and said the same thing. But obviously, when she talked to the old moneybags, W.A.C., she just got nothing but deaf ears. I don't know if she ever got the opportunity to talk to him. I haven't heard of many people that did, in terms of obtaining money for important things, in terms of preserving the landscape, even in terms of preserving the landscape in his own beautiful Okanagan Valley.

Since we've become government, we have ignored politics, my dear, and have seen fit to it that expenditures took place in the Okanagan on a scale like they've never taken place before in terms of saving key waterfront, prime recreation land. While you can talk about Mabel Lake — it's attractive indeed — it doesn't come anywhere near the value and quality for the broad public of Cosens Bay or Kalamalka Lake.

MRS. JORDAN: Who said it did?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Why, I just had that feeling from your statement, when you were trying to list your own achievements. But now if you agree that it doesn't come anywhere near the NDP government's efforts in preserving parkland in the Okanagan, I accept your comments graciously.

Not only have we preserved at Cosens Bay some 2,500 acres of magnificent land in the North Okanagan, but just in the last week, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) announced a joint sharing programme (good Lord!) in the City of Kelowna on Mission Creek. The little old man from Ethel Street never gave that kind of money to the City of Kelowna during his 20 years as MLA for the riding.

MRS. JORDAN: He didn't draw $50,000 a year!

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: He didn't think Mission Creek was important enough to preserve, but this government did. In addition we established Okanagan Park, the great Okanagan Park in the central Okanagan, again in Kelowna. In addition we acquired Rattlesnake Island, off the point at Okanagan Mountain.

MRS. JORDAN; You didn't have to.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We added that to the Okanagan park facility. Now the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) is looking very carefully, along with the Environment and Land Use Committee, at the Cathedral Lakes. Clearly we have taken the matter of the need for recreation space in the Okanagan extremely seriously. But it isn't just a matter of writing letters to ourselves; it's hard work. You actually have to deal with these hard-nosed businessmen and you have to work with them to the point where you get an agreement, and that's pure, old-fashioned hard work. That's the way you achieve these things. It's as simple as that.

I'll let the former Minister in on the road to success. It's the kind of old speech WAC would have given, but it's as valid today as it was for him 50 years ago: good old hard work is the way to do it. Good old hard work is why we have Cosens Bay as a park. Good old hard work is why we have Mission Creek as a park. Good old hard work is why we have Okanagan Mountain as a park. Good old hard work is why we're looking very carefully at the opportunities at Cathedral Lakes.

You know, the interesting thing about the files that the Hon. Member reviews is that we looked at the files and I had a bit of trouble in my office because when we became government I found they were all empty. The former Minister decided they were all just personal material and all the files went with him; a great big truck came and took it all away.

MRS. JORDAN: Are you saying that the Cosens Lake file is not in your department?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No.

MRS. JORDAN: Or the Department of Recreation and Conservation? Then tell the truth.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm telling the truth. I know it's hard to believe, but I am telling the truth, The Minister of Lands and Forests took all his files with him; the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (and for a short period I did hold that portfolio) left his files here. That's the difference. One Minister left the files; the other took them all away.

The files, however, that the Minister of Recreation and Conservation left with us gave no indication of a confirmation of a first refusal from the British interests that held the Coldstream land, and they gave no indication of a serious, conscientious, continuous effort to obtain those lands for the public. There's no evidence of that kind of activity. There is no evidence of the good old-fashioned hard work that I was talking about, because if there had been that would have been a park long ago. So I can understand it

[ Page 3012 ]

hurting a little.

MRS. JORDAN: It doesn't hurt me.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, I don't know why we would have had the lengthy speech that we had if it didn't hurt a little. I'll tell you, if I had been a Minister Without Portfolio in the former government with not a heck of a lot to do other than crocheting and knitting, I would have spent quite a bit of time and conscientious effort to see to it that that park was preserved during my tenure of office. I guess the proof of the pudding is in the eating — it just didn't happen. It happened under this government, and that's something all of us should be proud of.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, now that we've heard the Minister's typical dissertation on his great accomplishments and achievements...and I might add that it certainly doesn't sound very good for the PNE in Vancouver because quite obviously the Minister is going to utilize his backhanded and type of tactics to get the PNE as a park for his own constituency. That's where we differ.

Mr. Minister, let it be clearly understood that if you had carried out at that time what you claim should have been carried out, then you would have had no alternative to expropriate that land from the Coldstream Ranch — and make no mistake about it! That land was not for sale. That land was part of a viable ranch unit — cattle ranching. That land was being well managed in the nature of grazing land, and it was very clear — the public know it in the Okanagan and it's only the Minister who clouds the issue — that that land was not for sale.

The government of the past did not believe in breaking up viable ranch units as quite obviously this Minister does. They did not believe in expropriating land from ranchers unless it was an absolute essential matter of public good need.

Mr. Minister, your statements tonight certainly augur poorly for the ranchers of this province because you have made it very clear, and you know as well as I know, that the Cosens Bay area only came up for sale shortly before the Minister's assumption of office...

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh!

MRS. JORDAN: ...and that he did, indeed, follow through after he got over this idea of trying to make the local people pay for it.

But let's not distort the facts. What augurs badly for the future of the ranchers is that the Myers Flat incident and Mrs. Thomas obviously are not exceptions in this province, and that if this Minister has his way, quite obviously he is going to confiscate land from viable ranching units in this province.

I want to pledge here and now that this party will fight tooth and nail to see that the ranchers of this province have the right to manage lands in a proper agricultural manner and that they have the right to first refusal of those lands in order to maintain viable ranchers.

Just one last comment while the Minister is busy patting himself on the back. He can certainly take another bow from me if he will do a recreational review of the Grizzly Hills provincial forest area with a view to bringing it into concert with the Cosens Bay area. I would ask him why, when he was praising himself, he didn't make clear that he excluded the Deep Lake area from this land acquisition.

I would like to go on record again as asking this Minister: (1) why they did not purchase that area, which obviously has to be included as part of this park area; and (2) to seek his assistance in seeing that this is acquired in the future as part of the Cosens Bay park.

Then I would like to have his answers to some of the other questions on grazing I posed to him.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I would just like to mention one thing to the Minister. It is something I gave him a note about this afternoon. I have not been given the authority by the individual concerned to mention his name in the House, and I will not do so. But it deals with his mineral claims in the area of Stein River.

The individual concerned has been in touch with the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), who very kindly saw him, and was later referred to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford), who very kindly saw him, and now he is being referred to you.

I would just greatly appreciate it if you would kindly inform me tonight if you would please see this individual and try to assist him out of this impasse. He is in a situation of not being able to produce these claims, although it would appear, according to the information that I have received, that it is possible for him to do that under the provisions of the mineral laws of this province. He is also not able to sell his property. He is essentially economically stalemated. He is stalemated from a planning point of view.

I remember once before an exercise that went through the Attorney-General, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, and the Minister of Labour, dealing with amendments to a very archaic statute, the Woodsmen's Lien for Wages Act. It was constantly referred from one Minister to another for seven years, and is still without resolution. We still have an archaic....

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Well, no, as a matter of fact, you

[ Page 3013 ]

fall heir to that too because we still haven't had it rectified. The Woodsmen's Lien for Wages Act is still bouncing around between Minister and Minister.

But would the Hon. Minister, apart from the Woodsmen's Lien for Wages Act, please give an assurance to me tonight that I can tell this individual that he can see you? He has been treated somewhat as a ping pong ball through various levels of the civil service, according to what my information is.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, this is specifically involving the Stein River drainage. A moratorium was placed on Stein River drainage because of the concern of many groups with respect to its natural qualities. Various departments were to review the potential of the basin. The Environment and Land Use Secretariat, in turn, was to pull the material together and advise the committee.

At this stage the committee, in fact, has reviewed this individual's request and concluded that the kind of roads needed in that drainage basin would, in fact, appear to be extremely destructive and would have a considerable undesirable impact on the basin. So the conclusion of the committee, after review, is that the road proposal, which I think is the No. 1 problem, at this stage does not appear desirable. The committee has not endorsed the idea.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

On the prospect of meeting with the individual, through — I certainly would be willing to meet with him and discuss the matter. But it is one of these matters that falls between several departments. There is the Recreation and Conservation jurisdiction in terms of their values; there is the Lands branch jurisdiction because of management of such lands: the Forest Service, and of course the Mines department. But the conclusion of the cabinet committee, at this stage at any rate, is that the development of a road system in the basin would not be justified.

The Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) asked again regarding the Haynes Flats area. I see she's left. We are prepared to make evaluation material public. We are reviewing the whole matter, however, A private appraisal and a land branch appraisal will both be made public. This is presently under the jurisdiction of the water resources service because it's within the South Okanagan lands project, which is under the jurisdiction of the water resources branch. We are seriously considering a shifting of land management, however, in this area over to the lands branch, since these are matters in which the lands branch generally has greater expertise.

I think the Member for North Okanagan also asked regarding the McLean report and the Bulkley Valley being considered as a different geographical area. I think we see that as such. Once we establish a firm contract with the proposed adviser to the grazing division, I'm sure that groups that are not used to preparing written briefs, as she indicated, would feel at ease simply discussing the matter with our advisers. So we would certainly want to see our advisers available to individuals such as those she mentioned so that he could have that kind of input.

MR. GARDOM: I'd like to thank the Minister for his response, but could I mention this to the Hon. Minister? It's my understanding that this individual acquired these claims prior to this freeze, which is an order-in-council freeze, and the net result, particularly in what you've stated tonight, means that he's become economically hamstrung. Under those circumstances — you say he can't put in roads — this means he cannot mine. He has his investment in there; you've essentially pulled down the blind on him. You've changed the ground rules under these circumstances. Would you be prepared to see that he could receive some kind of fair compensation? What you have essentially done is expropriated his operation.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: The Hon. Minister says "no." His operation was supposed to be a mining operation. If he cannot mine and utilize those claims and bring them to production, which I gather he's got to do under the existing mining laws of this province, not only have you expropriated his operation but he's in penalty if he doesn't produce. It's a very awkward and anomalous situation.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I certainly can't speak for the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) but in a situation like this I can't help but feel that with the steps by other government departments in terms of affecting this basin, his performance.... I'm sure that the Minister would give it some consideration in view of the changes.

In addition, there are other means of access to the area. There is a road and another drainage basin behind the basin itself. So in fact he could get access by another route. That situation can be looked after.

MR. GARDOM: If that's possible, it would indeed be appreciated that you could see him. As I say, he's received a very kind and thoughtful hearing from the Minister of Mines. I'm not too sure how far he went with the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford). But it has ended up in your lap, according to your two Ministers, so the opportunities for solution, Mr. Minister, rest with you. I should have at least the undertaking that the three of you are going to try to help this man out.

[ Page 3014 ]

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, concerning the stock option plan for the shareholders of Can-Cel: the Minister announced the purchase of 272,400 by the government during January and February. The announcement was after some speculation that it was for an employees' share-option purchase plan. Later on a press release statement on March 24, the company spokesman for Can-Cel said that they had had discussions in the fall but hadn't participated in this decision, but it's understood that the government would be willing to sell the shares.

I just want to know from the Minister if this stock option plan has taken place, if the 272,400 shares have been transferred to B.C. Cellulose, if they have been transferred to Can-Cel for a stock option plan, if the plan has taken place....

Interjection.

MR. BENNETT: Did we? Oh, I wasn't here. Has that already been covered?

AN HON. MEMBER: I think it has been.

MR. BENNETT: I'm sorry, that's fine. I'll get it out of the Blues.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would just like to have the Minister's comments on the route of the power line from Site 1 down to the....

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: No.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Are they going to get power?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, down to Kennedy. This route is going to go through a completely virgin area. Although there seems to be some justification for it from the consultations, I am concerned that we are not following the corridor which was established some years ago to handle power lines, the railway, the oil pipeline, and the gas pipeline. Now we seem to be making a deviation from this corridor which was established, and we are going through a completely new area. There has been a lot of objection in the area about this particular route. I am just wondering if the Minister is aware of it. Has he given any consideration to it? Hydro seems to be in favour of it.

I think that we are going to open up a completely new area by putting this high-voltage transmission line through there, an area that probably should be left in its natural state. It's no good for agriculture; it's a wildlife habitat. As soon as you put that new corridor through there with the transmission line, it makes it accessible to snowmobiles and four-wheel drive vehicles, and I think you are going to ruin an area that is presently a winter land for moose. I think you are going to ruin part of that area. You seem to be greatly concerned about the environment in British Columbia, yet because of a few extra dollars for this power line, why are we moving in this direction?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, the process that is now required with respect to power lines involves various agencies again, and that's changed. It also involves public information meetings in the area, so this is still, as I understand it, at a preliminary stage in terms of any final decision. We want the input from the various departments and from Hydro. We want the local input and then the matter is reviewed by the Environment and Land Use Secretariat. If it is still a major area of conflict, it's reviewed by the Environment and Land Use Committee. But it hasn't really got up to those levels yet, so it means that it is at a preliminary state, as I understand it.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're assuring me that the decision hasn't been made yet, and that there will be further consultations, regardless of the fact that environment consultant, Thurber Consultants Ltd., advise that the Moberley route could be used in an environmentally responsible way and recommended this alternative. Hydro seems to be in favour of this alternative.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It might well be. You know, these things are always trade-offs and it may well be the most reasonable, considering the various trade-offs that we have to face. But I am saying that it hasn't really got to the level where a final decision has been made.

MR. FRASER: I just have a few more questions for the Minister.

The Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) doesn't know how to spell Baezaeko, and for the benefit of Hansard it is spelled B-a-z-e-k-o. The Member is not here now, of course, but he was very concerned that I didn't know how to spell it. I admitted that, and have spelled it now.

Regarding that area, the north Chilko unit, that has been allocated to Plateau Sawmills, I am not clear. I asked earlier today about the road south from Vanderhoof in to Kluskus, and he said that 13 miles had been built and 17 miles are to be built in 1975. I really wanted the dollars and cents cost for the 13 miles, and an estimate for the 17 miles. That's one question. I believe the very excellent accountant for the Forest Service is here, so no doubt he has those figures and I would appreciate them.

I just want to say this about the North Chilko

[ Page 3015 ]

working circle that was allocated to the government's sawmill, Plateau; it wasn't any small item, this quota, this 13 million cubic foot per annum cut that was involved. That is an enormous amount of timber which, in my opinion, never should have been allocated to the north; it should have been allocated to the cast. Inside of about two years it will very definitely affect the economy of the total Cariboo forest operation.

In view of that I would like to know what plans the Minister and the Forest Service have for replacing that quota they have stolen from the Cariboo operators and given to the government Plateau Mill at Vanderhoof. It's a direct subsidy to the Plateau Sawmill operation, and it never should have been allocated in the first place. The road is certainly a subsidy to that operation and there is no reason at all for it. No wonder Plateau shows a large profit — they pay no income tax, charge their road systems to the public purse instead of paying for them out of their operations. Boy, nobody could miss with a situation like that.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Yeah, you're a one-shot guy, and you can't even make use of the lumber that this Minister we're debating manufactures through his side of it. You don't even know how to put a house together. You haven't built any houses yet. We've had lots of Casa Lomas and that, but we haven't had very many houses built.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member address the Chair, please?

MR. FRASER: Thank you. Bring that Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) to order because he's completely out of order in so many ways I hate to mention.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: One more thing. I think maybe I'm out of order on this, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, the logging tax is administered, I believe, by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), but I wonder if, again, there's any discussion by the Minister of Lands regarding the logging tax and how it affects the industry. I just have a short quotation to make here about this:

"The way the regulations of this Act are being enforced, a partnership, wherein the partners are active workers, is not allowed any deductions from income in calculating profits for wages earned by the working partners.

"For example, we are a small operation — two partners working alone without any other employees — logging from stump to dump on our own timber. Last year our gross earnings, on 2,100 units of wood delivered to Canadian Cellulose Co., was $54,000. Expenses, other than wages taken, amounted to $26,000, leaving a profit, according to the assessor of the Logging Tax Act, of $28,000, taxable at 15 per cent. You notice that this allows nothing for the cost of labour to produce these revenues. Had we not worked ourselves, but hired outside persons to do this work, then we would not have had this profit.

"If we were incorporated as a private company, our reasonable wages would be deductible as an expense in determining profits before taxes. Why should this not also be so in a proprietorship or a partnership? It's grossly unfair."

I realize it's administered by the Minister of Finance, but has there been any discussion going on with the Minister of Finance by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources?

During question period a month or so ago I asked a question about logs from the Hydro right-of-way clearing job between Telkwa and Terrace. The last information I had they're all decked, and there was some kafuffle about they couldn't get access for them out to market, so a decision was being made at that time to probably burn the logs. I think the Minister's had enough time — were those logs burned, or were they sold, as they should have been, and hauled off that right-of-way?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: With respect to the road south of Vanderhoof, current estimates are $700,000 for the system road — that is, for construction this year. That's the only data we have available right here.

I think it should be made clear that the province really has two choices, and it's six of one and half a dozen of the other, in terms of which is done, in terms of the ultimate benefit and in terms of the public purse in this resource. The public could build all of the major systems roads in that province, for example, and simply proceed and do that. Then the logging companies could use those roads, and they wouldn't get funds back because they wouldn't have constructed the roads.

One could, I think, readily make an argument for that kind of approach, province-wide. I think there are very strong arguments for moving in that direction. We presently have the other system now. The reason I can see the case for it is we have various resource agencies interested in protecting and preserving their own resources. That's commendable, but each of them carries with it a certain cost. You might well have one branch of government saying the roads should be built this way because we want to

[ Page 3016 ]

protect this particular value. It could be fisheries, or another habitat or something else, but it would be far superior, it seems to me, to have the various agencies looking at the funding available and then saying, with this funding, how can we optimize our return on all of our resources, instead of simply being able to say — as sometimes happens now — "Let's insist on that road going that way to protect this particular value, and we don't really care how much the cost is, within a fairly broad range." It seems to me we're not getting the most for our money, in terms of preserving all the resource values in that kind of circumstance.

So I hope, in another budget year, at least one forest district or resource management district might in fact be funded for system road construction at least, in the forest industrial sector, so that the fish and wildlife people, the Forest Service, the recreation people and other interest groups could jointly determine the best way of allocating these funds to maximize, or optimize, their own returns on their resource values.

For a technician or a professional person, I think it could be a very exciting, worthwhile exercise. At the moment, we are really not getting everything we can out of our staff and our talent and our money.

So with that kind of background, I don't really think it matters very much whether the Crown builds that road right now, whether Plateau Mills builds it, or whether any other company builds it. In the end, it is the public that pays; it is as simple as that. In the end, it is the public that pays. If the Crown pays for this road now, it means that we will get higher stumpage when the trees come out. It is six of one and half-a-dozen of the other. I make no apologies for taking this approach with respect to the Kluskus. I would like to see it applied on a broader scale in other parts of the province as well. On the Telkwa one, I had asked for the information some time ago and I am sorry I just don't have it. But I did make the request.

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

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think that's your riding, Mr. Member. The First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): That was a very nice try up front there but I want to thank the Chairman for being able to recognize backbenchers in the House.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday I questioned the Minister about some park property that citizens in Vancouver have been battling for for some 13 years. It was with respect to Jericho Beach lands and the agreement of the federal government to turn these lands over for park purposes to the people of Vancouver. In question were two lots, 4565 and 5098, Group 1, New Westminster District, situated south of Jericho Beach.

These are two provincial government lots on which are located a number of hangars formerly belonging to the federal government, and key waterfront lots for the development of a park for the use of everyone in the lower mainland. It is the choice beach waterfront property in that area. At least one newspaper — and I refer to the afternoon press — completely missed the point, Mr. Chairman, that this land had been taken over by the federal government and was returned to the provincial government with the expectation that that property would be turned over the park purposes. The mayor of Vancouver wrote to the provincial government on March 30, 1973, requesting that the provincial government fulfil the obligations given by the former Social Credit administration to the effect that that land would be turned over to the City of Vancouver at nominal rental for park purposes.

Mr. Chairman, at the time the City of Vancouver was given notification, there must have been correspondence between the federal government and the provincial Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. What I am requesting the Minister to do now is to table that correspondence. Would the Minister make public what negotiations took place between the federal government that built the hangars on that property and the provincial government in Which federal rights were relinquished to the Province of British Columbia?

I just think that a point has been missed there by the afternoon press in realizing what the issue actually was. It could certainly be clarified if the Minister would table the missing correspondence.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Name names. You mean the Sun?

MR. McGEER: Well, I am not going to talk about the time of day, but I thought that the morning press got the point and the afternoon press completely missed the point.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The morning press quoted you and the afternoon press quoted me.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Minister, you are engaging in blackmail. You made that very clear with your vicious attack on the west side of the city...

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, ho, ho, ho.

[ Page 3017 ]

MR. McGEER: ...a vicious attack, Mr. Chairman, on the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), who owns waterfront property right adjacent to that Jericho Beach....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: It's waterfront property in the only privately-owned section of waterfront property in the City of Vancouver. The Attorney-General is hanging on to property that should be turned over to that Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources for park services. He is one of the villains living on the west side of the city, holding up waterfront people from the people on the east side of Vancouver — the Attorney-General.

SOME HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. McGEER: Oh yes, and the First Member for Vancouver-Buff and (Ms. Brown), he attacked her. She lives in an elegant area in Belmont overlooking Jericho Park.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: And the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), he is a resident of the west side; he lives in Point Grey, too. And the former leader of the NDP, Mr. Justice Thomas Berger, he is another great resident of Vancouver–Point Grey working against the people of east Vancouver.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We might win that riding yet.

MR. McGEER: The Attorney-General, the Minister of Human Resources, the First Member for Vancouver-Burrard, the former leader of the NDP — they're all the people who have stood against Vancouver East and the development of all these facilities that the Minister stood for yesterday in blackmailing the City of Vancouver.

I don't know whether he wanted a beach created there in the middle of Empire Stadium; I don't know whether he wanted that hockey rink moved out to Arbutus Park or something like that, but I do know, Mr. Chairman, that that Minister is sitting on correspondence from the federal government where there was a clear indication — a commitment entered into — by the former Social Credit administration to give that beachfront to the people of Vancouver. Who's denying it? Why, it's the Member for Vancouver East (Hon. R.A. Williams). Who is he punishing? He's punishing the Attorney-General, the Minister of Human Resources, the First Member for Vancouver-Burrard, the former leader of the NDP — those are the people that Minister is punishing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: It's disgraceful, I tell you, when you turn against your own. It's disgraceful when you turn against your own.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): You know all about that, Pat.

MR. McGEER: I only ask that that Minister table the correspondence and tell us what that dirty old federal government did when it turned the property back to the provincial government — those mean old people. And the mayor of the City of Vancouver who had his crying towel out.... Can you imagine that? Sniveling over a park for the people of Vancouver East! I tell you, that mayor ought to come to his senses. All we ask is that the Minister table the correspondence.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Place it on the order paper.

MR. McGEER: Place it on the order paper!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, what a facetious remark.

MR. McGEER: Do you know what I put on the order paper, Mr. Minister? A question about slash burning. I put it in in October, 1972; in the spring of 1973; in the fall of 1973; in the spring of 1974; in the fall of 1974. Do you know what slash burning is all about? It's about pollution. That Minister was against pollution, but when he's asked a question on the order paper about pollution, he ignores it.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: He's one of the few Ministers who never answers questions on the order paper. The only thing he ever wanted was that the former Minister answer his questions. But he's different. Everybody else is supposed to answer questions but him; everybody else is supposed to answer mail but him; everybody else is supposed to table contracts but him. He's different. He's unique. He's the Member for Vancouver East and the lord and master of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

Mr. Chairman, he doesn't always even enforce his own orders. I'd like to raise another question, if I may, about that august Minister. I don't want to go into all the details of an issue that has been raised previously in the House about a kind of....

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Hear, hear!

MR. McGEER: Who said "hear, hear"? (Laughter.)

[ Page 3018 ]

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: You've got friends all around you, Pat.

MR. McGEER: That's very reassuring and I'm not going to impose on friendship and goodwill. But the....

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: "Don't stretch my luck," says the Member for Oak Bay, Mr. Member, you were the one who raised this issue and didn't really follow it through. This was with respect to an operation at Celista on....

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's that?

MR. McGEER: It's up there somewhere. (Laughter.) It's beyond Hope. (Laughter.)

MR. FRASER: The Liberals don't know anything about Hope.

MR. McGEER: Oh no, we're independents. Those days are over. (Laughter.) Naturally it's as an independent Member that I am raising these matters north and east of Hope. (Laughter.) This involves the....

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: No, our image is different now; we work for everybody now. This involves a very lovely area of British Columbia....

MR. WALLACE: Can't remember where it is, though.

MR. McGEER: No, no, I've got it right here. I've got a picture of it just in case I forget. (Laughter.) It's Celista ....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: How do you spell that?

MR. McGEER: Just a minute now, I can find it. (Laughter.) You don't think I've been around Shuswap Lake; I've been over every square inch of it, Mr. Minister.

There's a property called the Wilson property there....

AN HON. MEMBER: You were looking for the Liberals then.

MR. McGEER: I couldn't find any. I hunted everywhere — up and down the lake. (Laughter.)

Anyway, there may be independents and I'll perhaps go back hunting for them.

But, Mr. Minister, regardless of whether they are NDP, Social Credit, Conservative, Liberal or, best of all, independent, there is a problem on that lake involving the Wilson property. What's so reprehensible about the problem there is that property owners quite legitimately took a motel owner to court because in their view he was installing a septic tank in an area which was unsafe from a health point of view. It was a court case that has been discussed in the Legislature here, where the local Health official claimed that it was a safe operation but the former Health official in that same area, as well as the Health official from the adjoining area, both testified to the fact that it was unsafe.

In the middle of that court case the provincial government brought in order-in-council 278 on January 23 in effect rendering the court case null and void. I don't think the Minister of Health could have realized what he was doing; otherwise he would not have put that order forward.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member. I'm waiting for you to relate these remarks to the Minister's estimates.

MR. McGEER: Yes, and if you will just be patient, I am coming to that. I merely wanted to lay the background a bit for you so that you would understand the full implication of my next point. I've just arrived there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your courtesy.

MR. McGEER: I'm moving right along with dispatch. Not everybody does that, Mr. Chairman. The Premier, when he gets up to make a speech, brings in everything under the sun. He gives a wonderful performance, but he doesn't stick to the point. I endeavour to do that except when I am distracted by some of the backbenchers or the Chairman.

Now with respect to you, Sir, I would like to read a letter written by Robert Williams, Minister.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That's a collector's item.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: No, actually it's just "R." This is signed R. Williams, but there is a carbon copy to the Hon. Dave Barrett, Premier, and the Hon. Dennis Cocke (Minister of Health). This is to a Mrs. A. Craig:

"I refer to your letter of September 17 regarding the Celista Motel case and the misfortunes of Mr. and Mrs. Burton."

The Minister will be familiar with this letter.

[ Page 3019 ]

"The only jurisdiction of my department in this matter would appear to be the unauthorized placement of fill on Crown foreshore adjacent to motel property, and it is my understanding the instructions have been given by the local official of the Lands Service requiring the removal of this fill.

"Apart from this, the jurisdiction involved appears to be largely one of the Department of Health, and I understand that the department is in the process of amending its sewage disposal regulations to prevent a recurrence of this situation. The other matters referred to in your letter appear to require police investigation, and no doubt that is being pursued.

"In the circumstances, I can only express my sympathy for the misfortunes which have occurred to the Burtons."

Now, Mr. Chairman, the reason for my reading the letter is to point out that what the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) was doing was not amending the sewage disposal regulations to prevent the recurrence of this situation, but to legitimize it. Mr. Chairman, what the Minister of Health did was to pass order-in-council 278 which said it was okay, and in effect pulled the rug out from under the judge who was about to rule against what was going on.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Members....

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Nonsense! — and you know it. Why don't you speak on my estimates? Why his?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to relate his remarks more directly to vote 126.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You are not blaming me, are you?

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, what I've got here, and what I want to send over to the Minister is Picture 1.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I've seen those pictures.

MR. McGEER: Picture shows a dump truck....

HON. MR. COCKE: And you're driving it.

MR. McGEER: What it is doing is putting fill into Crown foreshore. This dump truck — and here is a picture of it — is doing exactly the opposite of what the Minister said in his letter of October 10. The Minister's letter says, "remove the fill," and picture 1 shows the fill being put in.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Can you believe it, Mr. Chairman? Here's the Minister's letter dated October 10, 1974, saying to remove the fill, and here's a picture of a dump truck putting the fill in.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That's not a provincial truck, is it?

MR. McGEER: Well, I don't know, but it's got a lot of dirt in it and it is going into Crown foreshore.

Now, Mr. Chairman, my next picture.... The Minister of Health was vanishing across the floor a minute ago, and I wasn't going to say anything about the Minister of Health until he interrupted, but the Minister of Health said: "You are wrong, and you know it." I have picture 2, Mr. Chairman, which shows a septic tank being put into this property.

I want you to observe this picture when I send it up to you, Mr. Chairman, and then I'd like you to pass it on to the Minister, because what this picture shows is where the septic tank has been placed.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: No, no, you missed the point. Right in this picture the septic tank is on dry land. Okay?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: If you say so, Pat.

MR. McGEER: Picture 3. It's not a question of saying so. I'm describing a picture. The Minister can see them.

HON. MR. COCKE: What were you doing two weeks ago? Where were you?

MR. McGEER: Picture 3.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Your university training has gone to your head.

MR. McGEER: Picture 3, Mr. Chairman. No, no, no. We're just going to send the evidence.

You know, that's an interesting thing, Mr. Chairman. The Minister implied that it needs university training to look at these pictures. They're pretty self-evident. Picture 3 is a picture of the same area taken the year before, which shows it all under water. In other words, what we've got here is a picture of the area under water taken a couple of

[ Page 3020 ]

years ago, the picture of the area that was under water now having a septic tank which kind of refutes what the Minister said — that it was all perfectly safe. This is what the court case was all about.

Finally, there's the letter from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources saying that the septic tank was quite clearly placed in an unsafe position. These pictures prove that. They broke another law placing fill on government foreshore. The Minister writes a letter on October 10 saying to cease and desist; and here's the dump truck putting the fill in.

Now I don't think you need a university degree to figure this out. I think a child of two could figure it out.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That's why I can't understand it taking this long.

MR. McGEER; Well, Mr. Minister, I'm bringing it to your attention now. You wrote the letter on October 10, 1974. My question is: what the devil is going on in your department?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I don't believe the Hon. Member for Oak Bay has spoken for some time in this debate.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I'm raising the case of a man at Ladysmith whose problem was already raised by the present Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) some time ago. I won't go into all the details, but very briefly: this man bought property back in 1952 and he was aware of the fact that there was an oyster lease on the foreshore related to his property. The Minister's nodding; he probably knows the case I'm referring to.

This man is deeply disturbed and he's gone through a great deal of trouble over the fact that the lease was renewed without consulting the property owners in the neighbourhood.

Without going into all the details, the man subsequently got involved in litigation because be became exercised over what he felt was unfair treatment of his rights. The fact of the matter is that there's been a great deal of trouble on the property with the collection of oyster shells and problems with rat infestation and so on and so forth. But the key to the problem is that we have on file a letter from the former Minister, Mr. Ray Williston, admitting that when the lease was renewed in 1957 for 21 years, the manner in which the lease was renewed was illegal. In fact, the property owners should have been considered, and I gather that customary practice would be that if the nearby property owners had objected, then the lease would not have been renewed.

Now I'm not disputing the rights or wrongs of the legality of that position. But we do have on file a letter from the former Minister stating that.... If the Minister likes, the letter was September 24, 1964, file number 0133693. The situation now is that this gentleman, after many years of taking legal advice himself and consulting with Members of government, the former government and with the present Minister of Transport and Communications who tried to get some action, now feels that not only has he gone through all these trials but the property that he owns and the house that he built on one of the lots has been greatly depreciated. He feels that surely in the name of fair play he is entitled either to some compensation or at least that when the lease comes for renewal in 1978 — still three years away — on this occasion certainly the consent of the property owners in the district should surely be obtained.

From reading a large amount of the correspondence on file, personally I think that this man certainly hasn't had a fair deal. Mistakes may have been made. I think the man concerned might have over-reacted and some of what he said antagonized other people, but he was acting under stress and because he felt that he had been treated unjustly. I think that should be put aside in looking objectively at this situation in the hope that, perhaps, even at this late stage — he bought the property in 1952 — the government might consider some means of compensating this man.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Normally, say, for example, with log-booming areas or areas such as that, there would be a requirement to check with the riparian owner and get their approval. I take it that in fact in this instance there were leases at the time he acquired the land or developed it. In addition, oyster leases generally tend to be not tied to the riparian or the edge where the water meets the land, whereas log-booming leases frequently do. Oyster leases tend to be somewhat further out from the actual high-water mark, so I think the technicians would probably argue that there is that kind of basic difference, so his riparian rights are not directly affected — that is, the right to the bank is maintained, the oyster leases out from the bank where the land meets the water.

At any rate, I do think there — is a case for a consultation. I think probably the best hope at a stage like this would be for us to get the details from the Hon. Member, and at least give the assurance that the matter will be put on file so that at the next renewal stage it would be taken up with the upland owner.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very

[ Page 3021 ]

much the recognition tonight. I have a few questions which I want to ask.

The Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) reminded me again that I haven't received any answers, any positive reaction or positive action on the part of the Minister regarding the destruction of a historical Indian name in my riding. I am not about to give the entire speech that I have given so eloquently in past sessions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Chabot, here we go! (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: Even my members say: "Here we go!"

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You did give it eloquently.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, thank you very much, but I am not about to repeat it.

MR. WALLACE: Thank goodness for that.

MR. CHABOT: Well, we have heard from the lone Conservative in British Columbia — the only member in good standing of the Conservative Party in this province.

MR. WALLACE: No, we got a new member today, the president of the Esquimalt group.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, are we going to tolerate these kind of objections so close to the chairmanship of this House?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would like to request that the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) only interject from his own seat.

MR. CHABOT: From his seat and from no one else's seat or standing next to the Chairman.

MR. McGEER: We request that he not interject at all.

MR. CHABOT: Right.

Anyway, just very recently I wrote a letter to the Minister — it wasn't that eloquent; it was to the point though. It suggested that one of my constituents suggested that the name be restored on that historical lake up in my riding, and which has been destroyed by that government. I sent the letter on. I acknowledged the letter from my former constituent, and told her I certainly would raise her objection to the destruction of a historical Indian name in this province to the Minister, and that I am sure that he would see that sanity prevailed and that the name Kinbasket be restored.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You're in the wrong location for that kind of assurance.

MR. CHABOT: The old chief was a great chief and he was very helpful to those early white explorers who came to this province — explorers such as David Thompson. He was honoured by David Thompson, that great geographer and explorer in British Columbia. He was honoured by the naming this body of water, Kinbasket Lake.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You said you weren't going to repeat that speech.

MR. CHABOT: Well, I'm not really. I was just giving a preamble, just a few words about it.

But I hope that the Minister has had a chance to reconsider the untimely and unfortunate decision that he has made by renaming that lake McNaughton Lake. The name McNaughton doesn't lend itself to the Columbia River treaty because everyone knows that McNaughton stood alone...

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's really your fault.

MR. CHABOT: ...against the treaty as it was signed between United States and Canada.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: If you hadn't supported the treaty it wouldn't have happened. It's your McNaughton Lake.

MR. CHABOT: Do you want me to speak about the Columbia River treaty the rest of the night? I will. But I want to say that General McNaughton stood alone against the Columbia River treaty as it was signed.

I don't know whether the Minister feels he owes a debt of gratitude to McDougall who had searched the offices of B.C. Hydro for months to try to find some evidence of hanky-panky between the provincial government and B.C. Hydro relative to the Columbia River treaty. Unfortunately, there wasn't too much evidence there. He found a highly confidential document which was typed on a few years later, mind you. But, you know, even though McDougall came out from Dalhousie University, he had great difficulty in finding anything of any substance to help the Minister in his mission — this mission impossible — to prove that there was something wrong with the kind of relationship that took place, the kind of action that took place between the provincial government and Hydro, relative to the cost of the Columbia River treaty.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to leave that subject there. I hope that the Minister will take the advice of

[ Page 3022 ]

all the information that has been conveyed to him relative to this name, Kinbasket. He has never yet received one single letter suggesting that body of water be called McNaughton Lake, but I am sure that he received considerable correspondence suggesting that that old historical name, Kinbasket, be restored.

Now on to another subject, Mr. Chairman. On March 25 — talking about the Minister and his not answering correspondence - I wrote to the Minister. Certainly I received an acknowledgement, but that is some considerable period of time ago. I used to be very critical of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) and her willingness to reply to correspondence. I find that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources is a substantially greater violator in the lack of answering correspondence. Mind you, I have seen other governments operate as well. Gillespie in the federal government is about as slow in answering his correspondence as the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources in this province is.

The question that I pose is one dealing with the problem we are experiencing in one of the fishing areas in my constituency where land was offered to the Crown provincial and was....

Just one moment, Mr. Chairman. I'm being distracted by the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) out of his seat reading the newspaper. I was wondering if that is tolerated in the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member is correct that it is not considered proper to read newspapers in the House. Would the Hon. Member continue, please?

MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member to address the Chair, please.

MR. CHABOT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My concern was the fact that private land on Whiteswan Lake, a very prominent fishing lake in my constituency, had been offered to the Department of Recreation and Conservation and they fumbled and burnbled along and nothing took place until the land fell into the hands of private ownership.

We do have an area which is held in the name of the Forest Service on Whiteswan Lake, an area in the vicinity of 30 acres. I am wondering whether the Minister would be willing to make a commitment that this land would be turned over to the Department of Recreation and Conservation, parks branch, for the establishment of a campsite on Whiteswan Lake. I think it is important that something of this nature take place.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You want another park?

MR. CHABOT: No, I am not asking for a park. Listen, I have enough parks. The Minister doesn't want me to repeat how many parks you have in my riding. Would you believe, Mr. Minister, that within the community in which I reside, a little community in the East Kootenay, the community of Invermere, there are people pressuring me? I live on an acre and a half of land within that community. There are people who want that back half of my land turned into a park! (Laughter.) So you can imagine why I have a bit of a hang-up about parks. Nevertheless, I am a great supporter of parks as long as my private land is not made into a park.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You can turn your place into a beer bottle depot or something.

MR. CHABOT: But I want to speak very briefly again — and time doesn't permit me to be as lengthy as I would like to be — about article 13.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): If you turn it over to us, we will name it Kinbasket Park.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Your house would become wasteland.

MR. CHABOT: Article 13 of the Columbia River treaty is a great consternation and a concern to the people I represent. I am going to briefly outline to the Minister what article 13 of the treaty states.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I am aware of it.

MR. CHABOT: It has to do with the possible diversion of a certain volume of water from the Kootenay River into the Columbian River at Canal Flats at the height of land in the Columbia River Valley. That was part of the treaty in which for maximizing of power on Mica and subsequent downstream dams the B.C. government in its wisdom suggested that there was a need for the inclusion of this particular right within the framework of the treaty.

On the basis of non-diversion, of course, in 1984 or in subsequent years, Canada as a country is in a position to gain from the United States financial remuneration for non-diversion of the Kootenay River into the Columbia River.

Why there is concern at the moment in my riding is the fact that there have been preliminary examinations of the potential of diversion. I have a copy of the preliminary examination of the movement of 1.5 million acre-feet of water from the Kootenay into the Columbia, which is the equivalent of 70 per cent of the normal flow of the Kootenay River into the Columbia. I am sure the Minister

[ Page 3023 ]

realizes that a diversion of this nature would have detrimental effects on the potential of power generation on his existing dams on the Kootenay River. It would create a very serious problem in power generation on the Kootenay.

Not only would it create power problems on the Kootenay, but it would also — create a very serious pollution problem as well, because one has to realize that there are industries dumping their waste. The effluent is flowing into the Kootenay River with a 70 per cent removal of water flow. When you think of pulp mills, and you think of the residue of lead and zinc — the largest lead and zinc mine in the world — flowing into the Kootenay River, you can imagine the kind of desolation, the kind of pollution that would be created by a diversion of the Kootenay River.

Not only would there be a serious pollution problem created on the Kootenay River; there'd be a serious problem of high water in the area which I represent. You know, the Minister believes that my riding should be all parks — at least, the dry area within my constituency. Now they're considering the potential or the possibility of diverting part of the Kootenay River into the Columbia River so that what isn't dry and in parkland is water. There's nothing left in my riding.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You'd almost think it was a conspiracy, wouldn't you?

MR. CHABOT: I wouldn't think for a moment that you'd lay awake at night worrying about the kind of things, ways and means, of getting rid of the Member for Columbia River. I'm sure no one would want to do that because I believe that a diversion of the Kootenay River would be extremely detrimental. I can't visualize any real beneficial effects it would have. It would be seriously detrimental to the area.

There would be a necessity, I firmly believe, of either lifting the existing roadbed of the Canadian Pacific Railway through that area, or the relocation of that railway. And I'm sure the Minister realizes that relocating a railroad for some 75 or 80 miles would run into the millions of dollars. Not only would it be a matter of relocating the railroad, which is responsible for the movement of the Kaiser coal, the Coleman coal and all the other products manufactured in the southeastern part of the province, but the diversion would also affect the existing Highway 95 that runs through the area. There are bridges that would have to be replaced. The highway would have to be elevated.

We also are blessed with a substantial tourist summer home concept along Lake Windermere. We have 350 summer homes that pay taxes — substantial taxes. They don't get the benefit of the homeowner's grant. And it's beneficial to the commercial aspect of the community we have in the area.

Now also environmentally it would be extremely destructive because the Columbia Valley has always been regarded as a great nesting area, you know, for geese and ducks and so forth. You can imagine the environmental impact.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It would stabilize the water in the lakes.

MR. CHABOT: It would stabilize, and it would destroy the nesting area which presently exists in the area. In my opinion, it would have great social, economic and ecological destruction within the Columbia Valley which I represent. I have to admit that a diversion would generate additional power for Mica and its downstream dams, but the kind of cost that would be involved.... I'm not going to relate it to the cost that the Minister visualizes on the Pend-d'Oreille, or on Site 1 below the Peace, because those costs of power generation are a minimum of three and a half times what we're looking forward to on the Mica.

You can imagine the kind of costs that would be generated and the additional power that's going to be generated on the dams that exist in Canada by the relocation of a railway, the elevation of a highway, the removal of summer homes — 350 summer homes along the railway — plus the pollution that would be caused along the Kootenay, plus the destruction of the habitat of the waterfowl within the riding.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: What was the question?

MR. CHABOT: Now the question is: is this study the shades of the McNaughton plan? You know, the McNaughton plan was the Dore Dam down near Bull River and the Luxor Dam, which would put the whole area under water. That would have generated additional power, certainly, but at what cost? There was no justification when one looked at the cost for the additional power that would have been generated on Mica.

Now the question is: does the Minister seriously believe that there is a need, in view of the kind of disruption, ecological impact, social impact that will take place by a possible diversion of the Kootenay River...? Does the Minister seriously believe that there is justification for the diversion of the Kootenay River into the Columbia River?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, I don't think I could really comment at this time. I do, however, believe that detailed studies are needed in terms of weighing the costs and benefits of this option under the Columbia River treaty. So I appreciate the Members comments and his concerns, and I will reflect upon those when we consider other aspects as well.

[ Page 3024 ]

MR. CHABOT: Oh, I thought there would be something far more elaborate because we are going into a costly series of examinations. The preliminary survey, which I have here, was done by a whistle-stop through the riding. They had lunch at Fairmont Hot Springs, ELUC and Hydro. What else did they do? Dinner at night at Fairmont Hot Springs. They had lunch in Wardner and they had dinner and a night in Cranbrook. They returned to the Cranbrook airport on May 9 and flew back to Vancouver.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It was a real boost to the local economy. (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: They weren't in the area very long, but they came up with some pretty elaborate figures. On the basis of their preliminary surveys, without going into the whole social, economic and environmental impact, the Minister must have in his own mind some idea of whether he is undertaking this study for the purpose of strengthening his hand to negotiate with the Yankees, or whether he seriously has an intention of causing the kind of destruction which will take place by the diversion of the Kootenay River — a 1.5 million acre-feet of water from the Kootenay River, 70 per cent of its normal flow into the Columbia River. Certainly you must have a position in your mind.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes.

MR. CHABOT: What is it?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It is that it is a very serious matter, and it deserves the utmost consideration by the best minds available. While I appreciate the contribution of the Hon. Member, we do feel additional work is necessary.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, 1984 is on the horizon, as province are concerned. I'm wondering if the Minister could give me some kind of deadline as to when the anxiety which exists within my riding will be allayed in the....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: When the Premier determines the election date, I believe.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, I'm not worried about an election. You can call that tomorrow, my friend. I'm not worried about an election. You'd better believe it, because I'll tell you, that old, tired, arrogant Minister for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is finished, absolutely finished. He's long gone, and so are those silent, Girl Guide....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member relate to the vote, please?

MR.CHABOT: ... guys who won't speak their minds, like the Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) who has only introduced Girl Guides in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: That's the only contribution he's ever made.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon, Member speak to the vote?

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you against Girl Guides? Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: No, I've eaten their cookies many times. I'm even being attacked here.

Could the Minister give us some kind of idea as to when the examination of the potential diversion will be finalized. You can't expect to keep thousands of people in a state of anxiety for years on a critical issue such as this — whether they are going to be flooded out or not, whether they can add to their existing homes or not. This is a serious matter. There is concern in my constituency about whether the water will flow through the heart of the community of Canal Flats, or whether it will flow to the west of the community of Canal Flats. These questions are being asked. The Minister can laugh all he wants, but these questions are being asked in my constituency.

I was there last weekend. I know I've been asked many times why I wasn't on the Princess Marguerite, but, unfortunately, I had to be in my constituency, and these kind of questions were put to me. Despite he fact they don't agree with the government, despite the fact they are opposed to the government, despite the fact that they want to destroy the government; they've asked me to come down here and ask the government whether there is a possibility that these examinations will come to an end and we will get.... They asked me many times: "When can we get rid of this government?"

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: But in the meantime....

MR. CHABOT: But the key question here under your estimates, Mr. Minister, is: when do you expect to finalize your examination for potential diversion of a massive amount of the flow of the Kootenay River into the Columbia?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: There is a great deal of study needed, Mr. Chairman, and I'm afraid I don't have that information with me. But if the matter is raised in question period in a day or so. I'll make every effort to have some kind of information with me with respect to deadlines for studies that are

[ Page 3025 ]

currently underway.

MR. McGEER: I would ask the Minister if he would table the correspondence with respect to Jericho, pointing out the misinterpretation by the afternoon press. I think I perhaps confused the Minister about the afternoon press. There is a mainland afternoon press, and a very superior island afternoon press. I wouldn't 't want to cast reflections on sunny Vancouver Island, nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, I think it is really important to correct the misimpression created by the Minister with respect to agreements made by the federal government and the provincial government, I know that would be clarified if the Minister would be forthright enough to table the correspondence. He hasn't indicated that he will.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Certainly there is some background with respect to the original ownership of the land, which would be useful for all parties. I tend to look positively on that aspect. It is a matter I would like to review with my staff, however.

MR. McGEER: The Minister really didn't say that he was going to table that correspondence. I would like to get a commitment from him. There is no reason to keep secrets. There is no reason to hide behind the departmental officials. We've had nonsense so many times in the House of a Minister saying he can't do this or he can't do that because he of the civil service. He is elected to take the responsibility, he has been careless in the statements he has made, and he has left a wrong impression. In order to correct that impression, he needs to table the correspondence. I don't want the Minister hiding behind the civil service. I want him to be honest. He has been blackmailing the city. Let him take the responsibility and table that correspondence.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 126 pass?

Vote 126 approved.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman....

HON. MRS. DAILLY: It's passed.

MR. McGEER: It hasn't passed. I....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I recognize the Minister of Education.

MR. McGEER: What do you mean, Mr. Chairman? I am on my feet. That vote hasn't been passed. If she wants to adjourn the House, that's fine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There was no one on his feet at the time that the Chair put the vote. The vote was passed.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, you are blind. I was on my feet. I gave the Minister a few seconds to rise and indicate he would table the correspondence....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think we could clear it up. Do we have leave to return to vote 126?

Leave granted.

On vote 126.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey on vote 126.

MR. McGEER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

When we left our discussion, I had asked the Minister not to hide behind the skirts of the civil service because I think that is unfair to the civil service. It is because I think that is unfair to the civil service. It is the Minister who has created the problem, not the civil service. If the civil service has created the problem, then the Minister still takes responsibility for it. It is a non-answer, Mr., Chairman, and it is cowardly to suggest that a Minister cannot take responsibility...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: ...because he has to discuss it with his officials.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: It is the Minister who makes the decisions in this House, it is the Minister who takes responsibility, it is the government that takes responsibility, and it is not the civil service.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated for a moment, please?

I just was interjecting in order to ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the imputation of cowardice against another Hon. Member in this House. I think it is unparliamentary. Would the Hon. Member withdraw the term, please.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. McGEER: Well, will the Minister table the correspondence?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I am asking the Hon. Member to withdraw an unparliamentary term

[ Page 3026 ]

under the rules of the House. Would the Hon. Member?

MR. McGEER: Can you produce the parliamentary reference that "cowardly" is unparliamentary? I've called people that lots of times.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member is familiar with the standing order which requests that offensive terms....

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Did she say I was ill-mannered?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. McGEER: Pardon me, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The standing order states that the offensive term should not be used in the House. I think it is a matter of the definition of the word "offensive." Obviously, it must mean that what is offending to other Hon. Members is offensive to some Hon. Members. Therefore I ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the term.

MR. McGEER: How about "lack of courage"? (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: I just asked the Hon. Member to obey the....

MR. McGEER: "Gutlessness"?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: "Spineless"?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member withdraw the term at the instruction of the Chair?

MR. McGEER: "Weak-kneed"? (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would order the Hon. Member....

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to insist on "cowardly."

MR. CHAIRMAN: I order the Hon. Member to withdraw the term "cowardly."

MR. McGEER: I would be glad to, to tell the truth, Mr. Chairman. I withdraw that. I've thought of all kinds of better ones — "weak-kneed," "spineless....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I order the Hon. Member to withdraw it unconditionally without comment. Just indicate to the Chair that you withdraw and the words.

MR. McGEER: I absolutely withdraw "cowardly." I say that the Minister is spineless and he is weak-kneed...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: ...and he is hiding behind the skirts....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I repeat one further time that the Hon. Member is clearly abusing the authority of the Chair.

MR. McGEER: I am not abusing. I withdrew.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It is the custom in parliament, when the Chair gives an instruction that the term is offensive, that he should withdraw it without any hesitation as a gentleman of the House.

MR. McGEER: I did. I withdrew.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I ask the Hon. Member to withdraw without any further comment.

MR. McGEER: I did. I withdrew with no further comment and then I continued my speech.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But the Hon. Member then proceeded to use other offensive words in its place.

MR. McGEER: I didn't think they were. I thought they were.... In fact some people would say they were flattering.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): He is too ignorant to know, Mr. Chairman.

MR. McGEER: Oh, shame! Was I ignorant, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I accept the withdrawal of the Hon. Member's use of the word "cowardly," but I would ask him to also withdraw the other terms, such as "spineless," that he used. These are clearly offensive against another Hon. Member. Now would the Hon. Member do this?

MR. McGEER: What term would you suggest? I am willing to use whatever term is appropriate.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 3027 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, while in Committee of Supply, the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey used the term "cowardly." I stated that this was an offensive term under the standing orders and asked him to withdraw. He indicated that he would withdraw but then he replaced it with equally offensive terms which I also asked him to withdraw. He has refused.

MR. SPEAKER: What were the other terms that he refused to withdraw?

MR. McGEER: Weak-kneed. I think he was, Mr. Speaker — and spineless. I am willing to use any parliamentary term that describes the Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Spineless?

MR. McGEER: And I am quite prepared to take your direction on this.

MR. SPEAKER: I think that you know that it is upon the presiding officer, under standing orders, to decide whether an expression is unparliamentary. It is for him to retain the dignity and the decorum of the House. He should not have to insist more than once upon the withdrawal of an unparliamentary expression, and I'm not going to insist more than once that you completely withdraw any of the statements that were determined to be offensive and unparliamentary. Would you kindly do so, unconditionally?

MR. McGEER: Now, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Without any equivocation, without any explanation, simply withdraw them, please.

MR. McGEER: I want to have clear in my mind.... There are certain....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I ask the Hon. Member, without any further statements, to withdraw unconditionally the epithets he applied to another Hon. Member of the House.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

  MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to use parliamentary language, but it needs to be defined. If you want to tell me which words are unparliamentary....

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Hon. Member is being impudent to the whole House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: It is the duty of the Chair to ask a Member to withdraw. I'm sorry, I must name the Hon. Member, and I do.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Patrick Lucey McGeer, I name you.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

  Interruption.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I move that the Member named be suspended from the service of the House until Thursday.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 8

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. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:02 p.m.