CONTENTS

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

On vote 126. Mr. Smith — 3029

On vote 127. Mr. Wallace — 3032

On vote 128. Mr. Smith — 3043

On vote 130. Mr. Smith — 3043

On vote 131. Mr. Phillips — 3044

On vote 134. Mr. Smith — 3044

On vote 136. Mr. Phillips — 3044

Statement. Expulsion of Hon. Member. Mr. Speaker — 3045

The House met at 10 a.m.

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. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman, it's nice to know that I was recognized this morning.

I would like to cover a few points with the Minister concerning his responsibilities, not particularly on lands this morning, but on the forest area of his responsibilities. One of the things I would like to hear the Minister comment on is the matter of export of chips from British Columbia to other marketing areas. This may have been discussed briefly before, but, as I understand it, at the present time we do have a surplus of chips to the demand that we have available in the plants that can manufacture the chips into pulp. That flow of chips will continue to increase and escalate, and the stockpiles will grow unless we find some other market.

There is presently a market for some chips, a limited quantity at least, in the Province of Alberta at Grande Prairie. The price, of course, is less than would be paid on the existing market in British Columbia because of the chip stabilization bill that has been passed. There are probably markets in the United States for chips, and that price would perhaps be less. But I suggest to the Minister that it would certainly provide a cash flow for a business which has suffered substantial setbacks in the last 18 months, and that the cash realization from the sale of chips, even at a reduced price outside the boundaries of British Columbia, would provide at least part of the cost of maintaining payroll and the operating expenses for a depressed industry.

As I understand it, there is a concern not only for short-term supplies, but there is also a concern in the minds of industry in developing long-term contracts for the sale of chips outside of the province. Mr. Minister, it is impossible for them to even enter into negotiations at the present time. The reason it is impossible is that they have no real idea of what amount of stumpage will be charged in the long term. They know the policy of the government as it is now and today and for the foreseeable future, but not far enough into the future to reliably negotiate contracts for the export of chips. They feel, and rightly so, that any long-term contract entered into will have to be backed up with the assurances that the price paid for chips will not substantially escalate in a period of better markets, and therefore put them into a position of tremendous deficits which they would incur in honouring contracts they entered into.

I would like to know, first of all, if the Minister is prepared to allow the export of chips, at least on a short-term basis, particularly to the Grande Prairie area where, I understand, there is a market for a limited quantity at the present time.

Secondly, I would like to know if he is prepared to sit down with the industry and discuss the possibilities of entering into long-term contracts for the export of chips with the United States or offshore markets wherever they may be found.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Mr. Chairman, we are certainly prepared to look at medium-term market proposals, that is longer-term than anything we have considered to date with respect to chip exports. We are prepared to look at any proposals, so if any of the firms put their proposals or market propositions in writing, we will seriously consider them. We understand there are some, but we have received only one in writing, as I understand it.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, in the consideration of proposals from the companies, is the Minister prepared to give the companies which may have a market potential available to them some commitment that the stumpage rate they pay will be at least in proportion to the price they receive? As I understand it, this is one of the big stumbling blocks at the present time; they have no assurance that if the market recovers to a certain extent they will have a continuity in supply of chips at a price that will allow them to continue the export of those chips.

They may very well find themselves in a position of paying more in stumpage and in rates to the Crown than they can receive where they are locked into a contract. Is there some way of negotiating this on the basis that the company could go into a contract with some assurance on their part that they would not suffer grievous financial loss as a result of it?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think we can say that we are certainly prepared to be fair and realistic, as we have been throughout this past year, with respect to stumpage arrangements in difficult market times. It is reasonable to expect that that will continue.

MR. SMITH: There are another couple of matters I wish to pursue with the Minister this morning, Mr. Chairman. One is the Minister's attitude with respect to the remote locations in the Province of British Columbia where there is a potential for wood production, and the people, of course, that will be employed in those remote locations.

[ Page 3030 ]

As the Minister is aware, and I'm sure everyone in this House is aware, we have a tremendous problem with labour turnover, not only in the forest industry but in any industry that is remote or isolated from metropolitan areas or large communities. Now one of the ways of overcoming that problem is to create instant towns. Regardless of what might be said about the instant towns, they did create places for people to live and maintain a family atmosphere.

Is it the intent of the Minister to proceed along that line with respect to new areas of production? I can think, for instance, in the north between Fort St. John and Fort Nelson, in that Blueberry area, and so on, of large tracts of timber that will eventually come into production. Yet the nearest community to the location of the timber will be maybe 150 miles away — 50 to 150 at least. I think that is going to create the need for organized communities, such as Mackenzie became an organized community, to provide services for the people living there and maintaining that pulp mill.

Now I don't envisage communities the same size as Mackenzie, but I can see a number of communities in the northern part of the province of 1,000 to 1,500 people. They will require all of the people services any community requires. I think it would be a much more pleasant atmosphere if people were able to live with their families in these communities, adjacent to their jobs, than to be faced with this continual turnover that we always experience where men are separated from their families for extended periods of time.

During the construction of the Portage Mountain dam, it was often said by the personnel of Hydro: "We have three crews at Portage Mountain. We have the crew that's coming, the crew that's working and the crew that's leaving." It was just that bad. I've talked to some of the personnel on that project — the management personnel — who tell me that over a period of two years they know of employees that have been into the job, left and back again as many as four times in a two-year period. So either we're going to have to gear industrial production to that situation or we're going to have to provide communities for people to live in and maintain themselves and their family in close proximity to the job location. What is the Minister's opinion as to the direction the government will go in this respect? It is a problem that's going to occur more and more frequently.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm not really sure how I can answer that, Mr. Chairman, other than to say that where we've been involved more directly in the northwest we have focused on reasonable expansion of the existing communities — strengthening the existing communities. The Burns Lake example is one that has been referred to several times. Ideally, if we can do that and simply grow from an existing base, there is much to be said for that. It certainly appears from our experience to date that there are fewer problems in that kind of situation.

The area you refer to between Fort St. John and Fort Nelson I am not personally familiar with. I'd like to spend some time in that area but I haven't.

I think it's more a matter of analysis and carefully considering the options and then trying to take an optimum route. That's all too obvious, but at any rate, in the northwest we're really working from existing community-based situations and growing from there.

MR. SMITH: A matter that I'd like to pursue for a few moments with the Minister is the matter of the cleanup of the floating debris in Williston Lake. Regardless of what the Minister may personally think, the lake is there and, really, one of the problems, I think and I know, was created by B.C. Hydro itself within the last two years.

The need for a large pondage and a large retention basin is obvious if the full capacity of the Portage Mountain site will be maintained. If we're going to use all of the generators installed there on a continuous basis, the requirement for a tremendous amount of water in captivity is No. 1 essential. The other thing would be to use some of the generators on a peaking basis and only cut them in when they're required. Regardless of that, there is a need for a tremendous amount of water.

The cleanup of the basin area was progressing quite satisfactorily for a number of years, and two years ago most of the floating debris was out of the lake. But because of a management decision, B.C. Hydro decided to raise the level of the lake in a year when we had a substantial snow pack back in the mountains, which was okay. But I don't think they realized that when they made that decision to raise the level of the lake, they were also going to end up with far more trash in the lake than they'd had for many, many years. This is exactly what happened, Mr. Minister.

The lake level was raised by about two feet above the high-water level that was first recommended before they opened up the gate to allow water to go over the sluiceway. When that happened, every bit of trash that had been lying on the shores of the lake for a perimeter area of hundreds of miles was picked up by the higher water level. As the water went down, most of that ended up back in the reservoir, so we now have a condition in Williston Lake where there is presently more debris, more floating material than at any time in the last five years.

What I suggest to the Minister is this: in a year when we have a substantial snow pack, give consideration to again taking the waters up, or at least not any higher than that. But by some means, once the trash is deposited at the high-water mark on

[ Page 3031 ]

the perimeter area of the reservoir, never, but never go back to that same degree of elevation in the lake again. At least you wouldn't wash all that stuff back into the lake, and over a period of years you would be able to either burn it or dispose of it on dry land rather than in the reservoir itself.

I think that would be preferable to having that trash washed back into the lake in a period of a heavy snowfall or heavy snow pack and large run-offs. You'd be able to at least attack the problem on dry land during the summer months. It would seem to me that this is preferable to the present system which allowed, as a decision of management, the lake to increase beyond the level that had originally been contemplated, and as a result, washed hundreds of thousands of tons of floating material into the lake.

I'd like the Minister's opinion as to what the plan of Hydro is in that respect.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the decision to go ahead with the Bennett Dam and create the Williston pondage was taken by the former government. It was basically a single-purpose project, and that was the bulk of our criticism with respect to the idea. The single purpose was the production of hydro electricity.

Now the Member is suggesting that we should control the level of the pondage relative to the accumulation of debris. If you've got a billion dollar plant, which I suppose it would probably be fair to say that is, and you play around with the water just in relation to debris, then it's just an economic insanity. So the decision was made; it's a hydro-electric project. You optimize your situation with respect to the production of electricity as part of the whole system in the province. That's what they did.

In years when there is high water, high snowfall they might want to capture that water because of fear of a lower year subsequently and so on — and it is a huge storage basin. So it just isn't feasible to think in terms of operating the system relative to debris.

As far as debris is concerned, that's another inheritance from your government. We've put in a fair amount of work in that regard in terms of dealing with the problem. Cleanup is on a priority basis and is related to the sites along the lake that have a recreational potential. That analysis, again, was carried out by our government. The biggest lake in the province had no recreational analysis whatsoever under the former administration.

There is $2.5 million in the budget this year for cleanup in the Peace pondage. There has been additional funding for a wood chipper, so the Forest Service will be handling a chipping operation for material from the pond that can be chipped and used in pulp mills. In addition, in the last several months a major barge basket has been created so that debris that cannot be used economically will, in fact, be burned out in the middle of the lake in a huge barge. As a result of the problems you gave us, we have developed a very creative capability within the Forest Service to deal with the mess.

MR. SMITH: Well, Mr. Chairman, it's nice to hear the Minister thump himself on the back every opportunity he gets. But I'll tell you that the cleanup of Williston reservoir started long before this man was a Minister of the Crown. Many hundreds of million cubic feet of timber came out of that reservoir and I am suggesting to the Minister — I am not only suggesting, I am telling him — that from personal experience and having viewed the lake from the time it was first created, water conditions, with respect to floating debris in the lake, were far better five years ago than they are today. That was a direct result of....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Do you want to raise the Hydro rates?

MR. SMITH: Now let me finish. You were on your feet a few moments ago.

That debris was a direct result of a decision by B.C. Hydro to increase the water level in the years that there was sufficient snow pack to do that. All I'm suggesting to the Minister is that there must be an optimum level above which you will probably not, in the foreseeable future, require an increase.

If the management personnel of Hydro have this bench mark established, then why not, the first year that we have sufficient snow pack, flood the reservoir to a level of a foot and a half or two feet beyond that bench mark? As the water recedes, then you will deposit a tremendous amount of that floating material high and dry on the ground. It could then be bulldozed into piles, separated if it was worthwhile doing that, but at least burned. You could get rid of it once and for all; it would be a completed project. As long as you knew that the established bench mark would never be exceeded again, you would have no problem. The material that you deposited on the shores could be burned during the summer months or in the wintertime at the convenience of Hydro and their crews. You could get at it and there would be no problem.

My goodness, B.C. Hydro, foreseeing the fact that they might have to spill water, put in a $10 million or $12 million spillway which is being used — not every year, but on the average of every second or third year since the dam was built — to spill excess water that you didn't want to store. All I'm suggesting is that instead of accumulating that debris in the lake itself now, separating it and burning it on barges out in the lake, why not take a look at the other suggestion of piling it up on shore, letting it accumulate above the

[ Page 3032 ]

high-water level and then disposing of it on shore rather than in the lake. I think it's well worth the Minister's investigation.

It could only be done in a year of heavy snow pack. It couldn't be done this year, for instance, because we don't have the snow pack in the mountains, as we have had on previous occasions. But every so often we do have a tremendous snowfall and an accumulation there which would allow Hydro to flood that lake, or raise the water level to a bench mark and beyond it. It has to be in relation to the ability of the dam to withstand the hydraulic pressures and all the rest it would involve, but this is an engineer's calculation. I am sure that they built in sufficient safety margins when they originally designed the dam and the project.

I would ask the Minister if he has given it consideration or if he would consider it, because I think you would then, at least, have an opportunity to dispose of a lot of waste material on a year-round basis except for a very dry season when forest fires would be a tremendous hazard.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: As the Member suggests, there are certain safety limits. One foot on a reservoir as huge as Williston is extremely valuable in terms of power production. Some of the ideas that the Member suggests may deserve some further look.

Vote 126 approved.

On vote 127: Lands Service, Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat, $3,660,982.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I am really just concerned to have some detail from the Minister about this very substantial increase. In the course of his salary vote we have realized, and rightly so, that the forest industry and the use of land is a very important factor attracting the attention of government to a greater and greater degree. But we are dealing here with a very substantial increase in both staff and money. I notice that the increase in staff is from 23 people to 90. We have substantial salary increases from $382,000 to almost $2 million.

There is this item in this vote which is appearing in many other votes right through every department of this government; it is the phrase "temporary assistance." Frankly, I don't think that we have had a very effective answer from any of the Ministers as to the very substantial use of temporary assistance. We have heard a great deal about salary contingencies but this item in vote 127 increases from $25,000 to $836,000 for temporary assistance. I am puzzled that such a large fraction of the budget in this vote should involve something called temporary assistance. I wonder if this relates in any way to the programme the Minister announced in January about an employment programme to try and mitigate the unemployment in the forest industry. Or are those two separate programmes altogether — the one to deal with unemployment or this $836,000 to deal with temporary assistance? We are throwing these terms around in each of the Minister's votes. I think that with such large sums of money involved they deserve questioning.

Rentals increase from $50,000 to $344,000. I just wonder if the Minister could perhaps give us some more specific information, first of all on the very substantial gross increase in the vote and, secondly, some details on the specific items I mentioned.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, it is true that the budget has gone up considerably, but it is one of the areas that I am proudest of in terms of expenditures. I think that we are getting value for our money in this area. I don't know if the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) has seen the small report, which is sort of a summary of the annual report. Maybe we could send it over. I think that the summary says what the roles of the secretariat, the cabinet committee and the staff have been. As you know, it involves consolidation of the resource analysis capability that was formerly with the Canada Land Inventory staff. That has been supplemented and added to so that we have an excellent team of professional analysts in terms of analyzing land capability for a wide range of purposes. In a province as rich as this and with such complex interrelationships, that was a very real gap and a real need. I think that the work they are doing is unsurpassed. This small report gives a kind of feeling for what is going on in this agency.

The employment programme in the forest is something separate from this vote. The rental figure is the result of a consolidation of the professional group and the former Canada Land Inventory staff. The rental thing can be explained in that way. Part of it was formerly under another vote with respect to the back-up technicians and resource analysis staff along with the professional corps of some 25 or 30 people in the secretariat. That explains the jump there.

The temporary assistance item is that and a range of formulae and calculations that our accounting staff has developed.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Unlike other speakers today I would like to congratulate the Minister for getting his initial vote through. It looks like he will get this one through as well. I think that he has been doing a very fine job as Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

I would like to comment on the Minister's job as chairman of the Environment and Land Use Committee. I have some suggestions and questions regarding the operation of the committee and the

[ Page 3033 ]

Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat as it pertains to agricultural land in my riding and waterfront protection and development out on the estuaries.

As the Minister will recall, the Environment and Land Use Committee conducted hearings in Richmond regarding the use of a farm last fall — the Howard Wong farm, a 158-acre market gardening farm which the municipality wanted to have rezoned for an industrial park. At that time we had a 9,000-name petition in the community opposing the rezoning and a request that the land be put in the agricultural land reserve in order to protect the farmland and also to preserve the waterfront and some sloughs in the area and some of the natural environment and to keep industrialization of the Fraser down as it pertains to the fishing industry.

The hearings, when they finally presented their decision, did not put the land in the reserve. There was a fair amount of land — 50 acres — put into agricultural allotment gardens and a buffer strip along the river, and the sloughs were protected. So it was a compromise solution. In effect, we had a buffer zone between the industrial reserve the municipality is putting in and the agricultural reserve to the west and between there and the river to the south.

However, what I'd like to bring to the Minister's attention is the speculation and blockbusting that's going on in the areas adjacent to that reserve in recent weeks. More specifically, I refer to the hearings held by the GVRD on May 21, which I attended, where the requests were made to have the riverside industrial park expanded to the east. At the hearings there were a number of developers presenting their proposals. I might say in passing that the hearings were somewhat one-sided because the developers mostly met during the afternoon and had half an hour or an hour to make presentations, while people concerned about these developments being proposed didn't get to speak till late in the morning and only had two or three minutes each. Mr. Robert Bonner represented some of the speculators in the area and spoke for 45 minutes on behalf of people who, we believe, are American speculators from Seattle — Ritter and Blum — owning a piece of property in the area. Actually they don't own it; they have an option on it with some farmer. They offered him $10,000 an acre, little more than agricultural value in that area, and expect to make a profit of $40,000, $50,000 or $60,000 an acre if they can get it rezoned.

Anyway, Mr. Bonner had suggested — I'd like to make some direct quotes of what he said — that "about 2,600 acres of secondary reserves in Richmond south of the Knight Street bridge are high-priced and much more suitable for industry." He went on to say: "Whether you value the land at $10,000, $20,000 or $40,000 an acre, there are very few things that can be economically grown and give adequate returns." He suggested that because of the agricultural land reserves and the environmental implications of people trying to protect the foreshores and so on, inevitably the agricultural land reserves cause either great benefits or great loss to people. "When we have great benefit we have tax laws to skim off the profits but when we have great loss to people," he suggested, "we should be giving them some kind of compensation."

He was actually suggesting, I think, that in the areas of Richmond where the speculators have moved in, as I will show later, they would be able to gamble in land, which in effect is what's happening in the area and while they were gambling in land they should be able to gamble and win. I'm just wondering if this is Social Credit policy in this province. If you go down to Las Vegas to gamble you generally expect to lose; you don't always expect to win.

In the areas that I am concerned about around Riverside industrial park that the ELUC was studying earlier this year, a number of developers have gone in there and bought land since the agricultural land reserve was set up in 1973. I wish to discuss this aspect specifically. It's probably the most highly speculated area in Richmond. South of Steveston Highway in Richmond there are 1,600 acres of land owned by real estate interests adjacent to the Riverside industrial area.

The most prominent speculators in the area are German interests with a San Francisco address — Fromm, Werner, Fishell and Holmgren — which own 368 acres to east and west of Riverside park. In 1969 they purchased 42.6 acres for $170,000; in July, 1974, they sold this land to Sun Life Assurance for $990,000. This is after the agricultural land reserves were set up. So now part of the land is owned by Sun Life Assurance. That was 42.6 to the east of Riverside; they also own 326 acres to the west of Riverside. They assembled this between 1970 and 1972 for $1.1 million. It was, I should point out, No. 1 farmland — this is roughly agricultural prices of around $3,400 an acre.

In January, 1973, they entered into an option with Western Realty Projects — again after the agricultural land reserves were set up — the price now $4.2 million. Western Realty Projects, I might add, was an active opponent of the land bill, and not only was an opponent but was the company I mentioned during the Bill 42 debate which had secret documents that indicated that they wanted to go into the agricultural reserve lands that were zoned agriculture by the municipality and buy the land up and try to convince the local governments to rezone the land so they could make some rather large profits. Apparently they're still doing it, because not only in this area but in other areas in my community, and probably through the rest of the greater Vancouver area, they're going in and buying up land, even

[ Page 3034 ]

though it is frozen under the agriculture reserve.

I quote from the report that I quoted in 1973. In their report they said: "The major emphasis should be placed in purchasing unzoned agricultural land in the next two years." This was written in 1972. "Assuming a 50 per cent participation rate in total lot sales in Richmond, we must then purchase approximately 1,200 acres to satisfy our goals between 1972 and 1984." This is from the Richmond Land Acquisition Report, 1972 to 1984, by Western Realty.

Well, Mr. Chairman, they're still buying land even after the Land Commission Act has come in, and this land they optioned was for $4.2 million. In this case they didn't exercise the option but actually turned it over to another company, which it turns out is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Western Realty Projects.

In June, 1974, this area to the west of Riverside was optioned by Adera Construction and Techram Securities Ltd., and they took out an option for $5.9 million. In February this year Gilmour Estates has taken over that option. The land now that was originally purchased for $3,400 an acre in 1971 or 1972 is worth $18,000 per acre. If it's rezoned and taken out of the reserve, it would be worth probably around $70,000 per acre. So you can see the type of game that's being played by the speculators. It's sort of like a speculative ping-pong game. The speculators bounce the ball back and forth to each other, adding larger and larger options and sometimes actually buying the land outright and tossing the ball back and forth and then claiming that they're losing money — "if the land isn't viable for farming, the land couldn't be protected for agriculture; the waterfront shouldn't be protected for fisheries," and so on.

Well, it appears that the Nu-West project was more and more of a blockbusting technique. The Richmond council is recommending that the lands to the east of the agricultural reserve — the land I mentioned that Sun Life Assurance bought between No. 5 road and the freeway in July, 1974, the land that Western Realty optioned at around the same time.... The municipality is recommending that that should be taken out of the reserve, arguing that the land they got out at the last time for Nu-West isn't big enough. Now they argue that the land cut off by Nu-West is isolated and this is a reason that they should expand the area up to the freeway.

My feeling is that outfits like Sun Life Assurance, who bought the land after the agriculture reserve, really don't have a case. Western Realty, which turned it over to Holmes Smith Properties Ltd. — a wholly-owned subsidiary of Abbey Glen Corp. which is the new name for Western Realty — really doesn't have a case, because they purchased the land after the agricultural reserves were set up...and that the land should stay in the agricultural reserve in order to be sure that that particular development that we dealt with last fall and earlier this spring, the Nu-West development, does not expand to start the industrialization of the Fraser along the south arm from the freeway to the west.

I think right now that the way the compromise is set up by the Environment and Land Use Committee, it is set up that it does contain the development and prevents it from spreading. But once further land is allowed to go, then it's going to spread through the whole area because, as farmers quite well point out, it's very difficult to farm in an industrial area.

This raises another problem. The farmers at the hearings said that they were facing considerable problems with regard to industrial development in their areas, and not just industrial development but other related pressures upon their farms. I think that the ELUC secretariat should perhaps make some studies on the agricultural areas as they pertain to farms in the Delta area in particular, and some areas in Richmond where the Highways department has dissected their properties, where B.C. Hydro is putting through power lines, and so on.

The farmers at the hearings made a very good case that when their lands are dissected they can't adequately farm. There may be some ways that the government can see to assist in land assembly so they can trade land on one side of the highway — or on one side of a Hydro right-of-way — with the farmer on the other side so that the farms can be consolidated into an efficient farm again.

The farmers also complained about crop theft and traffic and problems of urban encroachment on their properties, and I have some suggestions as to how that may be overcome as well.

There are recommendations I'd like and have for the ELUC to consider. To start with, with its specific reserve in Richmond, I'm wondering if the Land Commission or the ELUC would be having hearings after the GVRD makes its recommendations, because it looks like the GVRD may go along with Richmond municipality. We have a case where each mayor — and this is one of the flaws we have in the Land Commission Act — in a suburban area has a piece of land that he wants to get out of the agricultural reserve for some reason or other, whether it is justified or not, and it is a situation where they are the ones who are going to make decisions and recommendations as part of the GVRD, and they will be backing each other up. The mayor of Delta wants 2,000 or 3,000 acres out, the mayor of Richmond wants 600 or 700 acres out, the mayor of Surrey wants some out, and the deck is stacked because it is a situation where they will be backing each other up to get their particular lands out of the reserve.

So I would like to impress upon the Minister that it is important that there be some input to the Land Commission or to the ELUC, as there was last fall over these hearings, even when the GVRD makes its

[ Page 3035 ]

recommendations, because I think the tables are stacked.

Secondly, I think that the ELUC and the Land Commission will have to consider that wherever possible no land should be exempted from the reserve, that any land removal in Richmond anyway, in the vicinity of the Knight Street Bridge, where Mr. Bonner was talking about, or an extension of the Riverside industrial park, would be a blow to continued agricultural development in Richmond, just as the removal of 3,000 acres in Delta would be a blow to production in the whole Fraser Valley.

I'm not going to go into the agricultural aspects of it, because this is not really the direct concern of the ELUC. Suffice it to say that whenever a farm is lost, there is a reduction in the amount of services by local businesses that are provided because the businesses end up going out of business and moving their services out of town, and if you want to get a part for a tractor you have to go to Langley instead of getting it at Richmond, and things like that. So whenever services move out, then there is a loss of agricultural service to the community, and the more farms that are lost, the less viable agriculture is.

Thirdly, I would like to suggest that while this problem of speculative gambling seems to continue even in spite of the Land Commission Act, perhaps some legislation could be considered that would assure that profits would not accrue to the owner of the land if the land is rezoned to a higher use. This would quickly remove the constant demands for rezoning and allow more orderly planning. In my consideration, profits from rezoning really rightfully belong to the community that provides the services and provides the need for that rezoning. Land, whether it is residential land, foreshore land — which I am going to mention later — or agricultural land should not be a commodity which can be gambled upon. Therefore there should be some law that would not just tax the profits in the small way through income tax or capital gain tax, as is already done, but to assure that the entire profit of a rezoning would go to the community involved.

Fourthly, in many cases absentee owners aren't farming the land themselves and they are leaving the land in low productive use. I think that they should pay higher taxes in order to encourage them to bring it into full production. We could have lower taxes for bona fide farmers and people who are actually carrying on farm operations to maximum potential, as they do in Holland. I think in Holland they have since 1936 had a differential between those who just rip off the land and those that actually carry out proper farming methods.

Fifth, where roads such as those of the Highways department are going through, road rights-of-way, and easements for B.C. Hydro dissecting the farms make farming uneconomical, I would suggest that the government involved, whether it is the province or, in many cases, the municipality putting a road through, should be prepared to make some attempt to reassemble the land, perhaps under the greenbelt fund or something like that, purchase the land and either hold that land or redistribute it with the adjacent farmers and offer it to them for their use so that new economic units can be created.

Furthermore, quite often there has been a lot of damage to drainage systems and other adverse physical changes due to this type of dissecting of farms, and I think these should be repaired or otherwise compensated for.

Sixth, in some cases where industrial and residential areas seriously encroach upon farm areas or recreational and conservational areas, then it should be considered that buffer strips such as golf courses and parks could be considered to separate the two zones. This again, where new developments are going in, should be paid for by the developers, the people who are putting in those developments. In other cases perhaps the local governments could carry this out. Where it is not possible to put a buffer zone in, then perhaps adequate fencing, chain-link fences or page-wire fences and so on, could be put in between the environmental areas, agriculture areas and so on, and the industrial and residential developments. I would suggest that maybe the ELUC could carry out a study in this regard to look into the feasibility of adequate buffer strips and fencing and so on between these zones.

I think these are suggestions that would help to stop the speculation in the areas that we are hoping to preserve, and would quell some of the complaints that we have had from people who are trying to operate a farm in there.

Finally, in my own area there is another area that I haven't raised and that is the Sturgeon Bank area, which was not put into the agricultural reserves. It's land which, if farmed, would be No. 1 farmland but it's part of the Fraser River estuary. It's outside the dikes in Richmond and it's under immediate stress as well. There's an outfit called Pacific Rim Investments which has been going around to the property owners — there are about 600 acres of this estuary privately owned — and they have gone around and offered them quite a large amount of money, about $10,000 an acre for the land. A lot of the people are thinking of giving them options. Of course, the speculators here are just gambling that they can get the land rezoned. They could dike it in and because it is not covered under agricultural land reserves, they might be able to get some kind of developments outside the dikes in Richmond, whether it be industry or housing or whatever.

What I'm hoping is that the secretariat might regard this as one of the areas of stress that the Minister suggested earlier might be studied in the

[ Page 3036 ]

coming year. Conversations with the Minister suggested that the resource management areas that have been set up throughout the province might be able to take on the job of carrying on environmental studies similar to what I have suggested might be covered by a coastal zone commission, and that they would look into estuaries, islands and so on. I am suggesting that a study should be carried on in the Sturgeon Banks area because the speculators are getting into their little ping pong game of tossing options back and forth in that area as well. It will see the prices going up and up and up and the owners thinking that the land is valuable when really it is valuable only as foreshore and as feeding areas for the young salmon and various marine environment and as part of the Pacific flyway. It should not be developed for housing or for industry and I think it's very crucial that this area be investigated in conjunction, I believe, with the federal fish and wildlife service, which has been carrying on investigation for a number of years, and perhaps with the Department of Recreation and Conservation as well, and the fish and wildlife service who have also carried out some studies. But I think there is need for an overall study and I think the ELUC secretariat would be the one to co-ordinate this study and come up with some recommendations as to how this estuary could be protected and preserved and how the owners of the property who are in there can be compensated for their land rather than have the speculators move in and get options on the land and then control it and try to make it out of estuary use and into industrial development.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): I have a couple of brief questions to direct to the Minister. Last December there was a serious slide in Port Alice at which time many of the houses were damaged by the mud and debris that came down the mountainside. One of the homes, as a matter of fact, was lifted right off its foundation and moved about 30 feet from its original location. It was fortunate at that time that no one in that community was injured by that slide. The council and the people at Port Alice were most appreciative of the response they received from the provincial government at the time through the disaster fund. Trailers were moved in, people were quickly relocated and work was undertaken in order to repair the damaged homes and other damage that occurred to the Village of Port Alice. The mayor of Port Alice, Alex MacLeod, has been most complimentary about the kind of response he received from the provincial government and I wanted to reply that to the Minister as well.

Since that time there have been several studies of the mountainside itself to determine the stability of the particular area behind the community of Port Alice. It is my understanding that there is still some doubt about the stability of that whole mountainside and one of the reports at least indicates that there may be more work required on the side of the mountain itself. I also understand that the Department of Highways, which has been involved in conducting one of the studies, has indicated that certainly the Department of Highways would not be involved in repairing any mountain or doing any work on the mountainside. That whole question and the discussion concerning the mountainside at Port Alice has now been turned over to the Environment and Land Use Committee. My question to the Minister is whether or not this has been discussed at the Environment and Land Use Committee and what sort of response there was and what sort of discussions are taking place and what is happening.

My second question concerns the Tsitika-Schoen moratorium area which has been under study for two years. Public hearings were held some time ago. The transcripts from all the public hearings, I understand, had to be researched by the secretariat and eventually the Environment and Land Use Committee will have to make a decision on the future of the Tsitika-Schoen. Could you, Mr. Minister, advise me when that decision might be forthcoming? Thank you.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The Member for Richmond has given us a pretty clear picture of some of the activity in part of his municipality and some of the ideas he has suggested are certainly interesting and areas in which the government has been carrying out analysis in and might well by prepared to take legislative action at a later stage.

Certainly the problem of absentee ownership is one that concerns all of us. It does generally mean a loss in productivity of the land. It means that there isn't the control that there really should be at home, as we see it. The question of absentee ownership, and dealing with it in one way or another, is one that will have a fairly high priority with the government in the coming months.

The question of the Greater Vancouver Regional District and their review of the secondary agricultural reserves, again is one that is very important. In view of the Member's statement of each municipality having its own particular ox to gore, one can't help but think that it is starting to look a little bit like the American Senate. At any rate, it will be very interesting for us to keep a watching brief on. I'm sure that the committee will be actively involved in the review process, and we will consider all of the options in terms of public input or whatever.

The possibility of obtaining some of the revenue from a change in land use, particularly going from agricultural to higher economic-return use, is one that has been actively looked at, I understand, by the Department of Municipal Affairs and, to some extent,

[ Page 3037 ]

by the secretariat staff as well. There might well be more proposals forthcoming in that area.

Sturgeon Bank is complex and probably a long-term kind of area that we will also have to watch fairly closely.

With respect to the Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) and the problems at Rumble Beach in Port Alice, there has been review by the Highways department and Water Resources, and the matter has been discussed by the Environment and Land Use Committee, but it is considered primarily a Water Resources problem. The Highways people have passed that buck to us.

On the basis of the reviews to date, there is a consensus that a cleanup programme should be pursued with respect to the watercourse, that it should be maintained and that there should be regular monitoring. Funding is being provided to see that that is done. In addition, Rayonier will participate with the Water Resources Service and Highways in that process and that programme.

There have been consultant studies done, but I think the feeling of our professional staff is that the analysis is lacking and there is a need for additional expertise. They have suggested an engineering programme. Our professionals are not satisfied that engineering programme would give the results we want, so the expenditure might not, in fact, be as productive as the consultants suggest. We will have to proceed and bring in further experts, particularly in the soils and foundation field. As we see it now, this is primarily a soils problem and we need additional expertise.

In the meantime, maintenance, cleaning, cleanup and regular monitoring will take place on a joint basis with the company and the Highways department in concert with Water Resources.

It is the kind of problem that is not limited to this area. In the past we just haven't done a proper job in terms of flood plain analysis or looking at alluvial fan problems such as this one. There just wasn't a look at the kind of delicate structure that we are building on in this province when we built communities in the past. That isn't the case now. At least there is a decent programme in flood-plain mapping and work by the Water Resources staff so that this kind of settlement being dropped in in delicate situations should be avoided in the future.

So far as the Tsitika-Schoen is concerned, the matter is coming before the Environment and Land Use Committee at our next meeting. We anticipate that the matter can probably be looked at in more than one phase. We foresee, at this stage, a first-phase compromise which would allow the preservation of the critical areas and the maintenance of employment. That will be reviewed in detail by the committee at the next meeting, but it looks as though there is a first-phase compromise that can deal with the conflicts, maintain employment and preserve the most critical areas. Second-phase work is complete. At least at this stage it looks like most of the interests can be accommodated in the first phase.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few brief comments and ask a few questions about the Environment and Land Use Committee's role as one of the players in the farce that's known as the refinery follies. The Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) talked eloquently about speculators; he referred to speculators being in a ping-pong game, tossing options around. I'd like to suggest that the government is becoming the biggest speculator in British Columbia in areas like Burke Mountain and Surrey. I wonder what the Environment and Land Use Committee thinks, given its concern about the environment of this country, when another part of government can come along and just plunk down a dirty, polluting, smelly refinery in the middle of one of the finest valleys in British Columbia. Where does the Environment and Land Use Committee stand on that?

I think it's time we found out what kind of studies have been done in this whole area. We don't know. We got conflicting reports from various parts of government. One part of government tells us that studies have been done; another part of government tells us studies haven't been done. One part says they are underway; another part says they are finished. It's time that we found out exactly where they are and what they have recommended.

Environment Canada says that in order to do a proper environmental study for an oil refinery on Sumas Mountain, they need a minimum of one year and perhaps two years. Yet here we're talking about going in and plunking down a refinery after a few months of studies, if that. There's a serious conflict there somewhere. The Environment and Land Use Committee should be vitally concerned, too, about the sources of oil because if the oil doesn't come from Alberta.... The Economic Development Minister (Hon. Mr. Lauk) says the oil has to come from Alberta, yet the Premier, speaking down east, says that maybe we'll accept oil from Alaska. Who's right? If we accept oil from Alaska, are we at the same time accepting tankers down our coastal waters? The Environment and Land Use Committee should be vitally concerned about that.

I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, the people of British Columbia, and certainly the people of the Surrey and Langley areas, are fed up with this business of indecision on the refinery, and not knowing what's going on.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: No, it's not Vander Zalm

[ Page 3038 ]

who is undecided; it's your own Members of government. Every Minister in your government gives a different answer to the same question. In Surrey we won't accept the comments from the Economic Development Minister that we deserve a garbage can in our backyard. That's nonsense! We won't accept it in Surrey or Langley or any of that Fraser Valley area. We refuse to bow to the blackmail of the British Columbia Petroleum Corp. — that's what Vander Zalm is saying, Mr. Chairman. The Environment and Land Use Committee had better take a more serious look at this.

The Mines Minister (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) doesn't know. He's not even sure that anybody's been talking about a refinery. The Economic Development Minister doesn't know, the Agriculture Minister (Hon. Mr. Stupich) doesn't know, the Premier doesn't know — maybe the Minister in charge of the land use committee does know.

I am now convinced that this whole thing is just an ego trip by the Premier and his former roommate, James Rhodes, the chairman of the B.C. Petroleum Corp. When they were sharing rooms they used to sit around in their pajamas dreaming about a great socialist experiment in a refinery. Now they have a chance to bring it to fruition, maybe — if they can get the oil and if they can get the land.

I'd like to know whether or not the Environment and Land Use Committee was part of a study in this refinery operation. I'd like to know whether or not the Environment and Land Use Committee recommended that the refinery not be placed in Surrey. I'd like to know whether or not the Environment and Land Use Committee took part in any of the studies which were done by a Victoria consulting firm, and whether or not any other areas were studied besides Surrey.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's a bit much to have the government called a speculator in obtaining land for people in Burke Mountain — some 50,000 to 70,000 people can be accommodated. To acquire land from absentee owners in north Langley, some 2,000 acres, and have those lands in control of the people of British Columbia — getting rid of that kind of absentee control — and increasing our options in terms of making the greater Vancouver or lower mainland region a more livable place, that's really what those things do.

In terms of the Environment and Land Use Committee staff, there has been a review of the work done by the consultants with respect to the Surrey location. Similarly, there has been review and other work with respect to the other refinery proposed for Sumas Mountain. The group will be fully involved in the ongoing process of determining locations. Beyond that, the pollution control branch has very rigid standards with respect to emissions and pollution control of refinery standards, which are as high as anything on this continent. Those standards would apply regardless of analysis and study. So very rigid standards would be applied, whatever the location.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'd like to ask the Minister whether he would comment on whether or not the Environment and Land Use Committee has, in fact, recommended against Surrey as a site for the refinery.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, there's no final recommendation at this stage.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, vote 127, of course, shows a substantial increase from the year before — it's up about $1,400,000. It would appear that at least a good part of that vote is reflected in several new departments the Minister has created and which were not previously part of the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat.

For instance, I notice the Minister contemplates a department of agriculture and forestry, another one that will deal with climatic conditions; geographic conditions — I presume recreation, soils and geology and wildlife and so on. There are one, two, three, four, five, six different departments that we have not previously voted funds for, Mr. Minister.

I'd like to know if these departments are presently active and if the personnel contemplated in this vote, which are substantial in number, are now actually civil servants of the province. Have they been hired? Are they in the employ of the secretariat at the present time? Just what stage of development has taken place with respect to the money that you would ask us to vote on this particular section of vote 127?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think it's simply that we've given more information than we did in the past and under the former administration. All of this group basically were on staff before within the Department of Agriculture under the Canada Land Inventory grouping, so we've simply broken it down in terms of the specialties. The only real addition we've made is the core group of some 25 to 30 professionals over the last two years.

MR. SMITH: Another question. As I understand it, Mr. Minister, this was mainly a transfer of personnel from the Department of Agriculture to your department, so there has not been any great increase in the number of people actually involved. Is that correct?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, in terms of the analytical back-up staff, in terms of agriculture, forestry, climate, geographic, recreation, soils and surfacial geography, wildlife, in those categories, yes.

[ Page 3039 ]

That's on page...well, within vote 127 and the top page is L135.

MR. SMITH: Yes, okay.

The other question is the tremendous increase in travel expense shown on page L136, an increase from $25,000 to $334,000 — 13 times greater than the previous year. It would seem that the Minister or, at least, the departmental personnel anticipate travelling a great deal more this year than in the past.

There's also a vote increasing the amount of money for consulting fees and expenses from $50,000 to $350,000, which is a 700 per cent increase. I'd like to ask the Minister the reason for the tremendous increase in these two votes — the travel expense vote and the consulting fees and expenses vote.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Again, the same explanation applies with respect to the $25,000 and the $334,000 on travel expenditures. The amount by the old Canada Land Inventory group was under another vote and the core professional group was the $25,000 figure. The two have been merged into one single amount now so that the bulk of the money would have been in a sort of a single bundle number with the Canada Land Inventory group before. So that explains that kind of huge disparity. But again the reason is for inventory work in the summertime, just getting our inventory data in these various areas from agriculture, forestry, recreation, soils and surfacial geology, that sort of thing.

What was the other question?

Interjection.

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

I think again there were other funds in the budget last year that in fact made the number beyond $50,000 in other votes. But a fair amount of this is on projects such as Burns Lake where a wide range of work is necessary from working with the Department of Labour on job-training programmes for Indian people to looking at problems in towns like Mackenzie and seeing to it that the sort of commercial analysis in terms of the potential for improving the shopping centre and having an economically viable, larger shopping centre in a resource community on the frontier.... There's really a wide range of specialties from economists to you-name-it. It's actually a fairly tight budget for the purpose.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'd just like to ask the Minister again, with regard to the refinery, whether or not his department agrees with Environment Canada that one to two years is necessary in order to do a proper assessment of pollution problems and environmental problems associated with establishing a refinery.

The second question: I would like to follow up on something the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) asked. I didn't really think that the Minister gave a very satisfactory answer to the question with regard to the increase in cost for temporary assistants — a tremendous increase from $25,000 to $836,000.

Is that in the wildlife portion of this vote only or is that for the whole department? What kind of staff does it cover, really? The Minister left the impression with me at least that this $800,000 was some kind of an accounting trick that his accountants in the department have dreamed up. Above that $836,000 there is a $62,000 vote which is not earmarked for anything. I was wondering what that $62,000 is for.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a subtotal.

MR. McCLELLAND: Okay, it's a subtotal.

The third thing that I would like to ask the Minister has to do with pecking orders, I suppose. Where in the scheme of things is the land use secretariat? Is it the final arbiter over the Land Commission that decides on all land use problems in this province, for instance? Has in fact the Land Commission become only a sort of planning tool to assist regional districts in establishing their land reserves? Could the Minister comment on whether or not the diminution of authority from the Land Commission in favour of the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat has anything to do with the recent resignation of the chairman of the Land Commission, Mr. Bill Lane?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm afraid that I really can't comment at this stage in terms of times for refinery studies other than to say that on the basis of our experience with the federal government almost anything can be done in a quarter of the time that it takes them to do it and on a reasonable scale. If they say two years then I would guess six months. That isn't facetious; that's the result of experience. I don't really have any fuller information than that at this stage.

On the question of the staffing and funding there is a mixture in terms of people already in fact on staff. It is partly covering people who have been on staff on a temporary or semi-continuous temporary basis. It is a mixture of things like that. I think that that covers a fair chunk of it in fact.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would just like to ask the Minister how the secretariat cooperates with other government departments with regard to land use. For instance, if B.C. Hydro wanted to buy a chunk of land for a substation or

[ Page 3040 ]

wanted to put through a power line would they consult with the secretariat? If the Department of Recreation and Conservation wanted to buy a farm which they would use for wildlife do they check with the secretariat before making that purchase?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Only very major programmes or expenditures come before the Environment and Land Use Committee. If it was a huge land acquisition then it would most likely be discussed by the committee; a substation probably wouldn't come before the committee but a major transmission line might very well. Generally a lot of those things can be resolved at the staff level, working together. The technical committees meet on a regular basis as well and resolve a lot of these matters so that they don't have to come before the committee itself.

MR. PHILLIPS: Suppose that the Department of Housing wanted to buy some land somewhere and put in a housing development. Would they check with the secretariat? Who would really have the final say? Suppose that the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat decided that there shouldn't be a housing development in that particular area or the Department of Agriculture wanted to put a ranch in a particular area. Would the environment and land use secretariat have veto power over one of these other departments?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That remains to be seen. It is a matter of cooperation and negotiation and happy discussion and these matters get resolved in a harmonious way.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm just a little bit concerned because suppose the land use secretariat didn't agree with some of the policies of the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) in a certain area. Suppose the Minister of Economic Development wanted to allow a development — not necessarily a government development but a private industry development — in a certain area and the secretariat didn't agree. I would like to know who would have the final word.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: If the Minister is a member of the Environment and Land Use Committee then it would all be resolved harmoniously.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm still concerned about this, Mr. Chairman, because we have changed the name of the Environment and Land Use Committee to the "Environment and Land Use Secretariat."

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Maybe I should clarify that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, yes. Would you, please?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, I would certainly be glad to. The secretariat is the staff group that advises the committee, and the committee is a nine-member committee comprised of cabinet Ministers: the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk), the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea), the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford), the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) and others who are not here today.

At any rate, the group works harmoniously. It meets on a weekly basis and resolves these areas that used to be areas of strife and conflict in the days of former administrations.

MR. PHILLIPS: The total of vote 127, which is the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat.... Do you mean to tell me that the secretariat that advises the committee has a budget of $3,660,982?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, that's the discovery this morning.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's the back-up staff for the committee. But I notice that this isn't under the Provincial Secretary as an advisory board, so....

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources can talk in very soft terms about tremendous cooperation, but really it is this Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat that is really the most powerful instrument in British Columbia today.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, no. That's B.C. Hydro.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you have already told me the secretariat has control over Hydro, would have control over British Columbia Railway, has control over the Department of Mines, the Department of Housing and the Department of Economic Development, certainly would be able to, with the legislation that we have on the books today, overrule local governments, would be able to overrule the Pollution Control Board, because with the tremendous staff they can always do sufficient research, Mr. Minister, to justify the end.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, no.

MR. PHILLIPS: They can always do sufficient research. You were in charge of this particular secretariat; therefore, Mr. Chairman, this makes the Minister the most powerful man in British Columbia

[ Page 3041 ]

today!

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Nonsense.

MR. PHILLIPS: We have seen this octopus grow from last year to a baby octopus....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm just too lazy for all that.

MR. PHILLIPS: This year the octopus is growing and the tentacles are reaching farther and farther afield into every avenue of life in British Columbia. Control, Mr. Chairman. This instrument, this octopus has control over every segment of life in British Columbia and that Minister has control over the octopus! All he has to do is stick in his prod and the tentacles wiggle out. He can even override his own cabinet Ministers and he can certainly override the Premier.

This is where the power in British Columbia lies today, and this Minister wants this octopus to grow. He wants it to grow and grow and grow, and instead of having the proper number of tentacles, he wants to increase the number of tentacles, so that this Minister will virtually control the Province of British Columbia and bring it to its knees. Any segment of society can be brought to its knees by this octopus that that Minister is creating — an octopus, Mr. Chairman, that is being fed by a bureaucracy heretofore almost staggering the imagination, the bureaucracy that is feeding this great octopus over which this Minister has control.

The Minister knows it.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'll buy you a snake-bite remedy.

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't need any snake-bite remedy, Mr. Minister, but here we have people, ordinary citizens in British Columbia, who first of all have to wallow through this mire of bureaucracy before they can control this octopus. It is getting so that people in British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, are just throwing up their hands when it comes to dealing with that Minister — throwing up their hands.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, they are certainly throwing up their hands because here he is, the king of British Columbia, sitting on his throne, all-powerful — I won't use the other words. But this is really what this department is, Mr. Chairman, and no matter what area of the province you are in or what segment of life you are in, here we have this Minister, and it is through this instrument that he can control the economy of British Columbia, he can control the industry of British Columbia, he can control the Crown corporations of British Columbia, he can control the municipalities. This is why, when I say this is the most powerful Minister in British Columbia, even more powerful than the Premier, I am right on, because he will feed this octopus, and he will feed his bureaucracy so that he will have a shell around him so large that the ordinary person will never be able to penetrate.

What will we find? We will even find government departments wallowing in the mire of bureaucracy because of a decision that he doesn't want to see go ahead. He can have them bogged down, and this is what is happening in B.C. today.

It's practically impossible to see the Minister. If something wants to go ahead, he can let them wallow in this mire of bureaucracy until they finally choke and give up. This is why he has all this power — frustrating people in British Columbia. This is the man who really controls the Province of British Columbia, and this is the instrument that gives him that power. In future years I can see this growing even larger, giving the Minister more power. The octopus will grow, the tentacles will reach out and they'll be searching around to find if they've missed one little segment of our society.

The Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) knows what power the Minister has. As you go through this vote, this Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources and his secretariat does not rely on the biologists in the Department of Recreation and Conservation. No, no, Mr. Chairman. He's going to hire his own biologists and his own research officer under Recreation so that Minister, through this bureaucracy he is building, can go to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation, and if the Minister of Recreation and Conservation says that his biologists tell him this, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources will tell him he's wrong. "I have done my own research, and you can't do it." That's exactly what will happen in the research with regard to soils and surfacial geology.

He will be able to override the decisions of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) because he will have done his own research. And as I say, when he directs this bureaucracy to move in a certain way, they will come up with the decisions that that Minister wants. The Minister will give guidance to his research staff, and the decisions that Minister wants will be the decisions he gets from his bureaucracy. We have witnessed that in British Columbia before when we had results of studies tabled in the Legislature last year with regard to the price of chips and the surveys that were done.

That Minister gives the guidelines, and the people who work for him bring him the results that he wants or, I'm telling you, they will be on the outside looking in. So I just want you to know, Mr.

[ Page 3042 ]

Chairman, that this is really the instrument.

Geography. He's even going to try and control the climate.

Look at his research in agriculture. He has one, two, three, four agriculturalists working in his department. He evidently will not rely on the agriculturalists working for the Department of Agriculture because, as I say, when he wants a decision to lean toward a certain result that this Minister wants to obtain, he will have his agriculturalists give him the results he wants in those decisions, and he will override the Minister of Agriculture.

So this is it, Mr. Chairman. Even wildlife biologists, recreation biologists — you name them — this Minister has them in his research staff. This is why this Minister is the most powerful. It's no wonder that the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) becomes frustrated in trying to develop the economy of this province. We could do away entirely with the Department of Economic Development, with Mr. Lauk and his staff because that man, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, is the man who controls the economy of this province. He has it right in his grasp. Nobody can do anything in this province unless they bow to the will and the whim of that all-powerful Minister. That all-powerful Minister. He is the man who will....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are discussing vote 127, and not the Minister's vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm not discussing the Minister's vote. I'm saying that this is the instrument through which this Minister controls the destiny and the economy of the Province of British Columbia.

I just want to say it once more and then I will sit down. This is the most.... Well, you know how you have to bow to him — the backbencher who is clapping. He just turns around and the sheep will follow. But that's the Minister. I'll tell you, they're right on when they're following that Minister because any time he turns around and wants a smile, he gets it because they know that if they want anything in that government, he is the Minister they have to get the okay from. So they're right on. At least I give them intelligence for knowing in their caucus and in their cabinet where the power really is. The power really is in the hands of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources — the most powerful man in British Columbia today.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I just wondered if the Minister....

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): You called him weak-kneed last night.

MR. PHILLIPS: I did not call him weak-kneed. You withdraw that!

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: You withdraw that. I did not call him weak-kneed. I said he was the most dangerous man in British Columbia, and the most powerful man. Why would I turn around and call him weak-kneed and spineless?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member....

MR. PHILLIPS: You tell that Minister to stop yakking at me.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: He's just picking on a poor little Member, that big, powerful cabinet Member. The poor little Member for South Peace....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Member for South Peace River take his seat? I have recognized the Member for Langley. I would ask the Hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) and others not to interrupt so that the Hon. Member for Langley may make his remarks.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think it was an "octopus-prodder" he called the Minister. He's not weak-kneed. I don't know whether that's unparliamentary or not.

Mr. Chairman, I just wondered if the Minister might comment on the question I raised earlier regarding the reasons for the chairman of the Land Commission leaving government service and whether or not it was because of some kind of a conflict with the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat — whether or not the job of chairman of the Land Commission has now been reduced to nothing more than a file clerk or an office boy because of the power that this committee does have. Where does this committee stand on the pecking order, because we believe that it can veto any department of government on any kind of a project at any time.

Is it the ultimate committee for final solution of land-use problems in British Columbia? Does it have the right to veto the orders and decisions of the Land Commission and did Mr. Lane find himself in conflict with this situation? Is that one of the reasons he left government service?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, it's my

[ Page 3043 ]

understanding that Mr. Lane left the Land Commission for personal reasons, and I'm satisfied that that is in fact the case. There were a range of specific personal reasons that were the final determinant for him in deciding to change his position. The job that he has with the Greater Vancouver Regional District is one for which he's really quite well qualified. As you know, he had a long history in the Municipality of Richmond. So his background is primarily urban and his role in the GVRD will be primarily urban. That is considerably different than the Land Commission, which is more concerned with agricultural land preservation and some of the conflict problems in the hinterland generally. So I think it's a matter of personal interest and that kind of thing. I don't think any comment other than that is necessary.

Mr. Lane also felt, I believe, that all of the critical initial work had been done with respect to the establishment of the Land Commission, that the principle is now broadly accepted around the province and that his work with the regional districts in fact is part of the reason that that is now the case. Those that opposed the bill, I think, now realize that that was another one of their many errors in terms of long-term strategy against this government.

Vote 127 approved.

On vote 128: Lands Service, general administration, $872,796.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I notice that you have created the position of special adviser to Lands Service and there's a vote of $25,000 for the person who fills this position. Do we have such a person and who is that person?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, the person is the former Deputy Minister, Mr. Borthwick.

Vote 128 approved.

Vote 129: Lands Service, lands branch, $2,368,864 — approved.

On vote 130: Lands Service, pre-servicing Crown lands for sale or lease, $2,000,000.

MR. SMITH: I presume that this is the vote where you provide the funds necessary for pre-servicing in areas where the Department of Lands takes the responsibility for creating residential subdivisions. Is this the vote?

Would the Minister indicate to the committee the number of projects that are presently underway and where they're located at the present time — the ones that you are actively involved in at the moment?

Could he indicate to the committee what's their locality?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, we do have a list, Mr. Chairman. There was a wide net cast and discussions have been carried on with numerous regional districts regarding a broad programme beyond this kind of funding. That's assuming it was all provincial development and spending and not some other alternative.

MR. SMITH: Well, Mr. Minister.... Oh, you have it there, do you?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Those that are underway right now are Port Hardy, some really suburban type development in the Port Hardy area; Comox, a rural subdivision in the Comox area; a rural subdivision in Nanoose; Lanceville; Bear Lake; a major development in Kitimat called the Cable Car Development; Pink Mountain rural subdivision; Fort Nelson, a small development; Williams Beach, a fair-sized development at Williams Beach; Bellevue Road; Parksville, a rural development; Chatsworth Road, Parksville, a rural development; Cumberland, a rural development; Cortes Island, a rural development; Egmont, near Powell River, just initial work underway; Pemberton, a suburban development; Lillooet Lake, a recreational development; Powell River, a rural development; 93 Mile House; Nazko Road, a rural development; Webber Road, Barkerville, a rural development; Logan Lake, a rural development; Gold Bridge, a rural development; Clearwater, a rural development; Granisle, development; Hudson Hope; Midway, a small development; Mackenzie, a rural subdivision; Aberdeen; Prince George, infilling development. Those are the ones current.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I would like to say a few words, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the development in the Squamish-Lillooet area. It was referred to under the salary vote, the C.B. Cunningham recreation area. I think this is a development that is worthwhile.

It's an area that apart from recognizing the late Charles Cunningham, who came into that area some 40 years ago and worked as a game guide and a photographer and a great conservationist.... Not only would it recognize this person, but it would help to set aside an area for wildlife. Here we have the bighorn sheep in their native state. What has happened there over the years is that the cattle ranchers have moved their saltlicks right up into the alpine areas so that they are eating the grass that the sheep would eat during the winter. The mountain sheep survive on the side hill so long as there is long grass; they can start the snow rolling and get at the

[ Page 3044 ]

grass. But with the ranchers going right up into the alpine and semi-alpine areas, putting the saltlicks up there, the cattle go up and eat this grass and then there is no way for them to survive during the winter.

I believe that in this province — certainly in that part of the Yale-Lillooet riding — we have some of the most beautiful scenery and some of the best fishing and hunting that you will find anywhere. But due to the faulty management of the previous administration, in areas where pictures were taken of as many of 40 moose in one herd, today there are virtually no moose. I think we have a great obligation to this generation and future generations to attempt to restore that area and restore that wildlife.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We'll be glad to consider the proposal under this vote, Mr. Chairman.

Vote 130 approved.

On vote 131: Lands Service: surveys and mapping branch, $4,671,190.

MR. PHILLIPS: Would the Minister advise what policy he is going to take under this with regard to opening up agricultural land in the Peace River area? Are you going to go in, do the surveys, build the roads first and then put the land up for option or lease, or are you going to allow people to go on the scattergun approach we've been using in some areas? A person goes in, they get a family, a few more families; then there's a big call for the road, we fight for the road and we fight for the power line. What is your thinking on that?

There are many millions of acres that are still under scrub brush — poplar or aspen — that could be brought under production. Are you going to go in and map it first, put in temporary roads and then open it up? Just what is your thinking on this?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I am sympathetic to that idea as an approach, all right, Mr. Chairman. But this vote is survey and mapping, which has nothing to do with that kind of development. It's the broad mapping programme for the province and the serving of all departments.

Vote 131 approved.

Vote 132: Lands Service, composite mapping, $193,000 — approved.

Vote 133: Lands Service, University Endowment Lands Administration Act, $10 — approved.

On vote 134: Lands Service, University Endowment Lands golf course, $287,314.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask the Minister — I believe this is just a transfer from one vote to another, is it not? Was this previously covered off in another vote under your departmental estimates, or is this a separate vote altogether?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It is now a separate vote. It was formerly combined with the whole UEL vote but we have rehabilitated the golf course and have created it as a separate entity. That's what has happened here.

MR. SMITH: It is the intention, then, of the department — you talk about rehabilitation of the golf course, and now you have the provision of funds under a separate vote — to turn the golf course into a public course? Is this part of the...?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, it is a public course now.

MR. SMITH: Was it always a public course?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, there is a small club, but it's still an open system.

MR. McCLELLAND: Does the Minister expect that the golf course will lose money or make money? What's going to happen there? Will this vote be covered off by the earnings of the golf course, for instance?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The expectation is some losses this year but that after this year it will make money.

Vote 134 approved.

Vote 135: Lands Service, salary contingencies, $1,401,169 — approved.

On vote 136: Forest Service, general administration, protection, and management of forests, $48,801,573.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) wants to speak on this. He is at public accounts. Would you accept a four minute early adjournment to give him an opportunity? I could talk for four minutes but.... (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: We know you can talk.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, I have no choice but to move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

[ Page 3045 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Before the House rises I would just like to say that there appears to be a slight misunderstanding about what happened last night. I would like to make it absolutely clear that when the Speaker is called in to deal with a matter of refusal to withdraw epithets or words that are not parliamentary and the Member refused to do so, the offence is a disobedience to the order of the Chair to return to order — not for the expressions used. In this case one newspaper, for example, has said that it was for words used; it is really the disobedience to the rule of the Chair. It is the duty of the House to uphold the Chair when disorder occurs. I want to make it absolutely clear that the Chair has that duty. Whether or not the issue is the nature of the word used, it is a question of upholding the House, the Chair, and the dignity of the House.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.