CONTENTS

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

On vote 136.

Mr. Schroeder — 3268

Mr. Lewis — 3268

Hon. R.A. Williams —3268

On vote 139.

Mr. Chabot — 3268

Hon. R.A. Williams —3268

Mr. Chabot — 3269

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3270

On vote 140.

Mr. Phillips — 3270

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3270

Mr. Phillips — 3270

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3271

Mr. Wallace — 3271

Mr. Chabot — 3271

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3271

On vote 141.

Mr. Wallace — 3272

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3272

Mrs. Jordan — 3272

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3272

On vote 143.

Mr. Phillips — 3272

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3272

Mr. Chabot — 3272

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3272

Mr. Phillips — 3272

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3272

Mr. Phillips — 3273

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3273

Mr. Phillips — 3273

Mrs. Jordan — 3274

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3274

Mrs. Jordan — 3275

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3275

Mrs. Jordan — 3275

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3275

Mr. Chabot — 3275

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3276

Mr. Fraser — 3276

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3276

On vote 144.

Mr. Fraser — 3276

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3276

On vote 145.

Mr. Fraser — 3277

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3277

On vote 147.

Mr. Fraser — 3277

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3277

Mrs. Jordan — 3277

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3278

Mrs. Jordan — 3278

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3278

On vote 148.

Mr. Chabot — 3278

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3279

Mr. Fraser — 3279

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3280

Mr. Fraser — 3280

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3280

Mr. Smith — 3281

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3281

Mr. Phillips — 3281

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3281

Mr. Phillips — 3282

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3282

Mr. Phillips — 3282

Mr. Fraser — 3282

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3282

On vote 149.

Mr. Phillips — 3282

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3283

On vote 150.

Mr. Wallace — 3283

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3283

Mr. Chabot — 3283

Mr. McGeer — 3284

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3284

Mr. McGeer — 3284

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3284

On vote 152.

Mr. Chabot — 3284

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3286

Mr. Chabot — 3286

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3286

TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 1975

The House met at 10 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Does someone know why there aren't more Members in the House? Are there committees meeting without authorization? Did they get authorization from the House?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I attended a meeting at the end of last week, Mr. Speaker, and apparently permission is not required. According to the government Members of that committee, they decided that permission would not be required. We didn't query it from the opposition side; we assumed that this was the procedure that had been agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know that there is any authority for that statement, but I will look into the question. I don't think it is proper without authorization of the House for any committee to be sitting.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): If you could advise us, I don't think that we would raise any particular objection, although we would like to know what your ruling is. Perhaps you could give it to us later on.

MR. SPEAKER: If committees are doing this without the leave of the House, it means the House is completely impaired in its duties without having any sanction for what is being done. The difficulty is that the rest of the House may find itself hampered by the fact that it is short in numbers as we are this morning.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): I'm a member of the committee that is sitting now, and I can't be in both places. What is the legal status of this public accounts committee that is sitting illegally?

MR. SPEAKER: I'll look into this. I recall the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) complaining about this in one session. I did look into it then and I will look up my notes on it. I think that you have to have permission.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Point of order. I was just going to say that in view of the fact that the Speaker said that the Member for North Okanagan had complained about this in another sitting, I would just suggest that it wasn't a complaint for the sake of complaining, but it was the fact that we are faced with now. That is, it is impossible for Members to sit in committee in the House and carry on their responsibilities to their constituents, to the Legislature and, at the same time, be serving on committees.

MR. SPEAKER: That was the point that the Hon. Member made before and I looked into it. I will look up the notation on that. I think that it requires consent of the House. I will report back to the House at 2 p.m.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...the impression given was this was precedent. Apparently there have been other cases, and I don't put this forward for or against the practice. I simply give it to you for your information.

MR. SPEAKER: The practice in Ottawa was changed. Ours has not changed so far as I know, but I will check into it and report at 2 p.m. I don't think we should be doing it this way.

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

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

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

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): What kind of nonsense is this? We thought we were going into Highways. I'm sorry, Mr. Provincial Secretary, but we thought we were going into Highways.

HON. MR. HALL: There is no intention, Mr. Member, of changing horses in mid-stream. I thought we had an understanding that we would start with this Minister and finish him as soon as we could. We've started with the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams). We've done his salary vote and we have gone through half of his department. We have a few of his minor votes left. I say minor not in terms of quantity but in the sense of being well along his estimates votes. I thought we should get rid of this Minister so he doesn't have to have his staff and everybody on tap at any one moment.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would just like to say that we did hold up this vote because the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) has some items to bring up under this vote and he is also in public accounts.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): I would simply say, Mr.

[ Page 3268 ]

Chairman, that it is my understanding that the matter that the Member for Cariboo was concerned about has been dealt with in my office.

MRS. JORDAN: Point of order. I would just request of the House that we seem not to be following any procedure in terms of estimates. We seem to be jumping around like grasshoppers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order, I'm afraid.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, yesterday we were led to believe that we were on the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! That is not a point of order.

Interjection.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): On vote 136 in forest management, I would like to ask the Minister whether or not he is considering a change in the forest management policy that would allow for larger timber sales in the upper valley where salvage operators are trying to run their businesses.

The timber sales have been reduced, it is my understanding, to 100-acre lots and not more than two lots per operator. There is a shortage of supply, yet there is a demand, strange as it may seem. In the other areas of the lumber industry there is an oversupply, but in this particular operation which concerns itself basically with cedar products, there is a greater demand than there is supply. They tell me they could sell twice as many shakes, for instance, as they can produce because of the shortage.

Would the Minister consider greater sales to each operator?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think we did cover the point once before, Mr. Chairman, and the answer is yes. We're prepared to....

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Under this vote I would like to say a few words in regard to slash burning. I think that everybody in this House is aware that it's a pretty touchy subject in my riding, when we consider what happened with the Gleneden fire.

The practice of slash burning, in my mind, has never been proven as the only alternative we have. In the fall month when the Shuswap enjoys some of its best weather, we're often faced with smoke hanging in the valley for periods of five and six weeks.

Last year particularly was most severe for smoke in the area because we had such a beautiful fall; conditions were just right for burning and the fires burned on for a long period of time.

I was just wondering if the Minister has any studies underway at this time to see if there is any alternative available to slash burning, and what we can expect in the future.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, there is a considerable amount of work underway. It appears that we can modify past practice considerably, depending upon the specie and the age of the timber, whether its decadent or not, then we can probably modify past practice considerably and cut down slash burning a great deal. Part of the problem is that we have a considerable residue from the past. Part of the Gleneden situation was earlier slash as well as newer slash. The work has been quite intensive since the Gleneden fire and it does look like we can modify policies considerably.

Vote 136 approved.

Vote 137: Forest Service, reforestation and forest nursery, $19,813,760 — approved.

Vote 138: Forest Service, forest and correction camp programme, $78,000 — approved.

On vote 139: Forest Service, forest research, $1,715,778.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Vote 139 — what's that all about, Mr. Chairman? There must be something to be said about it.

Research — forest research. There is a tremendous increase here in the allocation of dollars for research in the Forest Service, or in the forests of British Columbia, which is an incredible increase — from $674,000 to $1,715,000. I wonder if the Minister is prepared to give us some insight into the justification for this tremendous increase.

We see an item here of $900,000 for forest productivity. Now what does that mean? In the SYU which I live in, within the area that is the Windermere SYU, I understand there is apparently going to be a 25 per cent reduction in allowable cuts, or in that vicinity, because of the expansion of park boundaries, et cetera, in that area. So I wonder what the Minister means when an allocation of $900,000 is made for forest productivity when it appears that productivity

[ Page 3269 ]

is decreasing in certain sections of this province.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That's just the point: produce more on less. Get it?

MR. CHABOT: The Minister says, "produce more on less."

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Right.

MR. CHABOT: Well, how can you produce more on less when there's going to be a cutback on the allowable cut? What kind of nonsense is that? Produce more on less.

HON. MR. HALL: It's just like your speeches, Jim.

MR. CHABOT: In the years I have been in this House, I have always prided myself in being a brief speaker, always coming to the point very rapidly, without the necessity of using unnecessary words.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Talk to your friend next door. (Laughter.)

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Oh, you're not so brief yourself. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: I'm sure that the Minister would want to justify this — not like he did the Marguerite, because that hasn't been justified yet, but just what this $900,000 really is going to mean in the field of increased productivity in the forests of this province.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I simply say that it's basically a shift in the vote from the former silviculture vote into forest research. There was funding last year under the vote for this purpose. The forest productivity study is an excellent programme that has been under Mr. Dennis Glew in the department. In addition, there have been some excellent people from the university involved in that programme.

It's basically setting up a system similar to what has long since been established in Scandinavia of sample plots around the province in various ecological geo-climate situations in order to see what the impact of various management activities might be in those kinds of site-specific situations. The idea, though, is very important — that is that prime sites or various sites might well respond to fertilization or to drainage or to thinning in a terrific way so there might be great accelerated growth of the trees as a result of certain management practices. So that's the purpose of this vote — to see to it that we produce more from less.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, just a few words on productivity. I wonder if this $900,000 takes into consideration the annual cut vis-à-vis that of the previous year. Could the Minister give us some information as to what the annual cut in British Columbia was in the year 1974 vis-à-vis 1973? Is that what this vote's all about? Could you give us some figures as to the kind of reduction in cut of the forests that took place in 1974, and whether the Minister anticipates a continued reduction in the cut of timber in this province because of the economic situation in the forest industry, whether he sees an accelerated cut in 1975 and what the projection is for the future?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The industry responds to the market. Nevertheless, we've basically been cutting about the two billion cunit level.

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, 2.0 billion. The variation basically has been between about 1.8, if my memory serves right, and slightly over two billion. The basic trend is very clear: despite the fluctuations in the market there is an acceleration of cut annually on a consistent basis. That continues to be the case. The actual allowable cut, given the whole Province of British Columbia, would be in the range of three billion cunits, so we're really operating on the basis of about two-thirds of allowable cut. The explanation for that basically is the northern hinterland, which is not developed — or is not being industrially exploited.

MR. CHABOT: One more brief question. Could the Minister indicate to me how much of this two billion cubic annual cut is utilized in pulp mills? That is, how much of this round wood goes directly into chips for pulp mills in the province?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I understand that the percentage is much less than the Member probably thinks. That is, it is relatively low. But we could have the staff confirm it. I don't have a figure at this time but my advice is that it is relatively low.

MR. CHABOT: Does the Minister support round wood going directly into chips rather than to the sawmill first and the residue going into chips?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I suppose one might generally endorse that in a stronger lumber market. But if one recognizes the world market situations in profit maximization or optimization — if that is a goal, and I suspect it might be for the Members opposite....

[ Page 3270 ]

MR. CHABOT: How about you? I thought you were bragging about the profit Can-Cel makes? You weren't?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I was simply suggesting that that might have been an interest.

MR. CHABOT: Be consistent.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: One hopes that we could optimize the situation and have a combination of social benefit and monetary benefit in the form of profit that would benefit all the citizens of the province. That's the goal of this government, not just profit maximization, which is important enough. The other elements are part of our raison d'etre. At any rate, I think that with stronger lumber markets that certainly would be a goal.

Vote 139 approved.

On vote 140: Forest Service, public information and education, $243,410.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd just like to ask the Minister if some of the advertising and publicity money in the amount of $113,390 is to print ForesTalk.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister answers "Yes."

Well, now, Mr. Chairman I'm slightly concerned about this magazine ForesTalk, because I feel that instead of being an information letter it's being turned into a propaganda piece of literature. What concerns me more, Mr. Chairman, is that literally hundreds of thousands of these are being printed. And, Mr. Chairman, where are they going?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Doctors' offices.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, Mr. Chairman. They're going into our schools by the carton. Carton after carton!

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You mean along with MacMillan Bloedel junk?

MR. PHILLIPS: Carton after carton of them are ending up in the school board offices with instructions from the Minister to see that each one of these little propaganda papers gets into the hands of the students.

In some cases, Mr. Chairman, the school teachers are refusing to use this propaganda tool. And some have been returned or sent to the fire heap. I'd just like to know what authority the Minister has to ask the school teachers to distribute this propaganda organ in the schools. What authority does he have to try and force the school teachers to distribute this socialist propaganda to the school children of this province?

You know, Mr. Chairman, we have complained in this House before about the fantastically high amounts of money in the budget for political propaganda. I'm going to have to go to the people in the province and tell them that that is the reason the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) has no money to build their highways with. All the money is being spent for political reasons, for political propaganda. It's no wonder, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) wants to take over the airwaves and all the television channels in British Columbia. Then we'll have a complete political propaganda machine so that this government, by using the people's own money, can endeavour to perpetuate themselves in office.

But I'd like to know what authority the Minister has to send these political propaganda pieces of paper into the classrooms.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The magazine is available to any and all who request it and I'm sure that Members of the opposition will be pleased to hear that we are actually considering broadening the magazine in terms of providing more worthwhile information for more people. The requests of the official opposition and all Members of the opposition of last year's estimates were taken most seriously by the government, who urged that a public information programme begin with respect to the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat and other activities of land-oriented departments.

So I'm sure that all Members will pound their desks with great feelings of support when I announce that ForesTalk will be expanded into a large, broader magazine that covers the Department of Recreation and Conservation and the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Mines, Lands, Forests and Water and so gives even a fuller view of the great work that's being done in all of these departments.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, he can expand ForesTalk and print all the propaganda he wants to, but he'd better go round physically and ram it down the throats of these kids, because they're just not buying it. And many hundreds of thousands of these ForesTalk magazines are being put in the incinerators in the schools because it's recognized by many clear-thinking school teachers as just nothing but a piece of political propaganda. And the children are not buying it. As a matter of fact, the children hardly take time to read their school books, so they're certainly not going to read your propaganda. I would maybe suggest to the Minister that it might be cheaper and a lot more effective and a lot better use of the taxpayers' money if the Minister himself went

[ Page 3271 ]

and talked to the school children and allowed them to question him. Or is he afraid of the school children? Does he have to do it by the printed word so that they can't come back and ask him questions? Why don't you go in to the school children and talk to them? There you're forced to be non-political. You'd have to state facts.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, I'll take the Member's advice and certainly spend more time in the schools of British Columbia addressing children in the auditoriums, giving them the message, the factual message of what we've been doing in this area.

MR. WALLACE: Since we're talking about doctors' offices I thought I might talk about paranoia.

It seems to me that ForesTalk is an excellent magazine. As one who probably knows even less than the school children about some of the principles of the forests and all the far-reaching ramifications, I happen to think that it is an excellent magazine. The production is first class; it's colourful. I agree with the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) that there's never any doubt left as to where the magazine emanated from. But I haven't seen or heard of any government yet, in any jurisdiction, that doesn't peddle this kind of stuff along with providing information.

I think it has been that way; it has always been that way; and it would be that way if we were government. I think you should realize this is part of the function of government, and no government even misses a chance to let its achievements be known. This is part of the balance.

On the other hand, I think some of the information in Forestalk doesn't seem to be available anywhere else — the strictly factual, biological, and environmental aspects. While the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) has a point, I have also heard comments in local schools as to how valuable Forestalk is inasmuch as it is very much up to date in many of the newer ideas in forest management. In balance, therefore, I think that it is a good idea.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I want to say just a couple of words on ForesTalk. There was what appeared to be an excellent article, with some beautiful pictures in it, even of mushrooms — which were poisonous and which were not — but the information lacked a tremendous amount of research. It was extremely skimpy. In order to get the full details on the question of wild mushrooms, I found it necessary to write to the federal Department of Agriculture.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, it certainly wasn't a partisan article, was it?

MR. WALLACE: Political mushrooms.

MR. CHABOT: If you are going to publish articles of this nature, dealing with a specific matter, I think you should be thorough in the coverage of the subject matter. You weren't in this particular one, even though the pictures of the shaggy manes and the other mushrooms were excellent, but there wasn't enough detail. In order for someone to get the full details on those which are edible and those which are not, it was necessary to write to Ottawa's Department of Agriculture.

MR. WALLACE: You need to brush up on your mushrooms.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think you are about knee-deep in a mushroom field.

MR. CHABOT: I wonder if the Minister would tell us now what he intends to spend of the allocation on advertising and publicity. I don't know whether printing and publication is part of ForesTalk.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes.

MR. CHABOT: I was wondering what the Minister's projection of expenditure is for this new forest service organ for the 1975-76 fiscal year of the Government of British Columbia.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The proposal is right here in this vote at this time, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHABOT: Is that the $113,390 and $90,150?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, that is the budget.

MR. CHABOT: Then it is $200,000, roughly, for ForesTalk? Am I correct in my assumption?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It is a combination, I think. The whole firefighting advertising — Smokey Bear, Keep British Columbia Green — is, I understand, all part of this. That is a significant amount of money as well.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, I agree there. Now you are not giving me the information. You must have some projection of the ultimate cost of ForesTalk. Just a projection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes. The actual publishing and printing costs are $64,000.

Vote 140 approved.

On vote 141: Forest Service, training school, 

[ Page 3272 ]

$213,619.

MR. WALLACE: Just one item on the tremendous increase in lecture and course fees. Here again, it may well be money well spent if it does increase knowledge about our forests, but that does seem a substantial increase — from $16,800 to $93,000. Could we have a little breakdown on that?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: This is the in-staff educational system for rangers. The purpose here is really to upgrade the courses, so we are bringing people from the different universities to Green Timbers. They are getting a pretty high-level academic input as well as the practical Forest Service background in their training programme.

MRS. JORDAN: I notice that there is $3,000 for laundry. I assume that this high-priced intellectual conference doesn't spend its time washing its shirts and socks. Why do they need to have laundry money? If they are going, surely they can afford to pay for their own laundry. It shouldn't be the taxpayers of British Columbia that have to pay for the laundry, should it?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I don't think that they would want to wear the sheets they sleep on, Madam Member. This is an in-house training programme, and there are dormitories. It is a full training programme and that pays for the bedding. The Member might agree that that is a reasonable proposition.

MRS. JORDAN: I would assume that university people pay for their own.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We should straighten it out. This is training of new forest rangers for the Forest Service. It is not a university programme.

MRS. JORDAN: That is different from what you said initially.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, I indicated that in addition to the normal ranger training, we were adding university lecturers so that they were getting a broader academic background as well as the practical, regular Forest Service training.

Vote 141 approved.

Vote 142: Forest Service, grant to Canadian Forestry Association, $35,000 — approved.

On vote 143: Forest Service, engineering services and forest-development roads, $6,179,215.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, with less activity in the Forest Service this year there is an increase in forestry development roads from $3,228,772 to $5,210,554. Now I would like to ask the Minister if part of this increase is to reimburse those firms that have built roads in the past and have still not received their payment from the Forest Service.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is the purpose of the increase in this road due to the fact that the Forests department is going to build their own roads now?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: In some situations, yes.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, is the Forests department going to build all the roads this year and not allow any logging companies or lumbering companies to build their own roads?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, certainly not. The $5 million would be a drop in the bucket in relation to the need.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, will part of this allocation be for that road being constructed south of Vanderhoof, B.C., for Plateau Mills so they can steal the timber from the Cariboo district?

HON. R.A, WILLIAMS: Part of the fund, some $700,000, will be used on the Kluskus access road which will provide access to the east Ootsa unit, which has not had road access in the past. An independent study determined some years ago that the best system would be to relate the catchment area road system to Vanderhoof rather than the Cariboo. That was independent forestry analysis prior to government ownership of Pleteau Mills.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to ask the Minister if any of the money out of this vote will be going for the bridge at Kitwanga.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is that built entirely by the Department of Highways?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That is my understanding, Mr. Chairman.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is the purpose of this road not basically to assist the Can-Cel operation?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, the Kitwanga road will be a major north-south access route, Mr. Chairman, providing access into the Nass and the whole Stewart Lake-Cassiar highway system, and

[ Page 3273 ]

Kitwanga is the closest sort of natural take-off point to feed into that whole area back of the Alaskan panhandle.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, it just seems more than coincidental that Can-Cel has their operation in there when in other sections of the province roads that have been in existence for quite some time are not being upgraded. I think this is strictly a political move on the part of the government to assist that great operation, Can-Cel, to show a profit at the expense of other areas in the province. This is what we are going to see. It is a political road that is being built. It is a political bridge that is being built, using up money from the Department of Highways while other well-developed areas in the province are suffering just because the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, the great architect of British Columbia, the most powerful man in British Columbia, wants some money for highways for Can-Cel and for a new bridge at Kitwanga — a beautiful bridge across the river there on that road up through virgin country. Why, Mr. Chairman? Why? To help Can-Cel, that's why. Other areas in the province can be going over potholes....

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not under this vote, I don't think.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it's road building. It could be, you know.

I think what I am going to try to say, if you will just allow me to continue trying to make my point, Mr. Chairman, is that if the government wants to build highways to help Can-Cel, they should take it out of the Department of Forests vote, because there's the poor little Department of Highways being squeezed right out of existence. We hardly have any department left — just an administrative body — and I think if we are going to build highways for Can-Cel and the Department of Forests.... And it is strictly a road to help Can-Cel. That bridge at Kitwanga is put there to help Can-Cel move the logs. There is no other reason.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, if it wasn't for Can-Cel in there, and if it wasn't for the fact that government owned Can-Cel there would be no bridge at Kitwanga. I defy the Minister to tell me otherwise. There would be no bridge at Kitwanga.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Really, Mr. Chairman, the Members get wrapped up in their own particular view of history and ideology. If you just check back in history just a few years to the former Minister, Mr. Williston, you would realize, in relation to that particular forest company, namely Columbia Cellulose as it was then known, and owned by American Cellanese, the great spending was done by that Minister. Great spending was done by the Social Credit Minister on the road system leading north from Terrace to the Nass Bridge. There was a major contribution from the Forest Service to the Highways department for the Nass Bridge and much of the benefit, in terms of industrial benefits, total benefits, was to the old Columbia Cellulose Co.

Despite that kind of bailing out of a multinational American corporation, they still lost $10 million a year. Despite all that, despite the Band-aids that the former Minister continued to apply for 10 and 20 years, Columbia Cellulose kept losing money. It was like holding a sieve. Then it changed. We became major owners — the people of British Columbia became the major owners — and what we're doing now is at Kitwanga, which is outside of their main sphere of operations.

The main sphere of operations is north of Terrace; not at Kitwanga. In fact, much of the benefit will go to a local family operation called Hobenshiels, who have been there for decades. They will be the ones. The Indian people at Kitwanga and the old family that runs the small sawmill, the Hobenshiels, will get the bulk of this benefit. So you've got it all wrong again. You've twisted history totally in reverse.

I doubt if the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) from that southeast banana belt has even been in Kitwanga.

MR. CHABOT: I have so. Take that back.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I take that back.

MR. CHABOT: I fished at Kispiox a few years ago.

MR. PHILLIPS: To that, Mr. Chairman, I have to say again Hozunga! He talks about Can-cel — and I don't want to get into an argument on Can-Cel. Far be it for me to get into an argument on Can-Cel, but we are talking about forest roads.

Can-Cel had to pay for their trees before that Minister took it over.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: They still do.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, they had to pay for their trees. They weren't subsidized by every department of the government. And while we're talking about Can-Cel, where is the financial statement? We hear all these great figures about a profit, but I haven't seen any financial statement yet. I haven't seen any financial statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to ask the Members to deal with vote 143.

MR. PHILLIPS: We're talking about forestry development roads and we should be talking about

[ Page 3274 ]

forestry development bridges, because the bridge at Kitwanga is being built at the expense of other citizens in this province who need that money from the Department of Highways. The bridge at Kitwanga, in spite of what the Minister said.... Oh, he spoke about it, and I will be done in just a few seconds.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: The bridge at Kitwanga and the road leading to that bridge, which is a new road through virgin territory, wiping out trees and desecrating the land.... But that government does it and it's fine. Where are the environmentalists? It's to help Can-Cel, and let us get that firmly on the record. The bridge at Kitwanga — hundreds of thousands of dollars and the road to the bridge at Kitwanga to serve Highway 16 — is to serve Can-Cel's operation south of the highway, and let's make no mistake about it.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, it's common knowledge that Can-Cel operates under special privileges at the taxpayers' expense and competes against other operators...

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That is absolute nonsense.

MRS. JORDAN: ...but that's not the point I want to discuss at the moment. The Minister's terribly sensitive. Problems?

AN HON. MEMBER: The big lie starts to wear a little thin.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, the Minister of typewriters ought to know about "big lies."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: Big lies. He ought to know well about them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Member for North Okanagan has the floor and I hope you're dealing with vote 143.

MRS. JORDAN: I am indeed. Mr. Minister, this is $6 million-odd. I would like to know....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Don't interrupt the speaker.

MRS. JORDAN: There's considerable concern around the province that under this vote there used to be an opportunity for independent operators to bid on forestry contracts to build these forestry roads in concert with the government. There are cases now where independent operators were turned down on the basis of the government Fair Employment Trade Practices Act. We asked that this be changed.

I'd like to ask the Minister: (1) how many independent operators bid last year for jobs in concert with this vote? (2) how many were accepted? (3) how many of these were non-union operators?

On that point I'd like to make it clear that there are many family operations, or very small operations, in this area that simply don't want to unionize for quite obvious reasons — which is not a feeling of anti-unionism at all. It's a family operation. It's the way they want to operate. They are independent, yet they pay equitable wages and benefits, if not more. In fact, frequently they pay more. They want to know if they are going to have the same opportunity to bid and be accepted on these jobs.

The second point I'd like to discuss is small in relation to provincial importance but it is important to the North Okanagan. The former administration purchased a beautiful piece of property on Mabel Lake — the Siglett-Shields property. This was committed to be developed over a four- to five-year period as an independent campsite area and this has not proceeded as it should under the current administration.

There are road problems and the forestry road has to be relocated. This is the road that goes in from about mile 17, I believe, on from Lumby, entering to the south end of Mabel Lake on the east side of the road.

Some money was allocated last year and, quite frankly, Mr. Minister, I'd like to have a repetition of the amount, because the general impression of those who are conversant with building forestry roads was that the money was absolutely squandered, that the amount of work that was done, which was minimal, could have been greatly extended if there had been competent supervision of the road-building materials and also if the students who had been employed to work on the job, and who were eager, had been properly supervised. This was a matter of great concern to local independent contractors because they felt they could have more than doubled the work done for the amount of money that was spent.

I'd like to know what's going to happen this year.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the first question on the number of people who had bid on road contracts and so on, we don't have that, but staff will obtain it and make it available to the Member.

With respect to the road into the south end of Mabel Lake, that's something we'll have to review as well. There is nothing contemplated in this year's budget.

[ Page 3275 ]

MRS. JORDAN: You mean you have sort of half-animated the programme? It's half-started.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It must have been half started in the previous....

MRS. JORDAN: The money was poorly managed last year. As I say, it was taxpayers' money that those who know how to build roads in the local area felt was squandered. Now it's going to just sit at a standstill. There is really no way that part can be developed for public use until that road is relocated. I would urge the Minister to meet the commitment that was made to the people. That is an area that is heavily used in the summertime. If the facilities are not put in there, then the park is going to receive undue pressure, it's not going to receive proper maintenance and it's going to destroy this beautiful ecological area.

I appreciate the Minister not having the number of companies that bid on the small contracts. But he didn't comment on whether or not non-union operators, contractors, can bid and whether they'll receive the same opportunity. It can well be that they should be paying an equitable rate. They don't object to that; a lot of them pay more. Are they going to have the same rights to bid on this $6 million as anyone else?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's my understanding that the Fair Employment Practices Act does apply with respect to this particular vote — therefore, no. However, with respect to any subcontracts of private operations on public land, that would not apply. So the opportunities would prevail on the bulk of the forest road systems of British Columbia, since most of them are not covered by this vote.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you. I appreciate the Minister's comments.

In light of his statement that the Public Works Fair Employment Act does apply to these contracts, and in light of the fact that government, regardless of where the interest in its pockets lies, has a responsibility to represent all the people within a province — in this case, all the people of British Columbia — I would request that the Minister ask for a review of this policy in order that small, independent contractors could bid on government jobs in road-building in the forestry area, and wouldn't be forced to go through subcontracts through the private operators or the timber licences. Would the Minister consider giving them the same opportunity?

Whether they like you or not, you're as much their government as you are the organized sector of society's government. In fact, it's even more important that the government stand for the rights of everybody to have an opportunity to bid on government work.

As I say, there are no objections to requiring that the same wage scale and benefits prevail within the operations of those small operators. But surely they shouldn't be channeled through a controlled type of bidding when others, just because they're doing one thing the government wants in terms of organizing, have free access to the bids. Would the Minister consider reviewing this policy in order that these small, independent contractors can...? There are not that many in the province. They are usually very good operators, very efficient operators; they're willing to work long, long hours. I know of no complaint where.... In fact, often it's felt that you really get your dollar's worth from their efforts. And that's the responsibility of the Minister — to see that forestry dollars are well spent and that the dollar value is received in terms of the work done.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Minister. I want to remind you, though, that we are not talking about policy, we are talking about legislation. It shouldn't take place under this vote.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'll certainly discuss the matter with the Minister, Mr. Chairman.

MRS. JORDAN: In a phone booth?

MR. CHABOT: Just a brief question to the Minister. I was rather shocked that the Minister would suggest for a moment that I wasn't familiar with the northwestern part of the province. I've travelled on a few occasions to that part of the world, primarily for fishing. Every time I went, I paid my own expenses. That's more than the Minister can say when he holed up in Terrace for one month at public expense not too long ago. The Minister was buried up in Terrace, hiding — nobody could reach him. I was always available; you could find me on the river. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to remind the Member that you're dealing with vote 143. That's got nothing to do with vote 143.

MR. CHABOT: Well, the Minister suggested that the little Member from Columbia River...

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think you are talking about an earlier vote.

MR. CHABOT: ...was not familiar with the northwestern part of the province — that I had never been to the northwestern part of the province.

The question is: how much of this 026 of vote 143 is going to subsidize road construction for the Ocean

[ Page 3276 ]

Falls Corp.? How much of last year's vote was a direct subsidy to Ocean Falls in the construction and so-called forestry-development roads?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You can call it what you like, Mr. Chairman, but the point is that we inherited a situation in which people in that region didn't have access to....

MR. CHABOT: Access to what?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: To the important inlet system north of Ocean Falls. Roscoe Bay provides access to, I think, literally hundreds of miles of protected waterways. So this we regard as a very significant input in terms of improving road systems in that part of the province, because it will mean that access from Bella Bella can be tied in to Roscoe Bay and, in turn, all of the waterways north and east of there will have access. So we regard it as a significant development thrust by government. In fact, the amount will be $1.5 million and it will probably provide a range of opportunities in terms of both forest access and forestry development, new settlement possibilities, recreation possibilities and transport links in an area that's been desperately in need of such links.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): On vote 143. Thanks, Mr. Chairman — I just came in from another meeting.

On the forest development roads that are in this vote, what is the policy of the forestry department after the roads are built, after the timber is cut? Are they going to leave them and abandon them as has been the policy in the past? Then we'll have no end of difficulty in the intervening time. The same Minister has let Crown land go to individuals — I have no argument about that — but they establish because this road is there, and then they're forced to withdraw. They don't know the difference, the citizen doesn't know the difference between a forest road and a properly gazetted highway road. I would like to know, since it seems there will be an increase of forest development roads, what the policy is going to be when the timber's gone. That's what I would like to know, and I think we need some clarification on this.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Chairman, with respect to this vote at least, certainly almost all those roads would continue to be maintained because they would be regarded as significant parts of the road system, Any abandonment would generally be in the tertiary, minor systems. So in terms of the public road-building in the forest sector, they would be maintained.

MR. FRASER: What you're saying is that the main-system roads that are now being built will be looked after by the Forest Service on a maintenance basis after the timber is all hauled out. You know, this is what's causing the problem, because the Forest Service today is saying that the timber's all gone, that we have no more reason for that road. They will not snow-plough it. It closes up in the wintertime. We've got hundreds of miles in this province under that condition now, and I think we're only adding to the problem if we're not going to have some future change or policy change now.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, but there are really the two systems, Mr. Chairman: one where we're funding and the other that's generally coming out of stumpage, and initially through the private operators. My comments were with respect to this particular funding.

MR. FRASER: You say they will continue maintenance.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes.

Vote 143 approved.

On vote 144: Forest Service: fire suppression, $5 million.

MR. FRASER: Fire suppression: this is fighting forest fires? Is that right?

I'd like to know, Mr. Chairman, how the Forest Service.... Is there any bidding on aircraft for fighting fires? Does the Forest Service consider local operators — that is, area operators? It doesn't appear to me they do. I don't know what kind of a bidding system they have. I'd like the Minister to tell me what it is. Why can't we use the people and the machines in the general area? They have a lot better knowledge — I'm referring to the interior — rather than bringing an operator from the coast up and stationing him at Williams Lake or Prince George or wherever it is. They're not too familiar with the terrain.

My understanding is that there are operators who could bid this business, but they're never even asked to bid on it. I'd like to know just what the....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that all operators are provided with the specs and material with respect to these proposals and it is on an open-bid basis. So if somebody has not been obtaining the information, it certainly will be made available.

MR. FRASER: Just a closing comment on that. Maybe a little better information could be given out to the interior operators of aircraft, because they

[ Page 3277 ]

don't seem to be aware that they can bid on a thing until after the bid has been awarded. Then it's too late for that year.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I see.

Vote 144 approved.

On vote 145: Forest Service: forest inventory, $3,038,675.

MR. FRASER: I think this is an important section of forestry. I appreciate the good job they've done but is this a continuing process, this inventory basis? It's been going on now I think for probably 10 years. It's very important because of the tenures in the different working circles and so on. In other words, what I want to know is whether they are upgrading the inventory. By these inventories does it show that there's actually more cut in a sustained-yield unit than, say, there was five years before?

How current is the inventory now? Are you fairly well up to date? Are you running five years behind? Just what is the case?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We have been reducing the cycle. It is now 10 or 11 years in terms of going over stands around the province. It is that kind of cycle — getting into areas on that kind of frequency. Very frequently the inventory work will mean that the allowable cut can be increased, basically, because the previous data was inadequate.

Vote 145 approved.

Vote 146: Forest Service: scaling fund, $10 — approved.

On vote 147: Forest Service, public recreation in forest areas, $900,000.

MR. FRASER: This came up under the Minister's vote, as I recall. I just want to comment that I am pleased to see that this vote is up from $600,000 to $900,000. I hope it is a little more than to just look after inflation and increased costs.

I don't feel that the Forest Service has done a very good job in the past or right up to now, not just in the last three years but in the 10 before that, in informing the public where these areas are. I believe the Minister answered earlier that you now have a major programme to make these reserve areas. Really, you know, there is no use having these reserved areas when the general travelling public — like people like from Vancouver coming up to Chilcotin — I don't know which are the public reserve areas.

While there is some controversy from private operators, I would like to hear what other development is going to take place in these areas if any, other than signing the areas, which I believe you said is going to happen. Are there going to be pits put in there so they can have a bonfire, or are you just going to sign them and that is the end of it?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: On this kind of budget, it is pretty minimal. Privies, certainly, have to be provided in more locations. This is a minimal programme in terms of these sites when you consider the size of the province. In terms of fire pits, the actual number of new pits proposed is 600 under this budget.

MRS. JORDAN: I would just briefly like to ask the Minister a few questions relating to recreation. Before I do, because my colleague from the Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) spoke of signing, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, would he just like to mention the signing that is going on in the province generally from the forest area?

I can see good reason why the Minister wishes to identify various forest regions, but the former government had a policy of minimum signing along our highways in order that people could enjoy the beauties of the countryside rather than a maze of signs. Now we are getting signs all over the place on the highways. One is from forestry regions reading, for example: "You are now in the North Okanagan forest district." This may have a very practical benefit that I am not aware of, but the sign itself is a very mundane-looking sign. It is not offensive, but it is not attractive.

If the Minister insists on signing these areas, I would ask him to develop an attractive sign that is in keeping with British Columbia. We are a wood area; this is the forestry department, why not a natural wood-type of sign with the lettering burnt into it rather than these garish placard-type signs? They are really very ugly on the landscape.

Apart from that, and in hope of comment, is this whole matter of winter recreation utilizing forest roads in terms of motorized vehicles, and the same in the summer. There has been a lot of effort by people in certain regions of the province to work through the local forestry district and with the recreation people involved to establish logical snowmobile areas within the forest reserves. These are responsible people. Everyone knows there are a few fly-by-night operators of snowmobiles. But by and large.... Certainly the B.C. Snowmobile Association is very conscious of safety factors; they are very conscious of ecological matters. They want to operate these recreational vehicles in a responsible manner from the point of view of safety and compatibility with the environment. The vehicles have opened up a wide avenue of winter recreation for a lot of people, particularly older people who might have heart

[ Page 3278 ]

conditions and who can't enjoy skiing but can go out on snowmobiles on organized trips. They can take pictures, bird watch — they have a whole new avenue of winter recreation opened to them.

I believe it is essential that we have specific areas in the province, particularly in the more populated areas, where you can use these vehicles. When I look at this vote of $600,000 I don't see much room, financially, for any assistance to help establish these, so I'd ask the Minister what portion of this budget will go to assist in the signing of some of these areas. Is there any assistance going for the public maps of these areas so that people going to the Armstrong area, for example — where there is some excellent snowmobile land opportunities that is compatible — can purchase weatherproof maps, know where the trails are, know where the safe areas are and know where they shouldn't trespass for ecological reasons?

I know that the Minister is opposed to these vehicles, but it seems to me he has a responsibility to recognize...

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Who, me?

MRS. JORDAN: ...that they are a legitimate form of recreation, that those who are responsible and use them want to use them in a responsible manner. But there has to be cooperation from this Minister in establishing these areas.

I would also ask him what provisions have been made for the establishment of some overnight shelters and wood stocking for cross-country snowmobiling. Also they'll be used in part by cross-country skiers. What staff has he now? There was one staff member before who was working in this area. What staff has he and are they dealing with and accomplishing something and responding to the various submissions that have been made by different regional districts?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I understand, in terms of staffing, that there are approximately two in Victoria and one in each forest district.

The forest districts are not the ranger districts. They are the six major regions oriented on Nelson, Kamloops, Vancouver, Prince George, Prince Rupert currently, and so on.

There are no funds in this budget for the kinds of facilities for snowmobiling that the Hon. Member would like. I would say, however, that basically the figure for Victoria is two foresters, two technicians on forest recreation questions.

As the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) has indicated a little earlier this year, he is establishing a recreation section that would be more involved in this kind of activity than this department. The bulk of our activities are just for small sites that are not significant enough to be parks and yet are natural, pleasant little stopping places for the recreating public. So we simply don't see our department's role beyond that. It would be a matter for Recreation and Conservation in terms of the brochures and various activities the Member suggested.

MRS. JORDAN: Just one further point. I appreciate the Minister's comments and I'm sorry it's taking time. I think if this gets out of hand it's going to destroy a legitimate form of recreation. But also the all-terrain vehicles in the summertime, and this does touch a bit on the next vote...but again one must assume that these have a legitimate place in the recreational field. There's no question that when they run higgledy-piggledy all over the hills and ranges they're destroying valuable rangeland. They're destroying valuable ecological areas because, as the Minister knows, they tear up the grass and what you get are weeds in place. Again, I feel that the people who utilize these recreational vehicles, who are the responsible ones, are most anxious to designate their areas where they can enjoy these vehicles but where they're not destructive. In the meantime, it's putting a heavy burden on the producers in this province who are leasing Crown lands, or have Crown lands under permit, to really clean up after these vehicles.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, that's true. What's happened is that the secretariat staff and forestry and Recreation and Conservation staff have worked with local clubs in particular and have worked out defining areas in some other parts of the province. We would hope to see that continued so that we get some kind of general input from the various users, plus our own staff experts, in reaching a consensus in terms of areas of activities.

Vote 147 approved.

On vote 148: Forest Service grazing range improvement fund, $600,000.

MR. CHABOT: Vote 148, I'm happy to see, is an improvement here in the allocation of dollars for grazing range improvements.

I was wondering if the Minister would be in a position to tell us what kind of programmes they anticipate to carry out in the forthcoming year on range improvement, Are there any programmes for the region which I represent? There has been a long-standing conflict in the use of the range in our area between big game and livestock; it's an ongoing battle. I'm one who believes that big game and livestock can live side-by-side and utilize the range. The habitat is historical for big game to graze on in the winter months — the winter areas. Nevertheless, with improvement I think that both can flourish in

[ Page 3279 ]

the southeastern part of the province.

I wonder if the Minister would tell me whether there are some dollars here for range improvement in the East Kootenays, and specifically what areas he intends to spend this money on.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The funding is basically for the three regions that are naturally heavy in terms of grassland activity — that is the Cariboo, Kamloops and Nelson regions. So the bulk of the funding will be applied in those three regions. That does include the East Kootenay, but I'm afraid....

MR. CHABOT: It does?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm afraid I don't have the specific details on the East Kootenay here. Again, we'll make a note of it and make the information available for the Member.

MR. CHABOT: You will?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, just a few questions on this grazing range improvement fund increase from $300- odd thousand to $600,000. I'm happy to see that. Regarding the area of the area of the Cariboo, I'd like to know how much of that — the Minister said it's in three areas — goes to the Cariboo because it's one of the largest grazing areas in the province.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Well, it shouldn't be going to Kamloops; there are just a few cows there — not very many.

While we're on range improvement, I don't think I'm out of order, Mr. Chairman — it gets us into the Grazing Act itself. I have no intention of bringing up the individual case I did before.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, don't! We have all the details.

MR. FRASER: At this time I want to acknowledge to you, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister met the party and myself. We are very happy with the meeting we had. I am happy to see that this Minister, while he won't meet the president of MacMillan Bloedel, will meet a small, individual operator. I give him full marks for that.

It leads me into the Grazing Act and what causes these problems — I believe the B.C. cattlemen have put a motion through. The problem with the Grazing Act is that there is no proper appeal procedure when there is conflict. The only appeal procedure now is to the Minister when an agrologist or a grazing officer says that you can't have so many head of cattle on the range, or you can't have any after you've had a permit. I think there's an inadequacy in the Grazing Act, and I would like to hear the Minister's opinions regarding this.

I don't think any Minister who holds this high, exalted position of Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources wants to have an appeal put before him whether somebody's milk cow should be released from jail or not. I really think that should be the last resort.

What I'm saying is: will the Minister entertain an amendment to the Grazing Act, in the not too immediate future, setting up an appeal board that the individual can appeal to, an appeal board made up of representatives of the Forest Service, the Cattlemen's Association, I would suggest — the B.C. Cattlemen or some responsible body like that — and the B.C. Federation of Agriculture? Hopefully, those two could appoint a chairman who would be more or less independent. This is just a general idea that I have and which I've heard discussed by cattle ranchers. I imagine the legislative process would be that the Grazing Act would have to be amended. I'm aware of, I believe it is, the McLean report on grazing, and I think they're even silent on this point. I've read that report once or twice.

While I'm on that report, I'd like to know from the Minister where it's at now. According to the Minister's public statements, it's out for public discussion. I'm referring to the McLean report. I'd like to know how long he's going to leave it in the area of public discussion, and when legislation, if required, will be brought in. I'm referring mainly to the tenure recommendations that were made by Dr. McLean — I believe he is a doctor.

The cattle people are quite interested in finding out just what the thinking of the Minister of Lands and Forests is on this report and when changes will come. It's obviously too late for this year, but would he entertain legislation to adopt whatever portions of this McLean report he sees fit in the fall session?

I'd like to hear from him on those two points — a better appeal procedure under the Grazing Act, and where he plans to go regarding the McLean report on grazing, which I think, industry-wise, and everybody I've talked to thinks is an excellent report.

It provides for longer tenure of grazing. The individual operator doesn't have to wait on the whim of a forest officer till the day before turnout to know how many cattle he can turn out on the Crown range and at what date. It's most unsatisfactory now, Mr. Chairman. I can't understand why the grazing division of the Forest Service can't let the individual operators know earlier than they have been doing regarding feeding the cattle and so on. They could organize a little better if they were notified, say, in February or March.

[ Page 3280 ]

I believe the Grazing Act now says they have to apply some time at the end of January — maybe February is a little early, but March would be fine. May is no good at all, and that's what has been going on in the interior of British Columbia — then only after repeated requests to the grazing officer.

I would also like to know on this vote we are on just what plans the Forest Service has. Is this to supply seed and give it to the individual operators to put on, or are they going to build fenced areas for grazing, testing plots, and so on? Just what, exactly, are they going to do with this? What is their plan and have they discussed it with the individual cattlemen's associations in the areas involved and had their agreement? I think there is a little grey area here too.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Certainly the question of appeal that the Member raised and discussed earlier in my office is something that we might well look at. I agree that some form of appeal outside the Minister is probably desirable. That should be considered at the time the Act itself is opened up.

The bulk of Dr. McLean's recommendations hinge on administrative practice as much as on legislation. Tenures and the like are really administrative questions, in terms of one-, two- or three-year tenures. Further advice that we've had from ranching experts indicates that it is not so much tenure per se as some kind of security in terms of their rights or call it what you will.

We again discussed the question of turnout dates. We have some sympathy with the comments made but it is my understanding that about one month's notice is really about all that could be realistic in terms of analyzing the grass and understanding the winters and seasons and the like in terms of determining that base. But we are certainly sympathetic to letting the ranchers know as soon as possible once we know. It appears there have been some problems in that particular region.

The seeding activity is under the jurisdiction of the local rangers. That might well be with local people handling that end or other arrangements that the local ranger would make.

I must just make a general comment about the statements regarding the lone milk cow that the Member was so eloquently protecting and arguing about a few days ago, and just give a couple of the facts — not all of them, because one could argue all day about them. It should be clear that this is a pretty strong-willed individual. The idea of stringing stove wire between trees at neck height so that when officials came around looking they just might run into problems in the woods is a fairly serious problem that has happened in that general area I understand. The business of the foresters cutting trees down in parks might well be clarified as simply a recreation area within the forest. It's not a provincial park. Six riders arriving on a certain date — the number is three riders arriving on the same date and so on. I think that while the Member embroidered his tale of woe to a fair extent, I think there is another side to the story. I can understand his reasons, but I don't think the details need be gone into at this time.

MR. FRASER: I'm pleased with your comments, Mr. Minister. I'll go from back to front. Regarding the gentleman who has the problem, I hope that you are in a position to come to a decision soon because his cattle are still not out on the Crown range, hopefully. They are on private property and he won't have any forage for next winter because they are eating hay meadows that should be growing to be cut for forage this winter. The other point that I wanted to bring out was that you really said that legislation is probably not required, but you didn't say when you would be making administrative changes. I think the industry is interested in knowing that. If legislation is not required to the Grazing Act when do you contemplate the administrative changes? Are you looking at getting it done this year for the next year, 1976? I think that the industry is quite concerned in view of the McLean report coming in last year.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We are still looking forward to specific recommendations from the cattlemen's associations and so on but we have been proceeding. The head of the grazing division will be retiring later this year, I understand. The idea is to bring in an outstanding person on a six-month to one-year basis to work with our staff now on new management programmes and pulling together new policies, so the intent that we see at this stage is an evolutionary process through that one-year period, working toward some of the recommendations of the McLean report.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I gather out of that that a person who is not in the grading division now that will probably be the boss of the new set-up when it gets organized, is that correct?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, that's right, but the intention is not that it be a permanent situation but rather that he work with the existing staff then bring recommendations for further organization and staffing. Then he would leave after six months to a year, or something like that. He's outstanding and probably could provide great service to us, but it wouldn't be a long-term proposition.

MR. SMITH: Just a quick point. Am I right in assuming that none of the money provided for improvement of grazing range is used in the improvement of what is presently known as "community pastures?" Are any of the funds in this

[ Page 3281 ]

vote used to improve the quality of grazing in community pastures?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I gather not.

MR. SMITH: Okay. Might I make one suggestion to the Minister then and that is this — that we have a number of community pastures scattered throughout the province, a number of them in the north particularly. In my own riding, one at Cecil Lake, one at Doig River, and one at Fell Creek. Now the original development took place under an ARDA programme which was fine. It was a joint programme between federal-provincial governments, but one of the problems is that the amount of money available in relation to the size of the pastures was not nearly adequate. They had to develop, or try to develop far more acres of raw land than was actually possible and get a good catch of grass in that area.

What I'd like to suggest is that the Minister look into the improvement of the grazing areas within the community pastures because I'm convinced that perhaps with fertilizer and some minor treatment for brush now, and whatnot, we could double the carrying capacity of the developed areas.

The other thing, that if we do develop any new community pastures in the province — and I think this is an ongoing project — you look very closely at the amount of money that it actually takes to properly prepare the ground for development and seeding.

If we don't do that then all we have is a large space with half the number of cattle on that particular range that it would properly carry if the utilization factor was better and the actual silviculture that was involved, or the methods of not only maintaining but improving, would be on a continuing basis.

We have that problem in the Peace country now, that most people say that they could double the carrying capacity of each one of those pastures with a bit of improvement.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That's a matter we will certainly keep in mind, Mr. Chairman.

MR. PHILLIPS: We have $600,000 for the improvement of grazing range improvement. I'm concerned about a particular case which would be under this vote because the land that this particular homesteader is on is wanted by the Department of the Forest Service to evidently turn it into grazing land.

The man moved on this particular area — two men, Mr. John W. McKie and Mr. Leslie W. McKie — I don't know whether the Minister's familiar with the situation. The description of the land is: Lots 1325 and 1437 in the Cariboo district.

This man moved into this area in 1969. He has seven children. He built a house in there and now he's being ordered off the land by the Department of Forestry.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: These are squatters?

MR. PHILLIPS: What's that?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: These are squatters, or what?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, evidently he went in and built his house without receiving a proper lease. It's another situation but this man is trying to raise seven children. He built his house in there before he got the lease. Couldn't get the lease because the Department of Lands at that time said that the land was not suitable for agriculture and yet he's lived there since '69 and has been raising his family. Now the Department of Forestry has ordered him to get off the land and said he must get off the land by the end of May this year and that was after granting one extension.

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

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't think the Hon. Member has the right vote for this particular problem. But if he would like to provide me with the details we'll certainly review it seriously.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well I would be most happy, Mr. Chairman, to give the Minister the whole file. The information I have — the reason I brought it up under grazing is that the Department of Forests...it's not a laughing matter, is it?

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

MR. PHILLIPS: It doesn't matter, really, Mr. Minister. But the Department of Forestry want this particular land for grazing and that's why they're putting this poor fellow and his seven kids off the land. I think we have a moral obligation, Mr. Chairman. If we're going to use this land for grazing, we have a definite moral obligation to either provide him with some new land or help him. Or what are we going to do — put him on social welfare? This is the problem.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: He's not on social welfare now, then?

MR. PHILLIPS: What's that?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: He's not on social welfare now?

[ Page 3282 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: No, he's not. No, he's got 25 cattle, and he's trespassing. What do you do with a man like that?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, I'm interested in any of your ideas.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'd leave him there. Leave the man there. He's been there since 1969. He's got his house there. He is making a living off this land where the Department of Lands said he couldn't make a living. I would suggest that you leave him there; at least give him a lease until his family grows up.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: How many children were there?

MR. PHILLIPS: Seven!

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I see. That could take a while.

MR. PHILLIPS: Seven children and 25 cows.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, I think the best thing is for us to simply review the file the Member has and see whether there are alternatives that might be preferable, or just what problem is caused by his squatting in this location.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'll have copies of this.... Unfortunately this information just came to me after the Bennett problem. But it is urgent. I'll be happy to make letters of all the correspondence I have. I do wish the Minister would check into it. He's given me his assurance here this morning, Mr. Chairman, that he will check into this serious matter, and I accept that.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of small items I omitted regarding grazing. I don't know whether the Minister's aware of this but the Prince George office of the B.C. Forest Service is denying grazing permits in the northern part of Cariboo because of the Indian land claim problem. I just wonder whether the Minister's aware of this. I have correspondence on it but I didn't bring it into the House. Apparently they have had instructions to not grant these.

The Minister says he's not aware of them. Well, you know, I'm telling you about it now. I realize that this is a very controversial problem, but not only in the forestry side of your administration but in the grazing division as well is this becoming a problem. They're denying grazing permits because of the Indian land problem. I just want you to know that, and I realize that you're concerned with this and that you have a meeting coming up.

The last thing I want to bring up regarding grazing: I don't accept the answer, Mr. Chairman, that your advisers have given you regarding one month's notice of turnout date. I think that can be improved on a lot. I'd just like to relate what happens.

The agrologists and the grazing officer of the Forest Service watch very diligently all from spring till fall, and they are able to appraise the condition of any given range by moving around on the grazing areas. I might say they do an excellent job in that regard. But somewhere after that everybody goes to sleep. They get into their nice offices, their comfortable offices, and they start preparing their reports and so on.

Now I realize that they have to wait until probably the end of March to see if they have had winter kills from frost and so on on the range. But I really can't accept the fact that they can't do better than one month. I think that the cattle owners are entitled to a minimum of two months' notice in view of the fact that they've watched the range through to the time of snowfall and then they have all winter. Really, they can't wait, in my opinion, until the results of winter are fully appraised, because by that time it's August in a lot of areas.

What I'm really saying, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, is that I think the grazing officers can give two months' notice and it wouldn't put them out one iota. The other thing is that if they're short of staff to get forms out and so on, well, I don't think that's a big item to upgrade that staff. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that that staff has certainly been increased quite substantially in the last three to four years. I don't argue about that at all. But the fact is that the fellow who is paying the bill, the owner of the cattle, is entitled, in my opinion, to two months' notice for turnout in the spring of the year. They have large investments. A lot of things have to be determined. You are not getting the right information if you are being told that these operators are now getting notice. They're getting hardly any notice at all — within 10 days. I don't think that's a way to treat the cattle industry in British Columbia.

HON. MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: We've noted your comments.

Vote 148 approved.

On vote 149: Forest Service: Peace River community pastures, $24,000.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to tell the Minister that this programme was started quite some years ago. It's been very well accepted, both by the Forest Service and by the cattle and sheep ranchers in the area.

But there is getting to be a crowding in the

[ Page 3283 ]

existing community pastures, Mr. Minister, and I think you are going to have to move either through ARDA or through some other programme to....

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, not really.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it is hard to know. I ask the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) and he says: "Go to the Minister of Forestry." But we are going to have the lands we need for expansion of these community pastures that are presently under the jurisdiction of the Department of Forestry. So it is the Minister, or the Environment and Land Use Secretariat — I don't know, you've got so many bureaucracies over there now you hardly know who to go to. One doesn't know what the other is doing.

But what I am saying, you're the man in charge. You're the most powerful man in British Columbia. You can tell the Minister of Agriculture what to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a Caesar.

MR. PHILLIPS: Caesar! So that's the reason I'm telling you the problem, because I know you can solve it. But we are going to need some new land extension. There is some set aside. It is just a case of getting the Forestry department to give it up.

I've argued this with the Minister of Agriculture — if the transfer has taken place yet — and we don't really know. Tell me, has the transfer of these community pastures gone to the Department of Agriculture?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The transfer has taken place and the cattlemen have said that they would prefer it to be back in the Forest Service.

MR. PHILLIPS: If it has taken place, how come the money is under your vote? What is this expenditure for? What are you going to do with this $24,000?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I guess we are in mid-stream, Mr. Chairman.

MR. PHILLIPS: All right. I just want to get this in the record, then. The community pastures, Mr. Chairman, are being transferred from the Department of Forestry to the Department of Agriculture. Next year we will see this vote under the Department of Agriculture. Is that the way I am to understand the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That is our understanding, Mr. Chairman, but there is this difference — that the cattlemen seem to now have reconsidered the matter and feel that it might well be in the Forest Service. But the process of it is ongoing. It has been transferred to Agriculture, yes.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, probably the confusion on the part of the cattle ranchers is because they can't get any satisfaction anyway. How could they say they want it back in the Department of Forestry when the Department of Agriculture still hasn't got control of it? They don't know whether the Department of Agriculture is doing a better job or not. What the confusion is right now when they do want an extension or want to deal with a community pasture, or want it upgraded, as the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) said, because we can increase the productivity by the use of fertilizers and getting rid of the aspen that grows very rapidly in that area, right now there is confusion because they don't know who to go to. Whether to go to the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Forestry. This is the problem.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The Department of Agriculture — the process is moving as we suggested it, but apparently the beef growers' convention this year passed a resolution urging transfer back to Forestry.

Vote 149 approved.

On vote 150: reservoir waterway improvements, $10.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I just want some clarification on the item under code number 030, where it very blithely says, "All other expenditures, $4.7 million" — that's a very large sum of money to be under the title "all other expenditures." Could the Minister give me some idea, just very briefly, what is included in the term "all other expenditures, $4.7 million"?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, that's the actual cost of the work, Mr. Chairman, so for example, expenditures will be $2.5 million in Williston Reservoir, $1.6 million in Mica Reservoir, and so on.

MR. WALLACE: I see.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I notice that last year under this vote there were six flunkeys, and I'm wondering why there are only two flunkeys required this year? (Laughter.)

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That is efficiency in the public service.

[ Page 3284 ]

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister could give us an idea how much money is being spent cleaning up the Duncan dam? How much is being spent on Stave Lake? How much is being spent on Bridge River? How much is being spent on Libby, and if anything is being done in the way of cleaning up Tweedsmuir Park?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I indicated, Mr. Chairman, $2.5 million on Williston, $1.6 million on Mica, $700,000 on Duncan, $170,000 on Stave Lake, and Libby is not covered under this vote. In the past it has been handled under Water Resources, and I think everything has been expended in terms of what was intended there.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, if these costs of reservoir waterway improvement are being charged to the B.C. Hydro at a net cost of $10, how come we don't have clean-up of the area behind the Kenney Dam with charges being made to the aluminum company?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, that's certainly a matter that I'd be happy to discuss with the aluminum company. We have carried out by warrant expenditures in the past of about $300,000, if my memory serves me, last year, working with local operators out of Vanderhoof on Ootsa Lake and determining costs of clearing under different conditions, and on a priority basis in terms of recreation sites in that reservoir.

So we now have, I think, satisfied ourselves about costs in the series of lakes that were flooded by the Kenney Dam and the aluminum company's activities for the Kitimat operation.

A very narrow kind of contractual relationship developed between the Crown of those days and that company. Certainly it's my personal view that there is a case for the aluminum company to make expenditures to clean up the monstrous environmental damage they've perpetrated on that part of the province.

I'd certainly be pleased to discuss the whole matter with the aluminum company, and I have on other occasions in a general way indicated my concern about this question with the management, but it's something that might be more actively pursued.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, two more questions.

Do I take it from what the Minister has said that he has given a public commitment to engage in negotiations with the aluminum company with a view eventually to cleaning up that mess which exists in the northern part of British Columbia?

My second question is: at present rates of expenditure on the waterways we are clearing, such as Stave Lake, Mica, and so on, when will those reservoirs be finally cleared up along the shoreline? Stave Lake is now more than a half-century old — the environmental damage — with lots of work still to be done. I wonder if there's any prospect of having these reservoirs cleaned up within a century, let's say.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm afraid that I can't give that information, Mr. Chairman. It's something that we might apply ourselves to. I think it's abundantly clear that what we've done to the environment in these basins is considerable, and the cost will be huge, absolutely huge, in terms of cleaning up the mess.

I think the important thing is that we're seeing to it that more is being done and that the activities have begun in places where they weren't taking place before. At least they're established on a priority basis in these reservoirs.

It's a major job that we have. We might well be able to provide information at a later stage on how long it would take at current rates.

MR. McGEER: One final question, Mr. Chairman.

We know that once environmental damage is incurred by a dam we may be looking forward to a century of ruination. The clean-up taking place now is alleged to be so costly that it can only be considered on a very long-term basis. We're talking 50 to 100 years. What I'd like to ask is whether in future power developments — and I'm thinking specifically of Site 1 and the Pend-d'Oreille — whether or not the environmental damage is completely taken into account in the initial costing of the dam so there won't be a century of clean-up left over after any new Hydro projects.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, yes. There's no intention to carry on the practice of the old government. There will be clearing of these basins. They are relatively small basins compared to the others, of course.

Vote 150 approved.

Vote 151: Forest Service: salary contingencies, $7,917,269 — approved.

On vote 152: Water Resources Service: general administration, $204,594.

MR. CHABOT: Vote 152, Mr. Chairman. I want to refresh the Minister's memory a little here because in an earlier discussion with the Minister regarding water diversions he suggested I bring it up in the oral question period and I really didn't want.... The Minister can give me a reply that he would take the matter

[ Page 3285 ]

as notice and I'd never get a reply, because I've had correspondence with the Minister now since March 26. I received an acknowledgment of my original letter and I traced it on April 20-something, and also I've recently written to the Minister again seeking a very simple answer to a problem that is being experienced in my area.

I thought maybe if the Minister took it as notice I would never get an answer so I thought that this would be the appropriate place to bring up this question of water levels and potential water diversions. This relates to article 13 of the Columbia River treaty in which the Province of British Columbia has the right of diversion of certain quantities of the Kootenay River into the Columbia River. In 1984 volumes of 70 per cent of the Kootenay River can be diverted into the Columbia for maximizing of power production at Mica and at other downstream dams.

I'm firmly convinced in my own mind that certainly I have to agree that it will maximize and increase the potential power production of Mica, but it will have tremendous economic and ecological disruption. I personally cannot see any justifications for the cost that would be incurred in the diversion of this water, which the province has the right to do. It would involve the costs of possible relocation of a very costly railroad that has been upgraded over the years. It has moved from 65-pound rail to 85-pound rail to 100-pound rail to 120-pound rail to ribbon steel — that's a progression as far as railroads are concerned. Once you move out of a resource-type railroad you move up and you upgrade as traffic justifies an upgrading of a railroad.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I see.

MR. CHABOT: You get the picture, I hope...

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

MR.CHABOT: ...of the kind of costs that have been incurred because of increased traffic on that railroad — the kind of disruption and the kind of costs that would be involved in building a comparable railroad that is handling a tremendous amount of traffic, not a resource railroad like you see in northern British Columbia that were built to lower standards because of lack of traffic.

Also, it would involve elevating of the highway in certain locations, it would involve changing of highway bridges, and most of all, it would disrupt waterfowl nesting, which is a very important thing in the Columbia Valley where the geese and the ducks nest. It would also destroy one community if you.... There is a tremendous fluctuation on those lakes — Columbia Lake and Lake Windermere — in flood. These lakes increase in elevation by 10 feet during flood.

Now we're looking at a diversion of up to 70 per cent of the Kootenay River, which would again increase tremendously the flooding potential of the area which I represent. It would have tremendous disruption.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Limited fluctuation.

MR. CHABOT: Limited fluctuation? I'm advised that the fluctuation, instead of being in the vicinity of 10 feet, which is critical, would increase the water level between two and three feet more. It would completely destroy one community for sure, without any doubt, plus a disruption of the hundreds of homes that are located adjacent to Lake Windermere and Columbia Lake.

MR. CUMMINGS: How many?

MR. CHABOT: I said hundreds of homes — hundreds of summer homes along the east side of Lake Windermere.

MR. WALLACE: What do you know about Lake Windermere, Roy?

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't even know where it is.

MR. CHABOT: Not only that, but the kind of environmental damages that would result along the Kootenay River would be horrendous. It would create tremendous pollution. When you remove 70 per cent of the water from a river and dump it into another river at the height of land — Canal Flats — you can imagine what would happen to the dam and the power production on those dams that presently exist on the Kootenay River. You would turn the Kootenay River virtually into an irrigation ditch — that's what would take place on the Kootenay River. You can imagine the kind of pollution that would exist because of the pulp mills and the steel mills — well, not a steel mill any more, but the effluent coming from the lead and zinc mine from Kimberley. With a reduced flow of water, you can imagine the tremendous amount of pollution that would be created on the Kootenay River as well as the disruption of power production.

Without discussing this at any great length, I want to say that I can't really believe that the benefits that would be derived from additional power generation justify the kind of ecological and economic disruption that would take place in that part of the province.

The Deputy Minister has provided me with details telling me that you're evaluating the technical and economic feasibilities of this potential diversion. He

[ Page 3286 ]

also mentioned the possibility of a control weir near the outlet of Lake Windermere in the vicinity of Athalmer to maintain favourable summer levels on the lake that is being studied. I'm under the impression that that has been studied for some considerable period of time. It's been a matter of constant review; it is a problem with this tremendous fluctuation of the lake. I thought by now that the Department of Water Resources would have some answers — it's just a question of getting the thing underway.

I wonder if the Minister will tell me whether there is any intention on the part of the Province of British Columbia to exercise article 13 in the Columbia River treaty which would involve, in 1984, the diversion of up to 70 per cent, 1,500,000 acre feet of water, into the Columbia River to maximize power production on Mica.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, there is no question that this would be a significant enterprise and would have impact of some scale in various ways. But, you know, it is all part of our rights under the Columbia River treaty, and the former government let so much slip through their fingers...

MR. CHABOT: Nonsense!

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: ...in relation to the Columbia River treaty that this option must be analyzed in considerable detail. That is what we are doing now, analyzing this option in considerable detail in terms of economic benefit, in terms of ecological impact and the like. At this stage we are simply trying to ascertain the facts and the impact of such a proposition. There is no policy decision at this stage at all, other than to see to it that detailed studies are carried out so that we know exactly what kind of impact, cost and benefit we would have, were it to be considered.

MR. CHABOT: There is just one other brief question. The people in the region I represent are in a state of hiatus now because now we have these ecological, economic and technical studies going on. Are they going to be held in abeyance until 1984 to get an answer? Is the government carrying out these surveys and studies for the purpose of strengthening their position, or for economic benefits, when 1984 rolls around, for negotiating strength with the United States? Or is there a genuine desire on the part of the government to divert — the rights which were given under the Columbia River treaty — into the Columbia River a part of the flow of the Kootenay River? Is this the intention, or is the intention just, basically, to strengthen your negotiating position with the United States?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think the answer I gave covers the Member's question, Mr. Chairman. But, certainly, Hydro's position of the last few years has been to involve the public in the decision-making process and to provide them with data and information. So all we are doing at this stage is getting the data and information, and any subsequent step would have to involve some participation.

MR. CHABOT: Participation by whom?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, the public — the locally affected people.

MR. CHABOT: Now, Mr. Chairman — I don't know whether.... It is 12 o'clock, maybe the committee should adjourn.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:02 p.m.