[ Page 1529 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Wage-and-price controls. Ms. Sanford –– 1529

Domestic animal protection. Mr. Kahl –– 1529

Aid to handicapped persons. Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm answers –– 1529

Cost of ferry advertisement. Mr. Wallace –– 1531

Government policy on private insurance companies. Mr. Cocke –– 1531

Government policy on oil supply. Mr. Macdonald –– 1531

Committee of Supply: Ministry of the Environment estimates.

On vote 84.

Ms. Sanford –– 1532

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1534

Mr. Lea –– 1537

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1537

Mr. Gibson –– 1539

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1541

Mr. Levi –– 1541

Mr. Wallace –– 1542

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1544

Mr. Lauk –– 1545

Mr. Lockstead –– 1547

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1549

Mrs. Wallace –– 1550

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1551

Ms. Sanford –– 1554

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1554

Mrs. Dailly –– 1555

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1555

Mr. Kempf –– 1556

Mr. Gibson –– 1559

Mr. King –– 1559

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1560

Mr. Nicolson –– 1561

Tabling reports

Committee on continuing and community education report. Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 1562

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I would very much like to introduce to the House a native Newfoundlander who has his degree in electrical engineering. Subsequently he became ordained as an Anglican priest, later to receive his t doctorate of divinity, and he was appointed to the dean of All Saints Cathedral in Edmonton. In 1974, Mr. Speaker, he became the legislative ombudsman for the province of Alberta, and last year he held the first international conference of ombudspeople in the world. This was held in Edmonton, it was widely acclaimed, and I think there was a very beneficial exchange of worldwide views. I would like the House to pay most cordial welcome to Dr. Randall Ivany, who is in the gallery.

Accompanying Dr. Ivany, Mr. Speaker, is Mr. Alex Weir, the chief solicitor for the Alberta ombudsman.

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Seated in the gallery today, Mr. Speaker, are a group of 20 Victoria citizens from the James Bay New Horizons Centre, and I would ask the members to make them welcome.

MR. L. BAWTREE (Shuswap): Visiting in the gallery this afternoon are some members of the municipality of Salmon Arm: Her Worship Mayor Margaret Lund, Alf Ames, and Mr. Dan MacQuarrie, who are the aldermen on the council, and two of their senior staff members, Don Huntington and Bill Spence. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to give a very cordial welcome to 10 ladies who are visiting from Langley constituency today - all of whom are -members of the Langley Women's Auxiliary to the Social Credit Association. We'd like to welcome them.

Oral questions.

WAGE-AND-PRICE CONTROLS

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister confirm that he did say that if the province brought in provincial wage-and-price controls alone such controls would be (a) disastrous, (b) unworkable and (c) ineffectual')

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Yes.

MS. SANFORD: A supplementary question: can he minister tell the House on what basis he reached these conclusions? Were they based on reports and research from your staff?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No.

DOMESTIC ANIMAL PROTECTION

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): I have a question for he Minister of Agriculture. Has he been successful in setting up a meeting with the Capital Regional Board members to discuss the Domestic Animal Protection Act?

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I would advise the member for Esquimalt that my staff are at the present time arranging such a meeting.

MR. KAHL: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Agriculture: I was told two weeks ago that your staff was in the process of arranging that meeting. I continued to get phone calls and letters from people in my constituency

MR. SPEAKER: Could we have the supplemental, please?

MR. KAHL: Would the minister make a concerted effort in getting that meeting set up quickly?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I'll endeavour to do that as quickly as possible.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, is the minister intending to treat the other regional districts in the same manner as the capital region? In other words, is he going to have meetings with those regional districts on dog control? If so, when?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to meet with the Capital Regional District as quickly as possible. The effect on the other regional districts will be under consideration as well. I'm sure the members realize that there was a proposal sent out by the Ministry of Agriculture to all the regional districts in carrying out dog control within the regional districts. The response has not been too great because they do not wish to accept the financial responsibility of carrying out that control. However, I question whether or not the control should be the responsibility of the province.

AID TO HANDICAPPED PERSONS

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human

[ Page 1530 ]

Resources): Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to an oral question on federal cost-sharing for the handicapped persons income allowance benefits. The Canada Assistance Plan shares income assistance programmes 50-50 with the province. When we came to office, it was discovered that because of changes that had been made and where no negotiations or poor negotiations had existed between the previous administration and the federal government, the cost-sharing for the handicapped persons allowance programme had in effect dropped to 40 per cent federal and 60 per cent provincial, and for the year 1975 alone the loss to the province of lack of income from the federal government for that programme was $2.5 million.

Immediately in 1976 we set out to negotiate this inequity. We were successful in obtaining the 10 per cent which the previous government had lost, and we recouped the equivalent of $22.50. So far we have received slightly over $1 million. We expect to receive the balance, of course, and we are now put in the fortunate position of being able to negotiate a better deal for the handicapped of British Columbia. We will be announcing the very best in Canada tomorrow morning.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker: since the Premier told this House on Monday that the minister and the cabinet had the right to raise the handicapped allowance at any time by order-in-council, what does the minister mean by telling an eight-person delegation yesterday that the passing on of the federal increase of $22.50 starting last October had to be scrutinized by the opposition? What does he mean by that?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I did not, Mr. Speaker, say that the increase - whatever increase -would have to be scrutinized by the opposition. I think what I might have said - and possibly the member who just spoke misunderstood - is that his mathematics were very poor and his system would lead to chaos. If we followed his theory and passed on increases only on the basis of $22.50 having been received retroactively, so to speak, eventually we would end up with zero and the handicapped of British Columbia would see no increases at all. J advised the group that we were constantly reviewing the programme with the view of improving the benefits for the handicapped of British Columbia.

MR. GIBSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The minister may challenge my arithmetic, but I challenge his ability to read when, in his own letter, he says: "It cannot be increased without providing the opposition the opportunity to scrutinize the expenditure in the Legislature." What I want to know from that minister is: is it not a, fact that vote 117, out of which allowances to the handicapped are being paid, which is the budget of which he was speaking in that comment, is being significantly underspent thus far this year? Is that not a fact?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The handicapped programme is not being underspent, but I would like to advise the member that when he reads something to the House he should read the whole of the paragraph and not only that part which he wishes to pass on. He conveniently left off the part that matters.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): A supplementary to the Minister of Human Resources: is the Minister of Human Resources saying that he has been ripping off the handicapped to the tune of $1 million to put it into the general revenue of this province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's clearly argumentative, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the minister is about to respond. He told us that he's taken $1 million from the handicapped to put into his general revenue.

MR. SPEAKER: It's clearly argumentative and out of order, hon. member.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, can the minister confirm that the allowance to the handicapped people is the $265 that was introduced in January of 1976?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's a matter of public record.

MR. LEVI: I'm asking the minister if he can confirm. He has constantly said that he is reviewing and improving. That allowance has not been increased since January, 1976. Can he confirm that the allowance is $265?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: That may be true, but it is a proper question if the member so wishes to state it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the member asking that. I think everyone in the province knows what the allowance is, but I think that particular member, when he was minister, didn't know the figures and consequently many of these programmes went begging.

[ Page 1531 ]

COST OF FERRY AD

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): On a lighter note for a moment, this is a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing with regard to the Burrard Inlet ferry service and in view of the government's policy of restraint in spending. Does he not consider that the full-page ad in the March 2 edition of The Vancouver Sun conflicts with that policy, and could he tell us what the ad cost?

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Mr. Speaker, the precise cost of the campaign will be a matter I could report to the House on later, or it will show in public accounts in due course. With respect to the general advertising to which he has referred, I believe our total expenditures in advertising as a government are significantly below that of the former administration.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: May I continue with the answer, Mr. Speaker? They are significantly below the expenditures of the previous government. But we have here an opportunity in the view of the government to raise the consciousness of the people of greater Vancouver with respect to an exciting new service with which this government is proceeding. The contest appealed to my colleagues and myself as an interesting way in which to attract attention to a service which we expect should be maximized in terms of patronage from the first day it's in operation.

MR. WALLACE: In light of the minister's answer, can I assume then that there will be ongoing advertising beyond this ad? Since the minister offered a ballpark figure - since he doesn't have precise figures, he said he could state an approximate total figure - would he care to tell the House what that will be?

HON. MR. CURTIS: If I was misunderstood, I'm sorry. I indicated that later I would be able to give the member the precise answer he seeks, or it could appear in public accounts. The ongoing advertising campaign is, in fact, now.... With the exception of the radio section of the contest, which I think will run for another few days, there will be no further advertising until immediately preceding the commencement of the service.

MR. WALLACE: I shouldn't involve myself in any conflict of interest, but if I may use the immunity of the House, would the minister consider my suggestion for the title: "Curtis' Regional Aid to Pedestrians"? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, it's a question, and you've allowed it. I appreciate the suggestion. Members on this side of the House have at least had the courtesy to submit them in writing. (Laughter.)

GOVERNMENT POLICY ON

PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, to keep things going along the line that the member for Oak Bay started, I'd like to draw the House's attention to another ad. The Royal Insurance company is advertising non-compulsory auto insurance - that's collision, fire and theft. The advertisement restricts the sale of this coverage to those people who are 30 years of age and over, with five-year accident-free records.

I'd like to ask the Minister of Education the following question: is the minister considering any action to stop this company from creaming the market to leave ICBC with the poorer risks, or is it government policy to allow the private insurers to force ICBC's costs up by allowing this creaming process?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, unlike the former NDP administration, this administration is not terrified of competition. We're quite certain that ICBC can stand on its own two feet, and we welcome competition in the automobile insurance market.

MR. COCKE: As a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, even the old administration under the Social Credit government tried to stop creaming and couldn't possibly do it, but now the minister stands and says he doesn't mind competition, despite the fact that it's impossible competition for ICBC to deal with.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you state your supplementary question, please?

MR. COCKE: Therefore I ask the minister if he would go back to his experts on insurance, including actuaries, and ask them whether or not they would approve of taking the line that he's endorsing at the present time.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, this is the policy of the ICBC board of directors. It's the policy of the government of British Columbia, and I submit that it will be welcomed by the people of this province, who will have a free choice of optional automobile insurance.

GOVERNMENT POLICY ON OIL SUPPLY

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr.

[ Page 1532 ]

Speaker, this question is to the Premier. In view of the fact that West Coast Transmission has issued a strong demand, as it calls it, that American customers come first until the -809 million cubic feet to 1989" contractual commitment, as they call it, is met, will the Premier assure this House that the former policy of the former administration that B.C. customers come first in terms of our depleting natural resource will be upheld, and that the American customers will not come first under this contract, as is being threatened at the present time?

MR. SPEAKER: It certainly is a question that's broad in scope and could better be covered by a statement of policy than in question period.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, in response to the first member for Vancouver East, I'd suggest that the government recognizes it s responsibility to the people of B.C. We also recognize the contractual responsibility that reflects upon the integrity of British Columbia and Canada. We will attempt to meet both responsibilities that belong to the government of British Columbia.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY

OF THE ENVIRONMENT

(continued)

On vote 84: minister's office, $124,088 -

continued.

MS. SANFORD: I must say that I'm rather shocked that the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) has refused to comment on two particular issues which could have devastating environmental affects on this province. I refer particularly to the issues relating to the diversion of the McGregor and to the Kitimat pipeline.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that if the Minister of the Environment is going to stand for the protection of the environment in this province, he should at least comment as to where he stands on those two issues. In spite of the fact that this has been asked of him day after day in this Legislature, the minister has yet to state where he stands, as the person who is responsible for the protection of the environment in this province. Mr. Chairman, that's a disgrace. I hope this afternoon we can hear from the minister where he stands on those two particular issues.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise an issue this afternoon which has received some publicity throughout the province, and an issue that relates specifically to my own constituency. This relates to the fact that the provincial government has decided to grant a permit to allow Pacific Playgrounds to dredge near the mouth of the Oyster River in order to create access to a boat marina. Mr. Chairman, I think the minister has made a grave error, and I think he's again made a decision which is in the interest of a private developer rather than in the interest of the environment.

I would like to spend some time this afternoon giving the members of the House some information about that particular development and indicating why I think the minister has made an error, in spite of the fact that many of the reports that have come in do not indicate that there will be, necessarily, a detrimental effect on either the fish or the wildlife.

Oyster River, Mr. Chairman, is located about halfway between Courtenay and Campbell River. It's near Saratoga Beach, which is a beautiful sandy beach - safe, gentle-sloped. It is also noted for its scenery and its sports fishery with steelhead and cutthroat. The river itself is also a spawning ground for several varieties of salmon, including Coho.

The river is one of those rivers which is inclined to meander and, because of logging operations in its upper reaches, has been subject to flooding, particularly in recent times. There are extreme fluctuations of water in the Oyster River, sometimes reaching a low of six inches at the river mouth.

Now the development itself, as proposed by Pacific Playgrounds, is rather a massive development, Mr. Chairman. It involves a 340-acre recreational and homesite development between the Island Highway and Georgia Strait - that is, midway between Courtenay and Campbell River. It's on the south bank of the river, and the present proposal is that there will be 130 campsites, 20 cottages, playgrounds, a pool, laundromat, launching ramp, boat basin, and also provision for a hotel, retail outlets, tennis courts and golf course. All of these are proposed as part of that 340-acre development at Pacific Playgrounds.

The developers themselves, Mr. Chairman, mentioned when they were beginning work on this particular site that what they wanted to create was another Coney Island. That gives you an indication of the size and the type of development in there.

Now the company has asked for permission to dredge a channel so that they can extend their boat basin to include 340 spaces for vessels. This boat basin currently has access directly into the mouth of the river. This new access channel that they have now been granted permission to go ahead and do will allow them to extend their boat basin and to have access just south of the mouth of the Oyster River.

But the development of this boat basin, Mr. Chairman, will mean that a 1,700-foot breakwater is built. This breakwater, I think, will not be the most

[ Page 1533 ]

attractive breakwater in the world, particularly since it will stand 23 feet above low tide. That's how high it will be - 23 feet up. This channel will be 100 feet deep and will allow small fishing boats access in case of adverse weather as well.

The proposal by Pacific Playgrounds has not been studied sufficiently, in my view. We have had some studies by an engineering firm hired by the company itself. The engineering firm, although it studied the area for I think almost two years, came up with the recommendation that, no, it would not do much harm. But this engineering firm was hired by the company; there has been no independent study done of the engineering factors involved with the construction of that channel.

We have a report from Jonathan Secter, who is the biologist attached to the minister's department, and he indicates that there may not be any adverse effects as far as the fish and wildlife are concerned. We have a report from George Reid, who is with the fish and wildlife branch, and he indicates that while they have insufficient money and insufficient time in order to do a study, he too does not feel that there will be major adverse effects on the fisheries.

Representatives from the Ministry of the Environment have indicated that they too do not think that the salmon are going to be necessarily adversely affected by the dredging of that channel.

AN HON. MEMBER: Federal?

MS. SANFORD: The federal ones, that's right.

On top of the problems associated with this, as I see it, Mr. Chairman, is that there is a recreational reserve on that particular piece of land which has been in effect since 1937. 1 would like to know, if the dredging does go ahead, what effect that will have on the status of the recreational reserve. How much land will be taken out of the reserve if in fact that dredging goes ahead?

My concern, Mr. Chairman, relates to the lack of engineering work that has been done. As I say, there was only one study done, and that was carried out on behalf of the firm itself. The engineering studies, in my view, are completely inadequate and we should have independent engineering studies done, carried out by your department or by the department of the Minister of the Environment.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that although there was an impact study done by Dr. Bentley LeBaron -a sociological impact study - at which time there were public hearings held throughout the area, we do not have the engineering data that we need in order to make a sensible decision with respect to the dredging of that channel. The study that was carried out by Dr. Bentley LeBaron - he was hired by the previous Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources - states very clearly, Mr. Chairman, that he recommends that the permission for the dredging of that particular channel should not be granted. He did a comprehensive survey, and has filed quite a comprehensive report on his studies.

Now the people who are opposed to this far outnumber those people who support it. That was quite clear in the public hearings and in the questionnaires that were sent out. There were 60 questionnaires which were returned out of 100 that were sent out by Pacific Playgrounds themselves. Pacific Playgrounds were given the opportunity by Dr. Bentley LeBaron when he was conducting this sociological impact study. They were given permission to select 100 people that they could send a questionnaire to. This questionnaire was covered by a letter coming from the president of the company asking the people to support the proposal. All of these people are boaters and make use of the marina facilities that are there. But even at that, there were 15 who gave outright support, six who gave qualified support and two who were opposed, as well as six who gave rather ambiguous answers.

Mr. Chairman, the problem that we have here is that Dr. Bentley LeBaron recommends strongly against granting permission to dredge. There is no doubt that there is a need for marina facilities up and down the coast. The need is there, and the boaters recognize this. But shortly after Bentley LeBaron initiated his study, the Regional District of Comox-Strathcona indicated that they were quite prepared to build the necessary marina just north of Pacific Playgrounds.

What I am saying this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, is that the minister, in my view, has made an error. I'm not talking necessarily about the environmental aspects in terms of fish and wildlife or the salmon fishery, but I am talking about the possibility of what might happen to that foreshore when that 1,700-ft. breakwater is built. What will happen? Will that nice sandy beach become filled with rocks and boulders? That sort of thing has happened before when we've had breakwaters of this type installed.

The shoreline along there is relatively unstable. The UBC experimental farm, which is located just north of the Oyster River, has indicated that they are opposed to granting permission to dredge this channel because they are worried about what will happen to the UBC farmland which is there. They are already having erosion problems.

The people who live along the river itself are concerned about what effects the flooding will have. Will there be increased flooding as a result of the dredging of this channel? We don't know, Mr. Chairman, how much material is brought down each year by that river and deposited at the mouth of the river. We don't know what will happen to the resorts that are located just south of the Oyster River itself. The people along there are very, very concerned

[ Page 1534 ]

about dredging a channel 100 feet deep, 1,700 feet out, and putting a breakwater in which sticks up 23 feet above the low-tide line.

Just this past year, Mr. Chairman, $100,000 was spent - a large part of that was spent by the provincial government - putting riprap along the Oyster River to protect the properties of those people who live along the Oyster, because, as I said earlier, that river is subject to flooding and is inclined to meander as well. Out on the Atlantic coast governments are now spending untold sums of money trying to correct the problems associated with shoreline erosion, shifting of beaches, shifting of boulders onto sandy beaches - that kind of thing -because improper studies were undertaken in the first place, and people were allowed to put marinas up and down that coast without too much scrutiny. Even at French Creek on Vancouver Island the federal government built a breakwater just two years ago. They are now going to spend money in order to correct errors that were created at that time because there were insufficient technical studies done in order to ensure that there would be no environmental damage.

What I will recommend this afternoon is that the minister rescind that order-in-council and that a model study be undertaken of the river and the shoreline so that we will know exactly what will happen when that I 00-ft. channel is dredged and the 1,700-ft. breakwater put in place. We have done model studies. His department, Mr. Chairman, carried out an excellent model study of the slide area at Port Alice. As a result of that, they were able to make some sensible decisions and conduct some construction. We've had model studies of the Fraser River. We've had model studies of the St. Lawrence Seaway.

What I'm suggesting, Mr. Chairman, is that the possible damage that could occur here warrants the rescinding of that order-in-council and the building of a model of that area so that we can study it properly before any dredging is done and before any breakwater is constructed. I would also suggest that that model study be paid for by the developer.

Secondly, I would like to have public hearings held, as recommended by Bentley LeBaron in his report, so that people can be informed about possible changes that could occur to that coastline if the dredging is done. People should have as much technical information as is possible before the minister goes ahead and grants permission to a company like Pacific Playgrounds to dredge 100-ft. channels and build these huge breakwaters.

The other thing I would like to recommend is that if the minister does allow this to go ahead, the very least the people of the area can expect is that the company place a $10 million bond so that if there are changes along that coast, if the resort areas immediately to the south of Pacific Playgrounds are affected, if the UBC farmland is suddenly eroded away, and if the Miracle Beach park, which is located just south of the Oyster River, is adversely affected, then that $10 million can be used in order to rectify the damage. Do we know what effects the dredging and the breakwater will have on the shoreline? We have some information about fish and wildlife, but do we know what will happen to that shoreline? Do we know how homes are going to be affected? Do we know how properties are going to be affected? Do we know what it will do to the river? Do we know how much material comes down that river every year and is deposited at the mouth of the river?

I think this decision has been made hastily. I am again requesting that the minister rescind the order-in-council and have a model study done, paid for by the developers. At the very least, if he doesn't accept my recommendations today, he should ensure that the company itself posts at least a $10 million bond so that any damage that occurs along that coastline can be rectified. I would appreciate the minister's comments.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): I appreciate the questions from the member for Comox. The Oyster River development, or the Pacific Playgrounds, as it is properly known, has been under study for approximately five years -since some time in 1972. Many, many studies have been developed over that period of time. With the indulgence of the member, I would like to read some information that was sent to one of the major newspapers in response to an editorial relative to the Oyster River. They haven't had the opportunity or the space in the paper to publish it as yet. It is dated February 18, and I think it would be of some value to members of the House. Forgetting the first paragraph, which is just by way of introduction to The Vancouver Sun, the letter says:

"Much has been made of LeBaron's recommendation against approving the project on sociological grounds. However, if you examine the report you will notice that the tone of the largest meeting which was held on site was strongly in favour of the proposal, although there were some opponents in attendance. Well, Dr. LeBaron apparently placed more emphasis on the Courtenay-Campbell River hearings than he did on the on-site hearing.

"It was apparent that those people in closest proximity to the development, and who would be most directly affected, were in favour of the project. This aspect, together with the fact that there were no substantive environmental or engineering reasons for disallowing the application, led to the decision to approve the

[ Page 1535 ]

same.

"The marine resource branch of the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation concluded that on the basis of biological productivity there was no reason to stop the proposed entrance channel."

MS. SANFORD: Who said all this?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It goes on:

"The habitat protection unit of Environment Canada concluded that construction of the channel and breakwater as proposed would not have a deleterious effect on the fisheries resource associated with the Oyster River. Western Canada Hydraulic Laboratories Ltd. concluded, after a two-year study of the test channel, that it was feasible to construct the access channel without the necessity of frequent dredging, as is now the case in respect to the present access via the Oyster River.

"The Canadian Wildlife Service has indicated that the estuary of the Oyster River is more rocky than estuaries of many other streams on the east coast of Vancouver Island. It lacks the mudflats and marshland normally associated with river estuaries, and as such it is probably not as attractive to many species of dabling, ducks, geese and swans."

The report went on to say:

"The mouth of the Oyster River lies on the migratory flyway for brant and other large flocks. They've . been observed feeding on eelgrass and sea lettuce. This type of flora is not unique in the area and is found in many other areas along the coast."

Environmental services on the land management branch, which the member referred to, concluded that ecological estuarian values are not an issue because the plant and animal communities present in the area of the channel are not those of an estuary. The service indicated that there would be a percentage loss of staging habitat for black brant, but in general the proposed development would not have the detrimental effect on the migratory bird resources of the area.

The land manager reached the conclusion that if the test cut proves feasible, then the development should go ahead, as there is no major detriment to fish or waterfowl. He also came to the conclusion that it would be better to allow direct access from the marina to the sea than to continue to enter the marina via the river mouth, which required annual dredging and where there was always the danger of oil and gas spills from the boating traffic.

The fish and wildlife branch objected to any estuarial development on the grounds that any disturbance of the estuary normally causes some degradation of the fish and wildlife habitat, but offered no specifics.

Dr. LeBaron recognized the rapidly expanding boating industry and the need to provide the wharfage facilities required for moorage purposes. He suggested Oyster Bay as a viable alternative, but the very considerable capital expenditure required to develop a marina at this location, plus the annual cost of maintenance, casts considerable doubt on the economic viability of this alternative. Although Oyster Bay has been under study for several years, it is still questionable whether the regional district will choose to allocate public funds for this purpose in view of the current fiscal restraints.

The concern within the ministry with releasing the LeBaron Report was not with the content of the report but rather with the fact it comprised only a small part of the background evidence gathered which had to be considered as part of the total picture before reaching a decision. The LeBaron report was turned over to the ministry in the last week of March, 1975. The former administration had steadfastly refused to release it on the grounds that it was only one of many in-house reports gathered in connection with the project and could not be properly assessed in isolation from the total picture.

To the member: I am not questioning your information, but the advice I have received from my people is that the channel would certainly not be 100 feet deep. The channel would be approximately 27 feet deep at high tide. The draft for deep ships on the Fraser is about 30 feet, so the 100 feet seems to be somewhat odd. We have been advised it is 27 feet.

There has been no order-in-council passed, so we wouldn't be able to rescind; the only order we could rescind, of course, is that order reserving the area from 1937. If an order-in-council is passed to remit the channel, it would be for the channel itself only, rather than for the entire area. By way of information that I have received, my understanding - and again this is- my understanding as compared to the understanding the member for Comox may have received - UBC would be opposed to diversion of the Oyster River mouth. Their property is north of the Oyster River and they would be opposed to any diversion of the mouth rather than to the channel. That's the information we've received.

I have not heard from the regional district as to their desire to construct a marina at Oyster Bay. I understand the regional district spent approximately $16,000 on an engineering study, and it's my understanding that the economics of such a project are very questionable, particularly when it involves public money and the restraints placed upon their budget.

Mr. Chairman, the developments the member referred to, I understand, are to be developed on their

[ Page 1536 ]

own private land. The only part we would play is to provide that access channel.

The engineering study has satisfied many of the engineers with our department; a two-year test indicated that there would be no noticeable effect on the shoreline. It was the conclusion of the lands department that there were no known reasons to deny the application, particularly from an engineering or environmental view. The Environment and Land Use Committee concurred with that and approval has been given, but no orders-in-council had been passed as yet, Mr. Chairman.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. I apologize to the minister if I said "order-in-council, " because I assumed it was by order-in-council. But apparently just permission has been granted. I thought it had to be done by order-in-council, so I apologize for that.

But the point that I want to make again is that the only engineering, the only hydrographic studies that we have are done by a private firm operating on behalf of the developer. That's all. But what hydraulic studies, what hydrographic studies, do we have that the minister has, other than the one which was done for the company itself? Now this is what concerns me.

The other thing that the minister did not respond to is whether or not he is prepared to have the company post some bond if he insists that this go ahead, which I believe is an error. If he insists, why not have the company post a bond? I would think that $10 million would be a minimal amount in order to have some money to do corrective work. Or will the provincial treasury again be called upon to do corrective work if, in fact, there is damage done?

What happens to the rest of the river? What happens to that foreshore? The UBC people, by the way, did appear at the public hearings, and they stated at that point that they were opposed to the development. That's contained right within Dr. Bentley LeBaron's report.

What about the bond? What about other studies that relate to hydraulics and hydrographics?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, Mr. Chairman, we would not be requesting that they post a minimum $10 million bond. Some of the recommendations of Professor LeBaron were contained in the information presented to the Pacific Playgrounds. There are a number of recommendations Professor LeBaron offered in his report. As the member would know, Professor LeBaron, while suggesting the project not go ahead, particularly offering an alternative.... In the event the lands department approved it, he offered other recommendations. These other recommendations, for the most part, , are being followed. A bridge crossing the channel and access to the river along the Oyster River - which is presently privately owned - to permit fishing and such were recommendations of Professor LeBaron. There would be some other recommendations followed; I'm trying to find those precise recommendations. There would be a public boat-launching ramp and so on. These were following in line with Professor LeBaron's recommendations.

The study by Western Canada Hydraulic, an outside firm brought in by an engineering company which was doing the work.... The people in the lands department felt that the Western Canada Hydraulic laboratory was adequate in their capability of studying it. They agreed that their report indicated the hydraulics and the engineering were quite feasible. I suppose you could bring along different engineers, or perhaps different people in that, and they might come up with somewhat different answers, as consultants very often do. But it was the belief of the lands branch that these people at Western Canada Hydraulic had prepared 4 proper report and that their findings were quite acceptable. If I could go backwards for just a moment for the member, Mr. Chairman, to the recommendations of Dr. LeBaron:

"If it is decided the foreshore lease should be granted, then only that portion of the reserve covered by the lease should be removed."

We would be following that recommendation.

"If the Pacific Playgrounds proposal is allowed to proceed, the following should be made conditions of the lease or otherwise secured for public use and benefit: a 10-ft.-wide access right-of-way in the shortest convenient route between the bank of the Oyster River and the Saratoga Beach foreshore properly marked as public access. . . . "

That's one of the conditions that would be necessary for the company to follow.

"Similar bank access right-of-way and path along the south bank of the river on Pacific Playgrounds property; free public launch ramp of adequate width for public use, and so posted; adequate public parking near the ramp and also near the public access right-of-way; substantial bond for restoration of damage to public or private properties attributable to the proposed projects."

Now I appreciate that the member asks for a $10 million minimum bond. The bond that is going to be required, I'm afraid, does not live up to the member's expectations. The bond will be a $50,000 bond. It perhaps may be very argumentative whether any particular figure can be chosen.

Those are some of the recommendations by Professor LeBaron which were adopted. The professor, in -his report, which was, again, one of

[ Page 1537 ]

several reports prepared for this, said: "In the event the lands branch recommends that this go ahead, these recommendations should be followed." We have instructed Pacific Playgrounds that they would be expected to follow those recommendations as I outlined them to you.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Chairman, one of the areas which the opposition must query when going through a Crown minister's estimates is whether, overall, that person has the qualifications or the wherewithal to carry out the duties of that specific portfolio or, indeed, to be a Crown minister at all.

Also, Mr. Chairman, the public must see a minister whom they have faith in, a minister whom they feel has some credibility in the area for which that minister is responsible. I think it's a pretty well-known fact that the Minister of the Environment is considered by most British Columbians, or at least most people who have come into contact with him, both in the media and politically, as not competent. In fact there have been editorials asking that the minister be removed because he has no idea of how to run his department or no idea what the department's all about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Just to keep you on track, the restrictions on debate in Committee of Supply do not permit that we can discuss whether or not a member should be in the cabinet.

MR. LEA: I'm not discussing that. He can be in the cabinet, Mr. Chairman. I'm discussing whether he should be in that particular portfolio, or whether he has the competence to run it. I'll leave up to the Premier whether he should be there. I'm just going to point out some of the reasons why I and others think he should not be.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But we have to do it within the scope of the rules.

MR. LEA: I'm dealing, Mr. Chairman, with the fact of whether he's administering his portfolio properly. I'd like to point out there are people who are, I think, in positions in our society of some credibility as to objectivity. One Allan Fotheringham of The Vancouver Sun is a person, I think, who has credibility in this province as a journalist and as a person who at least has some objectivity.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: No, and he has reason not to think so, I would suspect. But he may not be right in his assumption.

I would like to just read a portion of a column by

Mr. Fotheringham from Sunday, October 30,1976. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that that was soon after new cabinet appointments had been made - the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) . One of the things that Mr. Fotheringham was speculating on was why it is that people who head state governments are loath to change cabinets, that they don't seem to do that ~t- ease. Mr. Fotheringham says, for example:

"Bennett shirked from doing what he knows will eventually have to be done - the removal of Jim Nielsen as Environment minister, where he has been a disaster, as was predicted from the day he was named. Nielsen admitted at the time he had no knowledge nor interest in the field. Bennett's pride seems to be the only thing maintaining the minister in that awkward role."

It's obvious, I think, from the minister's handling of that portfolio - from condoning political blacklists in his own portfolio, to his hiring and the kind of people that the minister chooses to surround himself with to help carry out that administration.... Shortly after assuming that position as Minister of the Environment, he hired a person whose name is Keith Frew to be the executive assistant. When Mr. Frew was interviewed as to what he knew or what his background was in the environment, Mr. Frew answered: "What is there to know? The environment's new, isn't it?" Well, I think that that would point out that we should possibly look at the administrative ability of a person who's been put in the role of executive assistant to a minister of the Crown. I think the minister could clear that up for us immediately. I think it would be beneficial to members in the House and to the public to know just what it is, what the duties of Mr. Frew are and what his qualifications are to carry out those duties. I would like to hear the minister tell us what the duties of the executive assistant, Keith Frew, are in his office and what his qualifications are to carry those duties out.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke- Slocan): The taming of the Frew.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The duties of all executive assistants are those assigned them by way of their appointment and vary perhaps from ministry to ministry in some minor ways. Mr. Frew has many functions within the Ministry of the Environment.

MR. KING: Does he shine your shoes?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: A great deal is to co-ordinate many events between departments within the ministry. Part of his function is to develop communications within the ministry itself, of which

[ Page 1538 ]

he's done an excellent job. Other parts are routine handling of a great number of inquiries to the office, assisting citizens of the province in attempting to overcome some bureaucratic problems and assisting those who correspond with the Ministry of the Environment to try and speed up the process of some of their applications for land, water or whatever -those letters which are delivered directly to the minister's office to be handled in a very rapid way. In my opinion, Mr. Frew has done an excellent job.

Many, many persons - perhaps not Allan Fotheringham, but persons of considerable stature within the senior civil service - have agreed with that, and I appreciate those comments. Mr. Fotheringham's comments are his own. I wouldn't want to refer to some he has made of other members of this House, which were not always complimentary. He sells a lot of papers, anyway.

MR. LEA: Mr. Minister, what are the qualifications of Mr. Frew to carry out those duties? What experience did he come into government with?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, his qualifications are quite adequate.

MR. LEA: Quite adequate? What are they? Would the minister care to say what his work experience or academic background is to fill that very important post?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member would know, being a former minister himself who had an executive assistant, that the minister decides on his executive assistant and recommends that he be appointed by way of cabinet position. It is up to that minister to decide the qualifications necessary for his executive assistant. I found Mr. Frew's qualifications to be quite adequate for the position, and he's done extremely well at it.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of questions then that come from that. It seems that the minister Mr. Chairman, isn't going to elaborate on the qualifications for that very important role, and that's his prerogative. But I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether part of the duties of a person hired on taxpayers' money, at $19,500 a year, should be to take the minister's shoes over to the Empress Hotel and have them shined. The minister is going to jump up and say that's hogwash, but I suggest that anyone who wants to check with the young lady who runs the shoeshine stand in the Empress Hotel could find out that it is not hogwash.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's pollution control.

MR. LEA: What really bothers me, Mr. Chairman, are some of the pious remarks that were made by that minister when he was a hotliner on CJOR about what cabinet ministers were making in money and how it wasn't worth it and how they get in ivory towers and they forget where they are from. They forget they are from the people.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if anybody is elected to be an MLA and then becomes appointed as a cabinet minister, we should wonder not only about the qualifications of the person who is the cabinet minister but also about his judgment. I don't think the people in this province, Mr. Chairman, want cabinet ministers to hire valets. They want him to hire an executive assistant who helps with the administration of government, be it his riding - and that's legitimate - or be it the other matters of government. I think this minister should stand up and tell us exactly what the duties of his executive assistant are, because that's one of them. It wouldn't be so bad, Mr. Chairman, if that minister hadn't gone on the air day after day on CJOR and spouted all that piety about being from the people and keeping that image while he's in government.

While he's at it, Mr. Chairman, how many cars does he have? Other ministers have one. Does he have two - one on this side and one on the other? Maybe he could answer that, too.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: On behalf of CJOR, through you, Mr. Chairman, they appreciate the member's publicity. As I told the member, the duties of my executive assistant are many and he handles them very, very well. I think most of the ministers are fortunate to have some very capable people as their executive assistants, and the minister has a very personal responsibility to delegate duties to an executive assistant, as the member mentioned, whether it be for specific government purposes or perhaps assisting in some way with constituents. Mr. Frew certainly does them well - a regular six-day week and very long hours, as members of this House must put in. I have no complaints whatever about his capabilities, his abilities, his attitudes, or the work he does. He does a complete job . . .

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Are you satisfied with your shoes?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: ... and takes care of many, many functions on behalf of the government and the people of British Columbia.

Automobiles. Yes, there's an automobile here and there's an automobile on the Vancouver side that is used by the ministry for those who are making use of the airport. There's a car parked at the airport for that purpose. Throughout the province the ministry, of course, has a great number of cars. I can't give you the precise number. When we travel through the

[ Page 1539 ]

province we usually make use of these automobiles which are brought to the airport for that purpose.

MR. LEA: In regard to the automobile that's in Vancouver, is it used by anyone other than the minister? If so, to what extent? How often does the minister use it and how often does someone else use it? Is it a ministry car or is it the minister's car that's there? Is it a government automobile?

Finally, the minister hasn't said whether part of his executive assistant's duties are to go and get his shoes shined. I'd like to know how he feels about that. I think everybody has a right to know that.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'm afraid I don't have a log on the automobile on either side of the water. Certainly members of the ministry have access to the automobile in Vancouver and other ministers have used that automobile in Vancouver for different functions and purposes. The automobile has found its way back to Victoria by way of ferry several times. Other ministers have brought it back. But I have no precise log as to what persons have been using it or which ministers have used it. The keys are available from my secretary for members of the ministry who may make use of such an automobile in Vancouver, as it always has been, to my understanding and knowledge.

The automobile originally was on the Vancouver side. My former secretary had the keys in her possession and would provide them to a member of the ministry who was going to Vancouver for any purpose, as you will find many at the NIOTEC headquarters there. There are many automobiles for different ministries there, and we are consistent with them.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to change the subject a little bit and talk about a property and a mill in the community of Houston, and the so-called Lieuwen farm controversy.

As the minister may know - and I bring this up under his responsibility for the B.C. Land Commission - that community is split right down the middle. There was a petition presented to council at the end of January with 287 signatures for council endorsation of the particular project, which is to say that sawmill on the Lieuwen farm property, and 380 against.

The fact that the issue is still open is, in my view, a tribute to a great fight by Mayor Bas Studer, who ran a great deal of his campaign on that particular issue. He was elected and used his power under the Municipal Act to make sure that the question was brought back before council. But people have been forced into corners and to take sides on this one. I'm not quite sure that it's a question that's necessarily of that nature and I want to discuss it a little bit.

The question at issue, Mr. Chairman, is basically the proposal by Eurocan and Weldwood jointly to build a new mill in or about the community of Houston which would employ 220 persons in the mill and about 130 in the logging operations in the woods. The operation needs at least 100 acres to start; desirably they would have additional land for potential expansion including, according to the company, possibly a plywood operation at some future date.

The company, through a process I will describe in due course, has narrowed its options down to one, which is the so-called Lieuwen farm, a property outside of town of approximately 300 acres and a property of very high land value. I quote here from an article by Dave Havard in the local paper, referring specifically to this farm. He says:

"It isn't, after all, a borderline case. The farm soil classification is alluvial and the history of crops produced on the site confirms the good quality. The area of which it is a part received special mention and even a photograph in report No. 4 of the B.C. Soil Survey, which checked productivity potentials of soil in the area in the late 1940s and 1950s. Thai very fine survey leaves no doubt that the Lieuwen farm soil is among the best in the Bulkley Valley."

So we have here the apparent dilemma of one of the finest pieces of agricultural property in the Bulkley Valley, and the maintenance of the agricultural classification thereof, apparently up against the cruel dilemma of additional employment of some 350 people for an area where it is badly needed.

The matter has, as I said, become one of great controversy. My understanding - and I would like to ask the minister about this specifically - is that his department has taken a stand against the project.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: That's correct? Well, I ask that question, Mr. Minister, and I base it on this clipping from December 22 which relates to an appeal to the regional district on the particular zoning. The submission was made by the B.C. Development Corporation, incidentally, which has been asked or engaged, or whatever the words might be for the companies concerned, to carry their brief in terms of getting this land made available for industrial use. It was supported by letters from Eurocan Pulp and Paper, Houston council - that was a majority but not a unanimous decision - and provincial mines inspector J.F. Hutter. I'm quoting the paper here: "It was opposed ~y five submissions from the B.C. Agriculture department, the Highways department, Skeena health unit, the Ministry of the Environment, and one private citizen."

[ Page 1540 ]

So I would be grateful if the minister could inform the House if this apparent taking of positions by his department has in fact been done.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Is it the position of the department or is it the position of the minister's office? I presume that the two speak in harmony.

Now, Mr. Chairman, there will be a hearing by the Land Commission in Houston on March 8, which is only a few days from now. I think that is an excellent thing and I think the Land Commission should be commended for this. It is not usual for them to necessarily hold hearings in the area affected, and here they are going to the area affected. Because of the tremendous local controversy, that's a good thing.

I would assume, because it is the mandate of the Land Commission to preserve land, that the application will be turned down. I want to go on from there and make a constructive suggestion which I hope will allow this farmland to be preserved and allow the Land Commission to do it in good conscience, and at the same time make certain that there is area made available for those particular jobs and for the industrial facilities to support them.

Who is involved in this issue? It seems to me there are four departments of government: there is the Ministry of the Environment and their responsibility for the Land Commission; there is the B.C. Development Corporation and, therefore, the Ministry of Economic Development; and there is the Ministry of Forests because the industry is essentially forest-related, and because the Ministry of Forests has means of talking to some of the other property owners in the area in a way that I will describe; there is also the Department of Agriculture, but I will presume that once the Land Commission makes their ruling the interests of Agriculture will have been satisfied, assuming that the Land Commission rules against the removal of this land from this particular designation.

Now what is the status of the land that is available? The companies surveyed 12 distinct sites in the area. Of these, 5 out of 12 which may have been suitable - and indeed, the first choice of the companies was included among these - were owned by another forest company and not for sale. It was just plain owned and not for sale - sorry, fellows. Two out of 12 might have been suitable but for the restrictive conditions which would have been put on a bridge across the river by the same forest company that owns the other five properties. In other words, that forest company has something to do with whether or not a full 7 out of the 12 potential properties would be available for this industrial use. Another 4 out of the 12 properties were ruled out because of too-steep grades for haulage, or because of poor footings for the building of a mill, or because new bridges would be required which would make the expense prohibitive. The remaining one property out of the 12 was the Lieuwen farm, which is how Eurocan and Weldwood eventually found themselves to be forced into that property.

The particular forest company concerned that owns all of the other properties is Northwood. Expropriation of some of those properties has been mentioned, but I think for a very good reason there is a reluctance to go in that direction. Certainly there is a reluctance in terms of Eurocan, which is quoted here in the newspaper as saying: "We have a very good relationship with Northwood. Northwood chips go to the Eurocan pulp mill in Kitimat every day. We have to exclude ourselves from the expropriation suggested."

Naturally no one wants to see expropriation used if there is any other way out. Yet, Mr. Chairman, somehow we have to see that in that area where there's a potential for these 350 jobs in the forest industry, and where there is a plenitude of sites which are not of the high agricultural quality of the Lieuwen farm, we have to see somehow that the public interest is preserved in both of these aspects -that the agricultural land, on the one hand, is preserved in agricultural use, and that the needed land for industrial development, on the other hand, is made available.

Therefore I want to suggest to this minister that on the assumption - and it's only an assumption at this point - that the Land Commission turns down the application for the removal of the Lieuwen farm from the land reserve, there immediately be an interdepartmental committee struck with either the ministers or their representatives of the Ministries of the Environment and Economic Development, and/or the BCDC and the Ministry of Forests. First of all, the various siting studies should be reviewed and other potential sites be looked into, if indeed there are such, and when the totality of sites available is known that committee or its representatives should enter into talks with the various landowners involved to see what can be done.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that if this is done at the proper level and with the proper spirit of co-operation, some of the other property owners might well see their way clear to make some of their land available if it is not absolutely necessary for them. Because if there is any case of somebody playing "dog in the manger, " holding back land that they don't need and therefore causing this impossible public dilemma and the impossible choice that's disrupting this community between 350 jobs and 300 acres of valuable and irreplaceable farmland, I don't think that's right, and I think somebody's got to talk turkey to them. I would suggest that this committee, including the Ministry of the Environment, the B.C.

[ Page 1541 ]

Development Corporation and the Ministry of Forests, would have the moral authority to do this talking to some of the potential sellers in the area, some of the current landowners who might, after a careful study of the situation, wish to co-operate.

It's important that neither of these public interests be compromised - neither the preservation of agricultural land nor the needed jobs in the area. I would ask the minister to give the fullest consideration on the assumption, as I say - and for the next few days only the assumption - that the Land Commission will say that this land must remain agricultural. Will he strike such a committee to see what can be done to make sure that all of the interests are preserved with the jobs as well?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, to the member for North Vancouver-Capilano, I think your suggestion is an excellent suggestion. I believe the committee has already been struck - in effect, the Environment and Land Use Committee, which contains each of the ministries you suggested and would be involved. It would be a most suitable committee to follow through with that suggestion.

By way of a short background on this problem, regarding the Ministry of the Environment comment in the paper, 1 have no knowledge of who may have made that statement - whether it was a person who works for the Ministry of the Environment in that area or who may have said it. 1 certainly have not issued a public statement and 1 am quite sure the Land Commission has not. The Land Commission, of course, has an appeal before it right now on that specific property, as you pointed out, not by way of obligation but, in this particular circumstance they felt, of necessity. They are holding a public hearing in that area - 1 believe it is March 8, sometime next week - and they are considering the application by the Houston sawmill. They have a corporate name brought about by the amalgamation of others. Certainly they will be giving a hearing.

The commission itself has not been involved in the site search for a new sawmill. It is simply not their job, really, to do it; nor has the commission received any details of the site search that went on. This information would have to be obtained.

Your point, Mr. Member, is very well taken about possibly some of the industry being stymied by the ownership of vast areas under common ownership of another company, a competitor. But yes, your suggestion certainly makes sense.

There is a process, of course, under the Land Commission Act, where a person is denied an application under 9 (2) , presuming as you have, that it would be denied. There is an appeal process which could be followed by the applicant which eventually could involve the Environment and Land Use Committee as an appeal body. Perhaps if that would occur, we could maybe marry the two suggestions or make a decision. If that decision were negative perhaps we could follow through again.

I appreciate your suggestion. In fact, I will alert the committee now and see if we can do some preliminary investigation just so we would be prepared to respond to such an inquiry.

MR. GIBSON: Just a short follow-up. I appreciate the minister's willingness to proceed on that basis, and I would ask him if he could endeavour to ascertain whether the presentation reportedly made by the Ministry of the Environment to that particular hearing in December was in fact an official one or made by an individual, and report back in some way.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, as I understood it, I think the minister indicated that he was not aware of the representations by the Ministry of the Environment in respect to being opposed to this project in respect to the Lieuwen farm. There is a letter available from a Mr. J.T. Hall, assistant regional land manager to Mr. Gilgan, who is the planning director for the regional district. He says in part:

"While it would seem that the establishment of the proposed sawmill complex would be of economic benefit to the region, nevertheless its location on productive agricultural land would not seem to be consistent with the interests of the Land Commission Act."

I appreciated what the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) was saying and the minister's response. The problem here is that there appears to be a large number of departments involved in making observations about the proposed site. There is a letter from the Department of Agriculture district agriculturist to Mr. Gilgan, in which he says:

"I would recommend that a very serious look should be taken at the large amount of land which Northwood has - 2,000 acres. If Northwood will not for some good reason release the land, then consideration should be given to lot 2099, which is out of the reserve on classified land."

The problem in dealing with this thing is that everybody seems to have been in it at the beginning except the Environment 'and Land Use Committee. It certainly was a practice under the previous government that if such a proposal came up, ELUC would get this job right in the beginning and co-ordinate the whole effort of getting all of the relevant information so that the minister would have a report. The report would be made available to the Land Commission if they wanted it.

What has happened is that in the past three or four months in the area of Houston there's been a great deal of discussion. As the member for North Vancouver said, the mayor actually ran on this

[ Page 1542 ]

particular issue and got in with a pretty resounding majority - I think it's more than 50 per cent. But the thing is, until the announcement of the public inquiry, the town has literally been split in half. A lot of it could have been avoided, I think, if this kind of situation could have been brought to the attention of the minister or the department a lot earlier.

If the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) was in the House, I would say to him that perhaps he didn't do a sufficient enough job as an MLA to advise the minister in respect to this. A lot of anxiety could have been avoided in respect to this particular situation.

The other thing I have some concern about is the role of the BCDC. Are we getting here what may be a precedent in the role of a Crown corporation that is under the jurisdiction of one cabinet minister making representations on behalf of private companies concerning decisions which are going to be made in terms of another department? I appreciate the Land Commission is an independent body but I don't think any of us are naive enough to think that somehow pressure from the public and pressure from perhaps ministers, in terms of thought or discussion, doesn't have some effect on this. I think perhaps the Chilliwack land freeze is a good example of where there was an organization that got together very early when there was a suggestion that some 1,700 acres would be taken out of the land freeze and, as a result of that activity, the Land Commission had to make a very difficult and considered decision based on the feelings of the people in the area.

The Houston situation is somewhat similar. In respect to the BCDC, I realize that the minister is not the minister responsible for BCDC, but perhaps he would tell us what his views are about what the difficulties might be in the future if he's going to get these kinds of representations from a Crown corporation. I presume the minister responsible for BCDC was aware that they were going to make representations on behalf of the sawmill consortium. Isn't this putting the minister in a very difficult position in respect to making a decision? It does not in fact allow him, or the Land Commission for that matter, to be as independent as it should be. I haven't really completely understood, because we were not able to find out from the minister responsible for BCDC why they were doing what they were doing in the first place. It looked like they needed to be taken by the hand for some reason in order to achieve what they want to achieve in the Houston area. Frankly I don't understand what the role of the BCDC is, other than a rather negative opinion I have that maybe they are exerting some pressure that should not be there. They should not be put in that position of playing that kind of role. Nevertheless they are, and this is now coming to a head.

It has been suggested there are some alternatives, as pointed out by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano and as pointed out by the district agriculturist in the area. Again I ask the minister this.

Let me just go over the questions so I can get them in order. Does he not feel that the role of the BCDC in terms of this request on behalf of the consortium is making it very difficult for his department and for Land Commission to operate because of the undue pressure that these people can bring simply because they are part of another operation that is operated by a cabinet minister? Were there any discussions in terms of the minister's department in respect to other lands? Was the department involved at all in discussing with perhaps the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) whether he would intercede with the Northwood people about giving up some land? What we're looking for here is a real feeling of community in the area where we would have all the people who are operating there and who are living there to come together on some kind of reasonable agreement on where this land might come from.

Another question is: were any discussions initiated? I gather from the way the minister was answering some of the questions before that perhaps this particular Houston issue is a fairly new one for him. If it isn't, is he aware of any discussions that have taken place? Then there's the question of the future. As the minister had indicated, he is going to be in touch with ELUC, or they may be involved in it, but perhaps as a matter of practice in cases like this - and they do come up quite often - ELUC should be involved at the very beginning. Then they would gather opinions from various government departments which somehow do not put the minister in a position of perhaps having to speak against a particular position in respect to his own department. He has one individual saying that it's not in the best interests of the environment to have this farm taken out. I gather that when that was read to him the minister was somewhat surprised.

Would the minister indicate to us what the procedures are in a case like this? Is it something that is going directly to ELUC? Is the Land Commission in a position to request research and study by ELUC, or is it something the Land Commission does entirely by itself and doesn't involve any other government departments? Perhaps the minister would be good enough to explain to us the process by which these decisions are made.

MR. WALLACE: Just two quick, completely different topics. I placed a question on the order paper for one of the other ministers - the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) - and he answered it, regarding tanker explosions. We all know the tremendous havoc and deaths that were caused in Los Angeles harbour not too many weeks ago by an

[ Page 1543 ]

American or Liberian tanker that blew up. The Minister of Energy very kindly answered my question to the effect that inspection practices come under the federal jurisdiction. Really, Mr. Chairman, if I get blown up because of an explosion, I'm not too concerned whether it's a federal explosion or a provincial explosion.

As I mentioned in this debate earlier when we were talking about oil, the transportation of oil and enormous tankers, I think the crucial requirement is the closest possible co-operation between provincial and federal authorities and co-operation between Canadian and American authorities. We're all living in a very fragile part of the continent here on the west coast with the Puget Sound and the tanker problems. It doesn't really matter who's responsible for inspection facilities on tankers. If they blow up and kill many people, it is no consolation to suggest that the provincial authorities have a limited capacity to do anything about it.

Now I gather that after the explosion in Los Angeles, the American authorities in Washington started more stringent inspection of the tankers in Puget Sound. I'm sure the minister will recall there were press reports that there were considerable delays of 8 to 10 to 12 hours before tankers would be unloaded because the Washington authorities had wakened up to the fact that perhaps safety precautions and inspection practices were inadequate. I was wondering if the minister could tell us what we are doing as a provincial government to try to, first of all, ascertain what our present practices are. How adequate are they? What is the potential for an explosion, let us say, in the Burrard Inlet or en route to any of the American unloading points - whether at Cherry Point or wherever the major flow of tankers would be reaching?

The Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) has mentioned in his answer to my question that, with the provincial Minister of the Environment, he intends to raise the matter with the federal government. I appreciate that information, but I'd like a little more information. When will the Minister of Energy and the Minister of the Environment be meeting with the federal authorities? What information does the minister have at this time as to how inspection practices are carried out? Have the regulations been amended, or is the minister aware of any federal intent expressed verbally or otherwise to tighten up the regulations, again because we are to have more and more and larger tankers coming within our waters and into ports within the next few months?

I just would like to know when the Minister of Energy and the Minister of the Environment are going to get together with the federal government. Do they have preliminary evidence to suggest that this is a fairly serious matter which is not being adequately dealt with? Can the people living in the neighbourhood of unloading tankers feel quite confident that safety precautions are adequate?

The other completely separate subject I would just like to know a little more about, Mr. Chairman, is a subject that's been coming before this House for years, and at last there seems to be some progress. I'm talking about the ultimate decisions regarding the University Endowment Lands. We've had some very hot debates in this House in years gone by, and at last it would seem that the whole matter of the endowment lands is being approached on a very positive, constructive basis with a great deal of public consultation. 1 think that both the last government and this government should be given credit where credit is due. In this case they have recognized the value of the University Endowment Lands and have tried to involve various groups from the community in determining the best ultimate way in which these lands should be used.

Just the other day a proposal was sent to all the MLAs by the endowment lands regional park committee. There are some various specific points in that report, Mr. Chairman, that 1 would just like to touch on very quickly, and ask if the minister could respond.

At the moment, for example, 1 understand there are about 1,066 acres already allocated as parkland. But there are about 700 acres which are not yet allocated and confirmed as being part of the permanent area of parkland. The report points out very clearly that the acres involved have even more potential than Stanley Park.

The report points out that much of the original pressure to put housing on the endowment lands seemed to be related to an all-too-easy assumption that there was to be an ever-increasing population density in the immediate neighbourhood. There is a very important footnote on page 3 which says that the housing crisis that led the previous government to consider carving up the University Endowment Lands has apparently changed into a market glut because of overpricing. There is also census evidence that population growth was overestimated. I'll try to put my questions in sequence.

First of all, has the government or the Ministry of the Environment any position on the inaccuracy of the original figures regarding population, a reason many people were trying to put forward as justification to build housing on the endowment lands? There seems to be evidence to suggest that the census figures were overestimated and that even on that point alone we should review the justification for housing.

The second question, Mr. Chairman, is the question of fire and police protection. The report makes it very plain that no matter what the ultimate decision is as to acreage and whether the whole area

[ Page 1544 ]

should be parkland, we might lose a great deal of the timber right now, for example, if there were a fire. One of the very specific recommendations which the report labels as urgent is that there must be funding commitments made for forest fire protection and public safety policing. These should be initiated without delay. 1 wonder if the minister can give us any idea what actions he has undertaken to co-operate with the other parties involved. Presumably the Greater Vancouver Regional District would want to be very much involved in some of these proposals.

The third - and really the last - question is: can the minister tell us how close he is to some policy decision that would decide one way or the other? Obviously the highest priority for the use of that land should be parkland - park use and associated recreational use. The arguments and the points in favour of so designating this area are so convincing now. The fact that time has gone on has allowed more and more definitive information by people like Bowie-Keefer and others to provide a much stronger and more convincing argument than ever that this should be parkland and associated uses. 1 wonder if the minister can tell us if we are close to finally having what would be a landmark in the ongoing debate about the endowment lands. Are we close to having some firm policy decision to the effect that the whole area will be designated for use as parkland, recreation and associated uses?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, dealing with some of the questions raised by the member for Vancouver-Burrard relative to the property known as the Lieuwen farm in the Houston area, some of the circumstances surrounding it are not completely understood by myself. We have not really been involved in it that much other than through the Land Commission. The land is private. Therefore they would not be working through the lands management branch as they would if it were Crown land. My understanding is that an option has been taken on that property and persons holding the option have applied to the Land Commission for the land to be removed. I'm told by the Land Commission that they have been advised - unfortunately, that makes it third-hand - by telephone that B.C. Development Corporation holds an option to purchase the property. If they were successful they would lease the property to Eurocan. I'm not sure how that really affects it. The Environment and Land Use Committee was not approached by the B.C. Development Corporation or the Lieuwen family or Eurocan or any of these organizations.

The member asked about the process, Mr. Chairman. The Land Commission could certainly make use of the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat. I don't really believe it would require a special request, as they work closely together. During appeal procedures, the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat handles a great amount of the work for the Land Commission, appeals which are coming through cabinet committee. So I can't see that there would be any difficulties with that.

I do not believe, Mr. Chairman, that BCDC making application on behalf of someone would cause any difficulties with the Ministry of the Environment. The only area where there seems to be some type of consideration would be that each minister is a member of the same committee.

The member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) offered a suggestion which could be followed up and, as I indicated, perhaps we could do some preliminary work on that. That's really about as much as I can offer you by way of any new information or information as I have it.

The Land Commission advised me by way of letter that they were holding the public hearing. Presumably the Land Commission will be making a decision on the 9 (2) application, and what that will be we don't know as yet. We have not offered them any advice.

I will research the letter from I think you mentioned a Mr. Hall - I believe he is in Smithers or in that vicinity - and I'll certainly get a copy of that correspondence. I would gather the reference made in that report is someone from the department.

The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) spoke of tanker explosions and some of the associated problems we have with this modern-day difficulty. We communicated several times with the federal ministries of the Environment and Transport. I'm afraid I do not have the files with me. We received a reply from the Hon. Otto Lang, who assured us that a great deal more attention would be paid, particularly to the Juan de Fuca straits, which is fine. This was after the incident of the two ships going the wrong way and no one could speak the language of the people in the area. It was a problem. We raised a number of very specific questions to Hon. Romeo LeBlanc in our latest letter, which is dated January 25 of this year, relative to oil and shipping and so on. I do not believe we have received a response. If I could just highlight some of the areas we asked the minister to respond to....

MR. WALLACE: Is a meeting planned?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No meeting for which I could offer a date. We spoke with the federal minister and we intend to get together, but I'm afraid the date has not been established as such.

As you know, we met with representatives of Washington state. We had a very preliminary meeting with them, because before the meeting was set up we

[ Page 1545 ]

had been advised that the Governor's energy statement had been released prior to the meeting. As it turned out, it was not.

There are some new regulations which, we are advised, will be coming on stream by way of the federal government on inspections, and we have been asked by the federal government if we would offer our opinions to these proposed amendments to the oil pollution prevention regulations. Now I'm afraid I couldn't read the proposed amendment, but we have been asked if we would make comments and respond to them. It would in some way alleviate some of the fears and problems, although it certainly would not be guaranteed to relieve all of the problems. They wish to strengthen their inspection system - that's the purpose, Mr. Chairman.

The University Endowment Lands have been, I suppose, perhaps the most studied piece of property in British Columbia. The current task force is to prepare their report and the final report is expected to be in my office perhaps within a week or two weeks. We asked them in the terms of reference to offer some alternatives as to what could be done in an integrated plan for the University Endowment Lands rather than ask the task force to tell us how best to develop housing or how best to develop part or how best to develop any single use. We asked them if they would investigate the land, look at its capabilities, look at its use, look at its potential and offer alternatives or combinations - an integrated conceptual plan. I believe they probably concluded their research and very likely are in the last actions of preparing their report.

The Frank Buck Memorial Park at the moment is in excess, actually, of the acreage in Stanley Park. There seems to be little disagreement that the thrust in the University Endowment Lands should be park. Where there is some disagreement is when people define what they consider to be a park. There are those who wish it to be a wild area, those who prefer some type of people activity, those who would-like to see it developed into a class A provincial park, those who would like to see it developed into a Stanley Park type of park. This is where the argument seems to be.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

The housing pressure has eased; the housing pressures that may have been there some time back have eased very, very much.

Fire and police protection is of major concern. The tax basis is somewhat limited when you look at the residents of the area. The University of British Columbia, of course, is the major contributor, and that money, of course, comes from other taxpayers within the province, so we're all going to be involved in paying it.

Fire protection particularly is of major concern because the majority of the area has no hydrant protection and very limited access to the bush area. A major fire would be a very difficult thing to fight, except perhaps by air - the access is not there and the water is not available.

Police protection could be improved, particularly for pedestrians who may be walking in the area. But again we're getting down to a matter of who's going to pay. The taxes would have to be raised and it's a relatively limited-size community. We are expecting all of these questions to be answered by the task force.

As a final comment to the member for Oak Bay, Mr. Chairman, the argument, if I may reiterate, seems to be: what constitutes a park and in the eyes of whom? Should the park be left in its natural state? Is this preferable, or should the park be toward people-use? An example would be golf courses, with the tremendous number of people who use them. Should they be used for nature studies? Should the Boy Scouts be allowed to camp in the area? Every other type of suggestion has been made. We expect this to be correlated and reported to us in a very short period of time.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the minister is in. charge of the Land Commission Act, and he sits on the Environment and Land Use Committee together with the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) . There is a web of unanswered questions with respect to the Lieuwen farm. Here we have a situation developing over the past two or three days, at least to my knowledge, of some very suspicious circumstances that should be immediately answered during the minister's estimates - not tomorrow, not during the hearing of the Land Commission, but now. First of all, this site - even according to the member for that constituency - was the last resort.

The hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) said in a letter to the new mayor, Bas Studer: "You know I've always considered this a last resort." There were other available sites that weren't prime agricultural land that would have been available for this sawmill site and were strangely, Mr. Chairman, no longer available.

Let me tell you what happened. The Lieuwen farm was always there. It's prime No. I agricultural land. It's not presently under cultivation. Weldwood and Eurocan have joined together to build a sawmill somewhere in the Houston area. Weldwood and Eurocan approached the BCDC, on whose board the Minister of Economic Development sits, and said: "Could you help us in getting this land out of agricultural reserve?" There was one problem, Mr. Chairman. There were other sites that weren't agricultural land but they needed an excuse to pick up the Lieuwen site because it would be a little bit

[ Page 1546 ]

cheaper than the other sites. What was the excuse? Access to the other sites over Northwood Pulp's reserves. They went to Northwood Pulp, in a very public way, and they said: "Will you give us access?" Without any reasons whatsoever - none -Northwood Pulp said: "No access."

Isn't that strange? The project development officer for the Weldwood-Eurocan project sits on the board of Northwood Pulp. The man's name is Richards. Isn't it strange that these unanswered questions are emerging? Northwood does not grant access, making the other sites not viable and forcing a situation where the only site available would be the Lieuwen farm, which is prime agricultural land and right smack dab in the middle of the municipality. Houses are built right up to its borders. A member of the Social Credit Party, a man by the name of Mann, who campaigned for the member for Omineca, lives one block away. He knows this story, and he's appalled -a sawmill right in the middle of a subdivision. Everybody in Houston knows that houses will be built up to and around the Lieuwen farm, and yet they're going to build a sawmill right smack dab in the middle of that housing.

These other sites were available right up until recently, when Northwood Pulp said: "No access." But a man who works for Northwood Pulp, a guy by the name of Richards, is associated with Weldwood and with Eurocan, the companies that are going to build on the mill site. Now with that kind of interlocking connection, surely they can get Northwood to give access.

What's wrong with the Minister of Forests? He has clout with Northwood. Why can't he say to Northwood: "You give them access. It's not going to hurt you or ruin your property - not at all."? There are no excuses for it.

I say it's a manipulation to force the situation politically to pick up the Lieuwen farm out of agricultural land. Why? Well, one motivation is that the Lieuwen farm site may be cheaper than the other sites. They have to build a bridge over to one of them, for example; they have to build a road over another piece of land. But it's not too much cheaper when you consider the price of the whole project -probably a few hundred thousand dollars compared to a $20 million project.

Are they doing it? Are they manipulating the situation? Is Northwood withholding consent because Weldwood doesn't really want consent, Mr. Chairman? Well, that's fine. That's private companies thrashing around and manipulating and so on, but here we have the BCDC, on which the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) sits, which is the stalking horse and the agent of Weldwood and Eurocan. The Environment and Land Use Committee is one of the prime superior agencies over the Land Commission. As a matter of fact, appeals from the Land Commission go to the Environmental and Land Use Committee. And who sits on the Environment and Land Use Committee? The Minister of Economic Development does. Now we know from his estimates, Mr. Chairman, that he has no respect for the concepts of conflict of interest, but is this 'not another example of that complete lack of judgment on his part? This minister sits on the Environment and Land Use Committee too, Mr. Chairman, and these questions have to be answered. There are other sites, suitable sites, and the good mayor of Houston is fully aware of it, and the people in Houston are aware of it too.

I might point out something else, Mr. Chairman. Why is this townsite development so close to the municipality? Are they wishing to ensure that any housing and employees will be right around the mill site, within the municipality and not out in any suburb, within the shopping area of Houston? Because the shopping plaza in Houston is owned by Townsite Developments, which is owned by Okanagan Holdings Ltd. And you know who has shares in Okanagan Holdings - the Premier has shares in Okanagan Holdings.

Now shouldn't you be more open and above board, Mr. Chairman, through you, to the minister and to that government, when this kind of a development takes place? You have a minister who sits on the development board which is trying to get it out of prime agricultural land, out of the freeze, and at the same time he's sitting on the very committee that hears appeals from the Land Commission that may take it out of the freeze. Everything is too cozy. Everything is too cozy and there's a web of suspicion around this whole issue. The people of Houston told me on the weekend that they want the answers, and so now do the opposition and the public generally want the answers to this question.

Nobody is arguing against a mill site going in the area. Jobs are jobs, and in this time of economic downturn caused substantially by this government, new jobs are greatly appreciated. But what kind of land manipulations are going on up there? It's fine to send up the commission and hear briefs from the local citizens, but these other questions have to be answered too. Why on earth is the BCDC acting as an agent, a stalking horse, for this consortium of Weldwood and Eurocan? What kind of nonsense is that? Is this the same nonsense we saw with the BCDC purchasing - or attempting to purchase -acreage in Dawson Creek in the pork barrel ... in the constituency of the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) ? Is this another one of those, only this one is being out completely.

Ask yourself this question, Mr. Chairman. Is it likely that a man who is assisting as a project co-ordinator for Weldwood and Eurocan - a man by

[ Page 1547 ]

the name of Richards and who is also associated with Northwood.... Is it likely that Northwood would refuse access to sites across Northwood property with no reason, and more or less at the last minute?

The member for Omineca said in a letter to the mayor of Houston: "You know, Bas, I've always considered the Lieuwen site the last resort." Is that a true statement, do you think? Or was this all a plot leading up to an end result, politically boxing in a situation where prime agricultural land would be taken out of the reserve?

Well, Mr. Chairman, those questions should be answered. The minister should become more familiar with these issues as they arise. I think the minister doesn't know, as he says, the full details of these things that have been developing and were being developed by his colleagues over some several months without his knowledge. Are they trying to send one past him, as they say in the vernacular? He should be very keen to find these things out. It may be a very innocent situation and these circumstances are circumstantial evidence of hanky-panky. People may be very innocent. But the Minister of the Environment, who's in charge of the Land Commission, should be right on top of this situation. We've given him two days and he still doesn't know the details. Perhaps the minister can find out, because his estimates will go on for some time.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): I hope the minister will answer the questions posed by the previous speaker. It seems that it's quite an important topic and it does require answers.

However, Mr. Chairman, the question - because I think I'll stick to a single issue at the moment - that I wish to pose is quite a serious one in my opinion, and in the opinion of my regional district and other regional districts throughout the province. This matter, by the way, falls directly under the purview of the Minister of the Environment, since it does concern the environment - specifically, a provincial park. It also concerns action that may or should be taken by the Environment and Land Use Committee.

To just give you a bit of background on the situation, approximately two months ago, two individuals were successful in utilizing a loophole in the Strata Titles Act to subdivide property within the boundaries of a provincial park of this province -specifically, Desolation Sound Park, which is approximately 20 miles north of Powell River. That is certainly an environmental matter and is being treated as an environmental issue by the regional district and people in that area at this time. The regional district pleaded with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) - and I personally had discussions with that minister on this matter - to do something about this very, very serious matter. The Minister of Municipal Affairs listened and he did do something, as you know, on February 17. An order-in-council utilizing the Land Registry Act was passed, requiring the subdividers and developers to file a prospectus of any subdivision over five lots.

The problem is this, Mr. Chairman: on the best legal advice 1 can find, it would appear that those people who have already utilized the loophole in the Strata Titles Act will be allowed to proceed to subdivide and sell these properties within the Desolation Sound Park area. What I'm leading up to is that 1 hope the Minister of the Environment, who has the power to step in, will now do so.

But I'd like to proceed, Mr. Chairman, with some correspondence and perhaps cite one or two other examples, before I explain to the minister how he may or could proceed on this matter. I'll be quoting from some correspondence from the regional district. I will send a copy of this correspondence - which has been forwarded to the minister - over so he can follow me. We'll go through these questions that are being posed by the Powell River Regional District. 1 think there are 10 or 11 questions and I'd like to pose these questions to you now, Mr. Minister. Perhaps the people with you can help you answer some of these questions.

This motion is directed to the Premier of the province and is signed by two regional board directors.

". . . and that the attached letter posing questions to the Premier of the province of British Columbia, relative to the Strata Titles Act, be forwarded to the Premier and to all regional districts, MLAs, and major media concerned f or any action they deem appropriate."

The questions that are posed are as follows, Mr. Chairman. I'm quoting now from the regional district correspondence, dated February 24,1977.

" (1) When did the government or provincial officials first become aware of strata title loopholes?

" (2) Which particular individuals; government members or officials were aware of the loopholes at that time?

" (3) Were there any steps taken to block the loophole when its existence became known? If not, why?"

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, 1 am not sure that the Strata Titles Act comes under the purview of this particular minister.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, it comes directly under the purview, in my opinion, of the Minister of the Environment, particularly since this matter directly involves the environment.

[ Page 1548 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It is a subdivision within the boundaries of Desolation Sound Park. I'm about to point out to the minister how this situation could be corrected by action on his part. And I'll get to that.

" (4) How many subdivisions of land have been registered under the Strata Titles Act throughout the province? How many have been registered without the approval of regional or municipal governments. Or, of those registered without local approvals, how many contravened local land-use legislation?"

Certainly local land-use legislation falls under preview of that minister, Mr. Chairman.

" (5) What are the names of those corporations or individuals registering strata title plans, subdividing lands, and is there any link between these developers and provincial officials, elected or otherwise?

" (6) As regards strata title plan No. VR375 . .

That is the strata title plan registered in the Desolation Sound Park, Mr. Chairman.

". . . within Desolation Sound Marine park, and on the uplands of one of the finer oyster-growing areas of the province, without having been scrutinized by any governmental jurisdiction charged with protecting the public interest with regards to health, safety, et cetera. . . ."

I might interject at this point, Mr. Chairman, to tell you - and I'm pleased to see the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) in the House - that his department, the parks branch, was, I understand, actively negotiating with the previous property owners to have that private property included within the park and under the jurisdiction of the provincial government. The parks branch was absolutely horrified to find out that this property had been subdivided without their knowledge.

Should I continue with these questions, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It goes on.

" (6) What rationale can be offered by the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs for not complying with our request that the registrar of titles present a stated case before a judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia questioning whether strata plan VR375 should. have been accepted for registration."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I would ask that you read only those things that relate to the particular minister.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, I should point out at this time, Mr. Chairman, that the regional board requested and sent to the appropriate minister a request that this particular case be tested in the Supreme Court of British Columbia as to its. . . .

HON. MR. CURTIS: Read the whole letter, if you want.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I was going to read the whole thing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member. Anything that you read, please kindly relate to the minister's vote at hand.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It's all related to that minister, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Read the last page and let people see what regional districts are really like.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, I'm getting to that, Mr. Minister of Housing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member for Mackenzie has the floor.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to read the pertinent sections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Read more than that. Don't be selective.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member for Mackenzie has the floor.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: In that case, I will read the one section that I think is very pertinent, and that is the question (11) , which in effect places B.C. land surveyors above regional districts, health inspectors, highway approving officers, and all other people connected with subdivision of land.

The section that the minister is very annoyed about is No. 13 on this list. I have no qualms about reading it because these people are genuine in their concerns.

"In summation and closing, what the hell is going on?

(Signed)

"Board of Directors, Powell River Regional

District, for J.F. Whent, secretary-treasurer."

A legitimate concern of the district.

Mr. Chairman, this will astound you. On February 28, just this week, I received another similar example. This is an example of 66 subdivided lots under the

[ Page 1549 ]

Strata Titles Act - and I sent the minister a copy of this - on Savary Island, which is also within the boundaries of my riding. The regional board, when I phoned to ask them about this, weren't even aware of it. They were not even aware of this particular instance.

What worries me about this one as well is that I have received a copy of correspondence dated May 6,1974, signed by Mr. R.H. Ahrens, director of parks at that time, suggesting that this property should be closely examined once again as a potential park site. And here it is subdivided into 66 little lots without going through the usual procedure of Health, Highways....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, as you are quite aware, parks come under the Minister of Recreation and Conservation.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I am very much aware of that, and there's a direct link. Because rather than asking for inquiries and investigations, we have so many going on in the province at the moment - and perhaps there should be an inquiry. But what I'm really asking for and suggesting to the minister under the Environment and Land Use Act is that the minister now has the authority - or at least that committee has the authority - under section 6 of the Environment and Land Use Act to see that particularly those properties within park boundaries are returned to the province by whatever means they have at their disposal. If that means compensating the people who have already purchased property, if that means compensating the now owners and returning that property back to the provincial government for park purposes, then I think it should be done, because this is too serious a matter just to be left hanging.

We have a number of instances that took place in the Cariboo. Here is one from Beaver Valley Ranch, Big Lake, B.C.; here is one from Lac La Hache, several where people have.... Well, probably in some cases they'll never be able to use the property. They bought the property from these developers in good faith, but they'll never be able to use the property in any meaningful way.

Mr. Speaker, I have one other item, and this will astound you. Utilizing a loophole in the Strata Titles Act, in the case of this subdivision on Savary Island there's a provincial regulation forbidding subdivisions of less than 10 acres. Yet in this particular instance, the developer utilizing that loophole was able to subdivide that property into 66 tiny little lots. So I just wanted to bring that to the minister's attention.

Now I think that this is the direct responsibility of that minister, as well as the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) , as well as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) . I don't see any reason why the people who were bilked - who may have been bilked - can't be compensated, and why these properties, particularly those properties within park boundaries, cannot be returned to the provincial government, purchased by the provincial government - and the people compensated. The right thing should be done by these people. Action should be taken now, Mr. Chairman; it has to be taken now. I'll await the minister's reply.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The questions contained in this letter from the Powell River Regional District.... Looking at them, the questions can't be answered by myself as Minister of the Environment. Most of them involve strata titles, which is Municipal Affairs or the Attorney-General. Parks, as the member would know, Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh, the Attorney-General is excluded.

The member would know that parks come under Recreation and Conservation. The parks branch does have that capacity now to purchase property. It would not have to be by way of an order of the Environment and Land Use Committee. The parks branch has the capacity to purchase property now. The parks branch can buy property in a park.

AN HON. MEMBER: No money.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, who has money? The Environment and Land Use Committee has no money.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm sorry, but perhaps if these questions were placed on the order paper, they could be responded to by the ministers responsible -about 12 questions. The minister who is responsible, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, had these been brought forward, I'm sure would have responded to that. As the member pointed out, the date of the letter, I might mention, is February 24 of this year. It has been brought to the attention of the House on this date. But it was addressed to the Premier. I presume, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier has responded to the letter, or is going to respond, or has instructed ministers whose jurisdictions involve these questions to respond to them. I appreciate the member for Mackenzie's concern and interest in bringing it to the attention of the House. If the Ministry of the Environment is involved in any of these sections as shown in this, we'll certainly respond to that but it's going to require some study and you

[ Page 1550 ]

can't expect an instant answer on a pretty complex problem involving other ministries.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, to the minister through you, there has been considerable communication on this matter with the Minister of Municipal Affairs particularly. The government has recognized that there is a problem by passing an order-in-council limiting a prospectus for subdivisions created by strata plan. That may prevent some of these horrendous things that are happening from happening in the future. But the fact of the matter is that those people who have already received, under the Strata title plan, particularly the Desolation Sound park plan....

What I'm requesting here is that immediate action be taken. Questions on the order paper, if they're , answered at all, will certainly not compensate the people who are perhaps being bilked and will certainly not return that land under the privy of the minister of parks. Under section 6 of the Environment and Land Use Act, which is your direct responsibility, Mr. Minister - I'll read it to you so it is on the records:

"The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, on the recommendation of the committee, may make such orders respecting the environment or land use as he may consider necessary or advisable, and he may make such orders under this Act notwithstanding any other Act or regulation. No minister, department of government or agent of the Crown specified in the order shall exercise any power granted under any other Act or regulation except in accordance with that order."

In other words, Mr. Minister, the government now has the power to act in some of the cases that I have cited. We want action now.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification to the member for Mackenzie, you want action now but I'm not quite sure what you are suggesting. I'm sorry. Let me just perhaps offer you a couple of alternatives of what I think perhaps you have in mind. I think you said those people who have been bilked. Mr. Chairman, does the member want the Environment and Land Use Committee to compensate these people? I really don't fully understand what it is you're seeking.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm having a hard time with you but we'll try again. The government now, under section 6 of the Environmental Land Use Act, has the power to take all necessary and appropriate action to do what is right. Perhaps, in the case of these Cariboo people that I've mentioned, they have purchased property under false pretences, suspecting that they could build homes on this property - or whatever use they wanted to put it to - and then find now they probably cannot. But in the case of Desolation Sound Park, and perhaps of the Savary Island potential park site under this section of the Act, that minister now has the power - with the Treasury Board and cabinet and the cabinet committee - to either compensate the people who have been bilked or to purchase all of this property, particularly the property within the park boundaries, and have it returned to the Crown so that it may be used for the purposes for which it was intended.

MRS. WALLACE: The hon. minister, Mr. Chairman, has once again abdicated his responsibility of doing anything about the land in his refusal to even answer the member for Mackenzie. In raising the points and pointing out to that minister, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I've allowed this to continue. However, this has very little to do with the hon. Minister of the Environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes, it has!

MR. CHAIRMAN: It comes under the purview of several other departments, including the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation, and I would ask you to take a different stance.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, may I ask you whether the Environment and Land Use secretariat comes under the purview of this minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have the right to ask the minister that.

MRS. WALLACE: That is what I am proposing to discuss. I'm asking the minister whether he is prepared to exercise his rights in preservation of the land in this province under the instructions to the Environment and Land Use Committee. He has refused to answer the member for Mackenzie. I am reiterating this question and asking that he does make some response. That would be my first question, Mr. Chairman. It was not a question I intended to ask but I was a bit riled by the minister's actions in response to that member's question. It's the same sort of response that the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) got when he raised questions regarding the Houston situation: a no-answer answer, just a shrug of the shoulders.

The member for Vancouver Centre made some very pertinent points about interrelationship of the various ministries and ministers in relation to the B.C. Development Corporation, in relation to the ELUC and the Department of the Environment and the Agricultural Land Commission. But there was no

[ Page 1551 ]

response. And there is evidence of very possible collusion among the people who are involved in that land action in Houston. I raised this point last night, Mr. Minister, and I asked you whether you had, in any way, discussed this with members of the Land Commission or with the member for Omineca (Hon. Mr. Kempf) . Again, I received no response.

I'm very concerned about what is going on there. The member for Omineca has his favourite method of interference by saying, "Don't you want jobs up there?" Of course we want jobs up there. But we are suggesting that there are alternative sites, Mr. Chairman.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Expropriation, I suppose.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat has the floor.

MRS. WALLACE: We are suggesting that there are alternative sites and that they could be made available. I am wondering whether this Minister of the Environment is just simply prepared to preside over the dissolution of the agricultural land reserve or is he there to preserve our land in British Columbia? He was so amazed that the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) had made a suggestion about involving some form of committee to look into possible alternatives and he suggested that he would take it under advisement. Really, Mr. Chairman, as the minister responsible for the preservation of our land and our environment in British Columbia, I would have expected the minister would have had those kinds of procedures under active consideration long ago and not waited for the hon. leader of the Liberal Party to make a suggestion to him. He seemed so genuinely surprised that there might be some possible way he could move in that direction.

I would like to ask a specific question of the minister in regard to the Houston situation. I was very interested in his remark and I jotted it down. He was referring to the Houston situation and the Land Commission, and he said: "We have not offered them any advice." This was to the Land Commission. I'm surprised that he would see fit to make such a remark. When he was being interrogated on the Captain Terry racetrack, he indicated that of course he would not offer advice. He was going to make it his business to travel around this province and see these major sites but he certainly would not offer advice to the Land Commission.

I would like to ask that minister whether or not he has discussed the Lieuwen farm and the Houston situation with any member of the Land Commission; whether he has discussed it with the member for Omineca; whether or not he has discussed it with any of the residents of Houston, including the Lieuwens;

whether or not he has discussed it with Mr. Mann; and whether or not he has discussed it with the Minister of Economic Development. I would like him to respond to those questions. If he would be prepared to respond to those questions on Houston specifically, I would yield my place. I have some other local matters.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I hope the member realizes that by not responding immediately to a member that does not indicate you are not going to respond. The member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) left right after he asked the question. You may have witnessed that.

The Houston application: no, I don't know the people who own the property - Lieuwen or whatever the name is. I have never met them. I am not aware who these people are. I believe the member asked if I had spoken to Mr. or Mrs. Lieuwen.

I am not aware who Mr. Mann is. I think the name was mentioned some time today. I speak with the member for Omineca about his constituency quite regularly.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Of course I spoke to the MLA about a public meeting that was going to be held in his area - it's something of interest to him as the MLA. Certainly I communicate with the Land Commission. I spoke with the Land Commission in response to the letter they had written me about it. Of course I respond to that. No, as I said, we had not made the suggestion to the Land Commission, Mr. Chairman, to hold that public hearing. That's what I was explaining to a previous member - they had decided to do it even though it was not an obligation. We had not recommended that they do it. They had made that decision on their own to hold that public meeting.

The intrigue that the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) was developing by way of his web is unknown to me. These connections of people, up and down and sideways, I am afraid I'm not aware of. That information has not been made available to me. If the member would like to transmit it to me, I would very much appreciate that and also look into it.

The Lieuwen farm, or that property involving the Ministry of the Environment, is relative to the role of the Land Commission in that the Land Commission is hearing an appeal quite properly under the Land Commission Act - under section 92 of the Act. There is a method whereby an appellant applies for such an application, and once that application is in process the application is to be heard. In the event it is rejected, there is a further appeal procedure which eventually could find its way to the Environment and

[ Page 1552 ]

Land Use Committee or cabinet. The role relative to that is restricted at this time to the Land Commission. The meeting is on March 8. We expect to hear the results of that meeting soon thereafter, and we expect to receive the results of the Land Commission.

Mr. Chairman, the questions offered by the member for Vancouver Centre perhaps could be directed to other ministers who are responsible for some of the people, organizations, corporations, or whatever, that he mentioned. I have no knowledge of these inner workings of the other corporations, and I have no knowledge of ownership of surrounding lands, or if the sawmill is going to be downtown, or if the Joneses live next door. That knowledge is not available to me because it is not part of the application before the Land Commission. The application before the Land Commission is very specific and they are hearing it, as is their obligation under the Land Commission Act.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

Perhaps if the member for Vancouver Centre is listening, he might advise me what the comment meant: "We gave you two days to answer." I do not recall having had this information transmitted to me two days ago.

MRS. WALLACE: Just a couple of further questions to the minister. First of all, Mr. Chairman, it's obvious that if the Land Commission decides at their hearing that this land be excluded from the reserve, that is the end of the matter. Now theoretically that's the end of the matter. Has the minister considered that it might have some bearing on the decision of the Land Commission if they were not aware that there were alternative sites? Would it not have some bearing on the decision of the Land Commission that the B.C. Development Corporation was involved in this particular transaction.

I would suggest that these two things over which the minister has some control might have a bearing on the decision of the Land Commission. I am wondering if he does not feel that as minister he has an obligation to make sure that all facets are pursued to ensure that an absolutely fair hearing is held with all evidence being available for the Land Commission to consider.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the concern the member has exhibited, but the Land Commission is quite capable of putting on a proper hearing, Madam Member. I am not going to instruct the Land Commission as to what hearing they should hold. They are very capable of holding a public hearing, and I have no doubt in my mind that the alternate sites or other important information will be brought up at that meeting. Advice has been given to the people in the area that the meeting will be held. Certainly the mayor has been advised. I've been told he's been advised. I've no doubt this will be discussed. The Land Commission is very capable; they will hold a hearing relative to the application, relative to why they're there.

I indicated to the member previously - not this member but another member - that the Land Commission in their communication to me made mention of knowledge of alternative site inspections. So they are aware of this, and I'm sure this will be a very important role in that. The Land Commission in many of its recommendations will mention in their findings that if it's a negative finding, one of the reasons they said no was because there are alternative sites or alternative areas. On occasion they may say the reason they chose to release certain lands was because of the lack of sites. So sites are very much on their minds, and I have full confidence that the Land Commission will conduct a very full and proper hearing. I believe it's at Houston.

MRS. WALLACE: I want to leave Houston and go to something much closer to home, as far as I'm concerned. That is the proposed Timbercrest development in the Cowichan Valley area. The last knowledge I had of the status of this development was that the matter had been referred to cabinet. This is some 35 acres of land that Timbercrest estates is wanting to take out of the agricultural land reserve for development. That piece of property, Mr. Chairman, is much closer to Victoria.

The minister has said that he makes it a habit of traveling around to see these pieces of property so he knows what is in the offing. I'm wondering whether or not the minister has visited that piece of property, whether or not he has discussed that with any members of the Land Commission, whether or not he has discussed it with any of the shareholders of Timbercrest - including Doman Industries, which has a fair share of Timbercrest. I'm wondering if he's discussed this matter or has any knowledge of where this now sits in its route through the various agencies. It was turned down by the Land Commission, and then there was an appeal made.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please address the Chair.

MRS. WALLACE: It was last spring. I don't have the exact date. But perhaps the minister would look into it. I gather from him that he does not have the exact information. Perhaps he would get that information for us.

The next question that I would like to proceed to, Mr. Chairman, is the matter of the Ladysmith harbour. I've discussed this briefly across the floor

[ Page 1553 ]

with the minister this session and he indicated that there were some legal things in the way of providing local control for that harbour operation. Both the town council and the regional district have agreed to accept the responsibility. They have applied for letters patent to manage the Ladysmith harbour and are prepared to move. They're awaiting action from the minister, and I'm wondering whether or not he can give me some firm information as to whether or not he is going to proceed with his avowed intent to allow some local control in that area and to get on with the job of cleaning up the Ladysmith harbour.

I have one other local matter that 1 would also like to discuss. Perhaps 1 shall just proceed with that, Mr. Chairman, and the minister can answer the three questions at the same time.

The other one relates to the Cowichan Bay development and the Cowichan River estuary. There is a great deal of concern there on the part of all residents relative to the possible future industrial development there. There has been a request from the regional district that some legal status be given to ELUC's recommendation as to how that harbour should be maintained. I'm wondering whether the minister is prepared to make such a move.

I'm very particularly concerned about a situation that has been developing there over the past few months in the matter of dumping chips on one of the farms adjacent to the bay. It's an old riverbed, actually, and it's above another very productive farm. There has been what 1 would term some conflict of direction to the owner of the farm from the Pollution Control Board and from the Land Commission. The Pollution Control Board, after the consent was obtained from the fisheries and such groups, agreed to the dumping of the chips, and they set some terms by which the owner should govern himself. There were only two specific things that they said. I might say that in the recommendations they brought in first, they did include the suggestion'that a bond should be posted. Because of varying things that went on there, the owner seemed to have some changing ideas about how he was going to use it. There was definitely a possibility of the wood chips washing down not only into the estuary and into the bay but also onto the farmland below, and there was a suggestion that a bond should be posted. However, when the actual double-registered letter was sent to the owner, it contained only two specifications.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The room is very noisy, hon. member.

MRS. WALLACE: The first specification was that an earth dike should be constructed at the southeastern extremity - supposedly to prevent the wood chips from washing down, and the second specification was that the wood-waste fill should be compacted and covered with 1.5 to 2 feet of soil.

Now the original discussions indicated that the depth of the wood fill might go as much as six feet. It seems a bit strange to me that you would put in six feet of wood in an area that was very prone to flooding at high water, and then only put 1.5 or 2 feet of soil over top, and to do that without posting any bond when there was farm property below it that could be covered with those chips - inundated. Also, it could leach into the river should there be any flooding situation. This seemed a bit strange.

This land is in the agricultural land reserve, Mr. Chairman, and it's interesting to note at the same t ini e that the Pollution Control Board gave permission to this gentleman to dump chips on his farm.... Incidentally, these chips were coming from the Doman sawmill, which is right next door to this property, or very close to the property.

But the agricultural Land Commission became involved in the matter. They sent a letter to the owner and they sent out some instructions. They say: "We've been advised by the Minister of Agriculture that the deposition of wood shavings on the subject property would not have an adverse effect on the land if the filling is done in the proper manner." They set out some five conditions. They say that no filling should take place south of the river channel, that the available topsoil must be salvaged before filling and that the shavings and sawdust must be removed from any land not in the river channel. Those were the conditions that were set down.

Then, as a result of some protests from neighbours and from myself, the Land Commission saw fit to do some investigation and they found that these conditions were not being met. They ordered the cessation of all further deposition of chips until such time a s these conditions had been met. Unfortunately, the dumping of chips did not stop. There was also a letter from the Pollution Control Board - and I'm not just sure whether that was before or after the Land Commission one - also telling them to cease and desist dumping. 1 believe that it has now stopped, but it did continue for some time, Mr. Chairman. 1 endeavoured to contact the Crown prosecutor on several occasions. I finally wrote to him and 1 wrote many times to the minister on this, a ' asking that some action be taken to stop the dumping. To the best of my knowledge, no real concrete action has been taken. I'm still very concerned about what has happened on that property and what may still happen, and I would like the minister to make some comments on that.

Now that's two questions on the Cowichan situation: one on the legislative status for the recommendations of ELUC as to further development there, comments on the property with the chips, the

[ Page 1554 ]

Ladysmith harbour and Timbercrest.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Perhaps the property she is speaking of is the Island Shake and Shingle. Is the one specific area you're speaking of the. ?

MRS. WALLACE: Hog fuel.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, I don't mean the hog fuel. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. Let me respond in this way on the hog fuel. Yes, I recognize the communications that have occurred. There was a limited landfill of a slough - a private slough around a gentleman's home - that was approved by the fish and wildlife branch, and fisheries and marine service, and a permit was granted by the pollution control branch for deposit of a specified volume of material. The wood chips and the hog fuel were from a nearby sawmill - Doman's mill. The land is within the ALR, as the member mentioned, Mr. Chairman. The present information, as supplied to me, is that the gentleman has apparently exceeded the specified volume but the filling has now stopped. Both the Land Commission and the pollution control branch are pursuing the matter at this time. The pollution control branch was to measure the total volume deposited to date on February 18 this year - so this is the most recent action - and will obtain legal advice on the courses of action. The Land Commission will consider action if the fill is not adequately covered to restore agricultural capability. The deadline given by the Land Commission for covering the fill with suitable soil is June 15 of this year, according to a PCB permit. I think that is pretty well as up to date as I have on my files at the moment. However, I'm advised the Land Commission may wish to see the matter resolved before that. But I can certainly speak to both the Land Commission and the branch to see if they can speed it up or if there are some new developments.

The other Cowichan Bay area.... I trust we are speaking of the Doman property, the water and the Island Shake and Shingle.

The Environment and Land Use Committee report is status quo. I'm sure the member would understand that what they refer to by "status quo" is that it remains as is. We are awaiting information and direction from the regional district. We understand they've had a fourth hearing and we're awaiting the results of that hearing. The advice given to me was they were going to downzone it to "ecological" or some other form of zoning. We're awaiting their advice and we're awaiting their report.

On the Ladysmith harbour report, of which the member has a copy, I believe, we are waiting for one of the principal members of the advisory committee, who apparently is on holidays. We intend to meet with him this month. We're just waiting for a date.

We will certainly discuss all those points you brought up with them.

Timbercrest, I'm sorry. I know of no application to ELUC or cabinet by an organization known as Timbercrest Development. I've not seen the property. Timbercrest Estates, or whatever, I'm not aware of.

MS. SANFORD: I have four very brief questions and I promise to be brief. The first one is the same question that I asked last year during the minister's estimates, and that relates to the Tsitika-Schoen. The Tsitika-Schoen area was set aside for study under the previous administration with a view to giving some special status to that area. I know that last year no action had been taken, but I understand that the Environment and Land Use Committee was about ready to at least discuss it. I don't know about coming up with any recommendations at this time.

The second one relates to the Campbell River estuary. I'm really serving notice on the minister that there are going to be problems in that estuary because, undoubtedly, some of the industry that is now located there is going to have to be moved out. They're going to need financial help. Some of these industries are small; they can not afford the costs of moving. There is concern in the area that these industries will have to go under. It is also essential that these industries be moved if that estuary is going to be saved. Therefore, Mr. Minister, would you please be advised that those industries are going to need financial help through the provincial government and presumably through your department, or perhaps the Ministry of Economic Development.

The third question relates to the Roderick Haig-Brown property which, again, was purchased by the previous government - an area of 10 acres. One of the reasons for the purchase of that property was for the construction of an environmental conference centre. Are there any plans at this stage to continue with that proposal - that is, to construct an environmental conference centre on the Roderick Haig-Brown property at Campbell River? Has any discussion taken place on this? Will any action be taken under this year's budget - that is, for 1977-1978?

Finally, I'm wondering if the minister is prepared to release the Western Canada Hydraulic Laboratories Ltd. study that relates to the Oyster River. He did release the Bentley LeBaron report, but I think it's important that the public now has a look at this Western Canada Hydraulic Laboratory Ltd. study which was done at the request of the developer himself.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: In answer to the last question: yes, I'm quite prepared.

The Roderick Haig-Brown property is being

[ Page 1555 ]

considered, following his death.

The Campbell River estuary: an ecological study is underway, as well as an economic study. I'm advised the estimated costs could be $40 million to move the industry that is there now.

The Tsitika-Schoen: at the moment, I could advise the member that we are what I would believe is halfway through a decision. It's a very complicated issue. It's a very important issue involving many ministries being co-ordinated through the Environment and Land Use Committee. I could only advise that we would be what I would regard as halfway through reaching a decision. It may not be too satisfying, but we expect to have a decision soon on it.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): I have two or three brief questions to the Minister of the Environment. The first one is with reference to the Skagit Valley and Ross Dam. I know when your government took office, Mr. Minister, the Premier did say that you were planning several alternatives to the situation. You were quoted as saying that you would be sending a middle-level official down to have early talks with Seattle City Light, and that you had a couple of ideas of your own on it. I think the people of B.C. and all of us in the House are most interested to hear from the minister on the present status of the discussions on the Skagit Dam. In particular, I would like to ask the minister: what is the current status of your discussions and negotiations regarding the Skagit?

My second question is: what initiatives have recently been taken by the Federal Power Commission in the United States, and what response has your department taken in that regard? The second question is asked because I understand the Minister of the Environment, in a comment in the Sun of February 5, apparently gave different versions of the present government's actions over the proposed flooding of the Skagit Valley land. Our concern is that there have been different versions coming out from the government. It's a serious issue. When you first came into office, the Premier said you would take the same position as the NDP - that this valley was not to be flooded.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Address the Chair, please.

MRS. DAILLY: So I do think that we should have some specific answers on this.

I'd also like to know: what is the status of this whole question right now before the International Joint Commission? Those are the three questions on the Skagit Valley.

I have some others. Do you want to answer that one first, Mr. Minister? All right.

My other concern is with the Skagit, but in another area - that is, with the Skagit nuclear power plant. I think most of us are aware that the state of Washington is considering the construction of a nuclear power plant in Washington, just 30 miles from the B.C. border. I know the minister has been informed of this by others. This plant poses a direct threat to British Columbia. Its radioactive waste discharges could find their way into the Strait of Georgia. Massive radioactive releases from some catastrophic accident could be carried by northerly winds over B.C.

I know there was a federal hearing in Seattle on this, and I would like to ask the minister specifically if he sent someone from his department down there to sit in on those hearings and if he could inform the House as to the status of that at this moment.

Another serious concern I think most of us have over this proposition of this nuclear power plant, Mr. Minister, is that they've also discovered that the proposed location is near an active earthquake fault. I know we're not here to get into the controversy over nuclear power. 1, of course, feel strongly against it. But I think this would perhaps give the minister an opportunity also to tell us what his personal views as Minister of the Environment are on nuclear power, but particularly on what has been done to protect the people of British Columbia in relation to this proposed nuclear plant in Washington so close to our border.

I understand that the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and the Minister of the Environment jointly released the statement relative to a proposed uranium mine in British Columbia to be developed by Denison Mines 65 miles north of Kamloops. I realize there are a number of steps that have to be taken before approval will probably be given by the government. But my concern is that apparently there was a joint statement issued by both the Minister of Mines and the Minister of the Environment re this proposed uranium mine. I would like to ask the minister what that statement was. I would like to ask his opinion on a uranium mine in this province when there are so many people who are concerned about the safety and health hazards of moving into this area of uranium mining.

Those are my three questions to the minister.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Through you, Mr. Chairman, to the member, I'm sorry I do not have a copy of that press release but I'll certainly see you get one on the last question.

MRS. DAILLY: How do you feel about it?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: There was a copy of the release issued relative to that uranium mine proposal. and I'd be pleased to send a copy to the member, Mr. Chairman. It basically suggested that we would be

[ Page 1556 ]

setting out some guidelines that they would be required to follow and we'd be working closely with the Atomic Energy Commission of Canada.

We did send an observer to those public hearings to which the member referred. One of our air specialists was asked to go on our behalf to observe at those public hearings regarding that proposal for the nuclear plant. Again, I could make his report available if requested.

The Skagit is unfortunately a very complex issue, and I am looking for a document which I can't find. It's a letter we have sent to the federal government, the IJC and many, many, others. Mr. Chairman, I am a little bit cautious, I'm afraid, in my response because the matter is in a delicate position because of actions taken by federal authorities in the United States. We have been engaged, Mr. Chairman, with Mr. Kenneth Farquharson and David Brousson representing the Ross committee. We have been in communication with them very recently at their request, because they were concerned with a certain directive issued by an American commission.

We have communicated with the IJC, the FCC and the federal government. Basically we're very concerned that the negotiations which are going on between British Columbia and Seattle City Light.... There was a meeting as late as yesterday - I haven't received a report on the meeting of yesterday. We've had approximately eight meetings, I believe, in the last year - six or eight meetings here and there, in Victoria and in Seattle.

I think we're making some progress in this negotiation. It's just a very, very difficult negotiation. One of the problems, Mr. Chairman, we have is that we're not negotiating with the state of Washington, which probably would be better because they traditionally have been opposed to it. If the member would concur, perhaps, I would like to make a formal statement on the Skagit within a couple of days.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't going to get up and speak on the minister's estimates, at least not at this particular point in time. But I think I must clarify some points that have been raised in the debate of the opposition members during the last couple of days in regard to the Lieuwen farm situation at Houston in my home town.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that kind of a debate may or may not be in order. I should caution you that we are on vote 84, which is the administrative responsibility of the minister.

MR. KEMPF: Well, Mr. Chairman, if I may beg leave to speak on this, I was on my feet during the proper vote and was not recognized.

MR. KING: This is the first vote.

MR. KEMPF: The Lieuwen farm situation is one which I am very familiar with, and I would suggest to the House that the hon. members of the opposition have come in on this subject at the tail end, Mr. Chairman. I have, as the mayor of Houston - a post which I held for three years prior to December 31,1976 - during that time been very involved with the Lieuwen farm situation. I would like to make it clear to the hon. members on that side of the House that there has been much dialogue in the district municipality of Houston in regard to this particular piece of property.

MR. KING: With whom?

MR. KEMPF: I started two years ago to work with the Eurocan organization in selecting a site on which they could build a $17.5 million sawmill - a sawmill which will provide 400 new jobs in the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, to bring us up to date I would like to read a letter which I wrote. We heard the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) mention the name Bill Mann in her address to the House this afternoon. I'd like to read a letter which I wrote to Mr. Mann on February 18,1977.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Could the member show how this has to do with the administrative responsibilities of the minister?

MR. LAUK: We've read it!

MR. KEMPF: Yes, it does, Mr. Chairman. It relates to the minister's estimates in being a piece of land to be removed from the agricultural land reserve, through the B.C. Land Commission, for the purpose of building this sawmill. To read the letter, Mr. Chairman: "Dear Bill. . . ."

MR. LAUK: I've read it.

MR. KEMPF: Great. You have a good grapevine.

"Thank you for your letter and petition of February 15,1977, on behalf of the Concerned Citizens of Houston."

I'm sure you've heard of the group, Mr. Member.

"I am surprised that you ask for my commitment to work with you in helping the companies relocate in a more suitable site. The people of the district of Houston have had that commitment for two years. In fact, it was during the summer of 1974 that I first became involved in the studies which are being made by Eurocan in an attempt to find a suitable site on which to build a sawmill in Houston. Later on, in the spring of 1975, 1 became involved as

[ Page 1557 ]

your mayor in negotiations in an attempt to convince Northwood that land held by them should be made available to the Eurocan organization. ,

"After two years, and after much time and effort on behalf of myself and other members of council, it was abundantly clear that the only economically feasible site other than the Lieuwen farm was land owned by Northwood. It was also made very clear in a meeting between council and Mr. Carl Franz of Northwood, early in December, 1976, that all of our efforts to have the organization make land available to Eurocan had failed.

"This leads us to the present time. It leads the people of Houston to a position, after all that has taken place in the last two years, of only two choices: (1) to allow the $17.5 million investment and the creation of some 350 new jobs to go elsewhere, or (2) to allow, under tight control and concern for the environment, the mill to be built on the Lieuwen farm.

"However, and to make my position very clear on this issue, the only reason that I have ever been in favour of the Lieuwen farm was as a last resort. If there is new evidence to the effect that the Eurocan-Weldwood consortium is now willing to look once again at other sites, or if there is new evidence to show that the Northwood organization is now in favour of the sale of land to the consortium, then I will be willing to place the facilities of my office and my position at your disposal in order to make those alternatives a success.

"To date, and since leaving the office as your mayor on December 31,1976, no such alternatives have been brought to my attention. The only thing that has been made abundantly clear to me, and it is something which I truly fear, is that the citizens and taxpayers of the district of Houston may lose this development, may lose a $250,000 tax base, which I know from experience they need very badly."

Just to elaborate on that, hon. members, through you, Mr. Chairman . . .

MR. LAUK: We know about that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Sure, you were up there.

MR. LEA: That's right.

MR. KEMPF: . . . back in 1970, when the citizens of Houston built that community to facilitate 6,000 to 8,000 people, several services were installed in the district of Houston: a water and sewer system designed to handle a population of 8,0001 a shopping centre which was also designed to handle a population of 6,000; a high school....

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF: Listen, hon. members, and you might learn something about the Lieuwen farm. You might learn something for a change.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEA: Who owns the shopping centre?

MR. KEMPF: I have no idea who owns the shopping centre ...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KEMPF: . . . but I am concerned that that shopping centre has never been used to its capacity since it was built.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KEMPF: Who owns the high school, hon. member? Who owns the high school? A high school was built in that community to house 600 students....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KEMPF: I will relate this to the Lieuwen farm and its extraction from the agricultural land reserve through the B.C. Land Commission very soon, Mr. Chairman.

That high school has never had in it more than 350 students. It was built and paid for by the taxpayers of this province, and has never been used to its capacity.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

MR. KEMPF: There are many services in that community that have never been used to their capacity. That community - and I've said this for many years - needs only people. I'm surprised....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I have been listening again. Order! I've been listening again to hear some relevancy in your debate to the vote before us, vote 84, which is the administrative responsibility of the Minister of the Environment, and I find none. Therefore unless you have some new material that you wish to use, we'll have to draw your attention to one of the standing orders.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I relate this to the

[ Page 1558 ]

Minister of the Environment through the B.C. Land Commission and the extraction of this parcel of land from the agricultural land reserve.

It's been said by hon. members on that side of the floor that the majority of the people in that community do not wish this.

MR. LEA: They want a sawmill but they don't want to lose their farms.

MR. KEMPF: They do not wish this, Mr. Chairman, and I heard it said by one of the members in debate yesterday that the mayor and council were not in favour of the extraction of that land from the land reserve.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: That is correct, hon. member, and I have in my possession a letter from five aldermen on the present council who are pleading with me to have that land extracted from the agricultural land reserve. In regard to that extraction, I would like to read to the House, Mr. Chairman . . .

MR. LAUK: You tell us where you own land around that site.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. KEMPF: ... a letter that was written. It's a copy of a letter written to Mr. Runka, chairman of the Land Commission, and it is signed by many of the farmers in the district of Houston.

MR. LAUK: Name names.

MR. KEMPF: I will, Mr. Member. It goes as follows:

"Dear Mr. Runka:

"The undersigned, all farmers within the district of Houston, are in favour of removing the Lieuwen farm, lot 337, from the agricultural land reserve for the following reasons:

" (1) All of us derive only part of our income from farming, and a broader industrial base here would increase opportunity for outside jobs as well as to make for an expanded market for farm products we grow.

" (2) Grazing land. We like to see industry locate inside present municipal boundaries, and it should not take more outside lands. Ribbon development and indiscriminate location of industrial plants are a real threat to much-needed grazing lands and our beef herd.

" (3) Our farms, now located all or partly within the district of Houston, face high property taxes to help pay for municipal services. Additional industry located in the district would no doubt relieve this burden."

I'll file a copy of that letter with the House if you so wish, hon. member. I have many letters. I have all kinds of them, letters written to Mr. Runka of the B.C. Land Commission pleading....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please, hon. members. The member for Omineca has the floor.

MR. KEMPF: This land which lies within the agricultural reserve has never made the Lieuwen family a living in 30 years, Mr. Chairman. This Lieuwen farm has not made the Lieuwen family a living. For 30 years this individual has had to go out and work in the mills and work in the woods in that area in order to subsidize that farm. Now I ask you, Mr. Chairman, and I ask the hon. members if that is a viable farm. I don't think so.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. KEMPF: During the minister's estimates I wanted to clarify some of those questions which the hon. members don't seem quite clear on. I'd like to say something to the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) about this particular piece of property.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I must draw the member's attention again to the fact that we are on vote 84. The member has persisted in carrying a debate that is not relevant to the administrative responsibilities of the minister whose vote we are now discussing. I must draw your attention to standing order 43 which says: "Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the House or of the committee . .

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance, may direct him to discontinue his speech." Hon. member, I just draw that standing order to your attention.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. However much I may disagree with the hon. member's views, certainly it's his right to speak on Land Commission matters in the Minister of Environment's estimates. I don't see why he has been brought to order on the matter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Even if it were the Land Commission matters he was discussing, it

[ Page 1559 ]

should perhaps....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! It would better be discussed under vote 90.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Omineca has the floor.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, if I might just very quickly conclude in speaking on the Minister of the Environment's estimates before the House, I just wanted to clarify for the information of this House some of that misinformation that has been flying around in the last couple of days of debate, to clarify the real wishes of the people of that municipality in relation to the removal of the Lieuwen farm from the agricultural land reserve.

The member asked whether there was discussion between the MLA for Omineca and the Minister of the Environment with regard to this farm. I would suggest there was much dialogue in regard to that particular situation.

I would just like to finish up, Mr. Chairman, if I might, by reading the last paragraph in the letter that I wrote to Mr. Mann. It reads as follows:

"If the citizens of Houston do not want this mill, then as their -elected representative in Victoria I will place my effort in that direction. However, I must caution you and your organization that, as the elected representative of all of the people, I must support the wishes of the majority. It is on that basis that I will make my final decision."

I didn't agree with the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) when he suggested in debate on the minister's estimates yesterday that we expropriate land from Northwood. That is an act which the previous administration would surely have indulged in. It is not my policy or my feeling that we should expropriate property - an individual enterprise. The hon. members are a little hypocritical. Yesterday they were talking about not wanting B.C. Hydro to expropriate. They were going to take away B.C. Hydro's right to expropriate. Today they're saying: "expropriate this property for the building of a sawmill at Houston." Also, they're a little hypocritical, Mr. Chairman, when they say that they want jobs in the province of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member, the standing order 43 must certainly come into play at this stage of the game. I must ask the member.... If he is not willing to introduce some new material, then he must discontinue this line of speech.

MR. KEMPF: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: I will if you wish. Just very quickly finishing up, the extraction of that particular piece of property from the agricultural land reserve through the Land Commission ...

MR. LEA: Don't be muzzled.

MR. KEMPF: ... is certainly a decision that the Land Commission must make. I didn't want to get up in this House during the estimates of the Minister of the Environment because I did not want to influence in any way the decision of that Land Commission hearing to be held in Houston next Tuesday night. But I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. members over there will accept, with no doubt in their minds whatsoever, the decision that will be made next Tuesday night by that Land Commission. Certainly I hope the people of Houston will abide by that.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: I'll be very brief. I just wish that when that member wishes to misrepresent something that I said, he would have been in the House to have heard it in the first place. I did not argue in favour of expropriation. As a matter of fact, I said that was devoutly wished to be avoided. What I suggested was the formation of a government committee. The suggestion was well taken by the minister, I might add - had the member been in the House - to see what could be done to exercise some kind of moral suasion to acquire some of the non-agricultural industrial land in the area perfectly suitable to the purpose, which that ~member ought to have been doing, so as not to put that community in the cruel dilemma of choosing between the use of agricultural land for industrial use and jobs. It's an artificial dilemma, and if that member was doing his job he'd be saying so himself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member makes a correction.

MR. KING: I would certainly never disagree with the Chairman, but I am sorry that you weren't too pleased with the vein that the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) was taking. I think the opposition was generally pleased that the member got up and gave his dissertation, Mr. Chairman. I'm not sure the same is true of the government. I appreciate the member's offer to table the letters which he quoted from and I trust that he will do so. Yes, the

[ Page 1560 ]

opposition is quite prepared to grant leave for him to file all of those document~, which he undertook to do, I understand, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. KING: But, Mr. Chairman, I have four or five local issues I wish to raise with the minister. I don't think it'll take very long. One is with respect to the infamous - not the bridge over the River Kwai -bridge over the Lardeau River flowing out of Trout Lake, namely the Gerard Bridge. This is a location in my riding where there's a unique strain of fish spawn. They are the largest rainbow trout in the world. It's a matter of a couple of hundred yards of spawning grounds just below the lake, and the proposal has been that the Highways department would construct a new road on the west side of the lake to avoid the necessity of reconstructing a bridge over this very, very sensitive spawning area.

I'm no biologist but I'm advised by a game biologist from the fish and wildlife branch, and by those involved in the outdoor clubs and so on in the Kootenays, that this fishery is an extremely sensitive one. That traffic, or construction of a new bridge over the river, could destroy the very delicate ecological balance there and result in the loss of this almost endangered species of fish. It's a very, very tenuous and very small area where this unique fish spawns.

What I really want from the minister is an indication that he will resist representations that have been made to him, I understand, by the president of Can-Cel and Kootenay Forest Products, Mr. Williston, for authority to put a new Bailey bridge right over the area where the fish spawn, and that he will urge his colleague, the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) , to stick to the policy of constructing a road on the opposite side of the lake, which gets away from the river crossing altogether. I would like the minister's advice on that situation.

There's another matter, Mr. Chairman, with respect to my riding, which is of great interest locally. That is the Valhalla proposal, as it's known. It involves the chain of mountains across from Slocan Lake. A proposal has been put forward to designate it a wilderness area. It's one of the last and most beautiful untapped areas within close striking distance of Nelson, Trail, and Revelstoke to the north. The Slocan Lake itself is perhaps one of the most unpolluted lakes left in the interior, too, and the proposal is that the whole mountain chain on the far side of the lake be designated wilderness to prevent logging and mining in that area, at least at a certain elevation. I would like the minister's assessment, or some statement from the minister, as to what his attitude is towards the submission that has been made on that proposal.

Thirdly, Mr. Chairman, a new mine is planned about 54 miles north of the city of Revelstoke. I think it's by Noranda, at Goldstream. It's a copper and zinc mine, I believe. Development has been reported as being very imminent. I'm concerned that the tailings from that mine not be deposited in Goldstream, which is one of the main tributaries of the Columbia River. I'm concerned that no steps be taken to dam the Goldstream River to accommodate either a water source for the mine or a power source. I've heard some rather ominous rumours that that type of plan is in the wind, so I would appreciate the minister commenting and at least advising me whether he's had any representations to the effect. that Goldstream might be dammed or not.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate the minister responding to a question I asked the other night regarding the letter he received from Mr. Klaus Ohlemann. I don't want to belabour this matter any further. Perhaps my terminology offended the minister the other night when I asked him to comment on the propriety of the letter coming from someone in his staff. I used the word the "morality" of it. Perhaps I shouldn't have used that word. I think it would have been more appropriate if I had asked him for his views on the ethics of someone in his department commenting on the political affiliation of fellow workers in his department. I would appreciate the minister's own comment on that question.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: To the member for Revelstoke-Slocan, I'm afraid you brought up three or four very specific concerns. With your concurrence, I'll certainly reply to you in detail as the information is gathered. Some of this requires very specific information.

The copper-zinc mine: we're not aware of any such proposal at this moment. We'll certainly check it out for you.

An inventory study by the Forest Service is underway in the Valhalla area.

Relative to the Gerard Bridge, it has been brought to my attention. I have spoken with the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) as well. I understand there is no decision at this time to build a bridge, or upgrade or improve the road. But again, I could respond to you in more detail.

Your last question: I responded to you that I felt that action by a member of the civil service of communicating in this manner to anyone -particularly to an elected representative, the press, whatever - is, in my mind, very questionable. The member mentioned "morality" last night, and I must agree with him and I thought perhaps it wasn't a proper thing. You wonder whether I consider it ethical? I would say I do not consider it ethical.

[ Page 1561 ]

MR. KING: You do not.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I do not consider it ethical. But that's my opinion of it. That's why we're seeking advice from the Public Service Commission to see whether it offends rules, regulations and the code of conduct or ethics that the Public Service Commission demands.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that the minister gave some answers on the Gerard situation, but I do believe that it is a very urgent problem. Certainly the former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, now the president of B.C. Cellulose and Kootenay Forest Products, Mr. Williston, has urged and said that it's absolutely critical to the continuation of the Kootenay Forest Products that something be done. But what I would like to bring to the minister's attention is that there are alternatives and that it does not have to be a bridge.

It's my understanding that some study has taken place and that the feasibility of barging logs in that area, and some exchange with Can-Cel and KFP, are very viable alternatives. There is a report called the Jones report that gives some suggestions, but I don't believe it mentions barges.

I would like to very strongly recommend that his department suggest the use of barges, perhaps the temporary continuation of light motor-vehicle traffic over the existing bridge, but the eventual phasing out of the existing bridge in consultation with the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation, particularly the fisheries branch. It can be done by barging. Eventually you are going to have to build a new road and you are going to have to co-ordinate the efforts of the various ministries - the Ministry of Highways - in building a new and better road down the western portion of that lake in order to guarantee access to the community of Trout Lake.

I speak on this, Mr. Chairman, because while the fish spawn in the riding of the member for Revelstoke-Slocan, they certainly swim down as far as my riding.

It is my understanding that numerous studies have been done on the Valhalla, and that there is a forestry study which has talked about the economic impact of removing the portions of the Valhalla from forestation.

There is one other point I would like to bring up which hasn't been mentioned that I would like the minister to give some consideration to. It is my understanding that last year in the budget somewhere was some $800,000 for improvement of streams, streambank protection, flood protection. I don't see specifically where this is in this year's estimates.

I do know that a couple of years ago a study was done on the Salmo River. There were recommendations made. There was, I think, some $6,000 worth of work done. The recommendations were that some $70,000 worth of work would bring about substantial improvements and would make some of the agricultural property that is now flooded almost all summer long....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Under vote 87.

MR. NICOLSON: Vote 87.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't mind bringing this up under vote 87. But I'd like the minister to be prepared with some answers, because I've received a copy of a response that the minister sent to the hon. Bob Brisco, Member of Parliament for Kootenay West, in which he more or less intimated that his government was no longer going to accept responsibility for looking after the channels of streams and making sure that they stay within their banks - that they're confined - and making sure that these channels are dug to proper depths. A lot of the troubles that have arisen as a result of actions taken by various government departments; the logging which wasn't always done most carefully in the past - it takes more than three or four years to recover; forest fires and various other natural acts have also played an important part; and, I might say, the location of bridges and the building actions of the Ministry of Highways and Public Works, when bridges were washed out or perhaps burned, as happened in one instance. The Highways Department simply pushes in a bunch of gravel and a culvert and that gets washed away and adds to the load deposit in the bottom of streams. So the minister has written this letter to the federal member for Kootenay West and it has left me with the impression that he does not intend to take any action to rectify and to try to come to grips with the fact that people are living along these streams - as I explained in last year's estimates - for better or worse. They are living there. Perhaps that land should never have been alienated from the Crown. Perhaps it should not have been given to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway or various other areas. But, Mr. Chairman, it is a fact - people live in those areas.

So I would like ... before we get to the vote and it is vote 87, 1 would hope that the minister will have given some consideration to what the government policy is and confirm whether or not some $800,000

was allotted last year and whether that amount of money was spent. I should hope there is an indication that there will be more money allocated under that vote 87 this year.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move the committee rise, report sweeping progress and ask

[ Page 1562 ]

leave to sit again.

AN HON. MEMBER: Swooping.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. McGeer tabled the report of the committee on continuing and community education in British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.