1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 1973

Morning Sitting

[ Page

1871 ]

CONTENTS

Morning sitting Privilege Amendments to bills. Mr. Phillips — 1871

Mr. Speaker — 1871

Routine proceedings

Mineral Property Taxation Act Repeal Act (Bill No. 47).

Hon. Mr. Nimsick. Introduction and first reading — 1872

Mineral Land Tax Act (Bill No. 64). Hon. Mr. Nirnsick. Introduction and first

reading — 1872

An Act to Amend the Trade Union Act (Bill No. 158). Mr.

McGeer.

Introduction and first reading — 1872

Committee of supply: Department of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources estimates.

Mr. Richter — 1872 Mrs. Jordan — 1881 Mr. McGeer — 1889

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1872 Mr. Fraser — 1881 Mr. Smith

— 1889

Mr. Fraser — 1872 Hon. Mr. Williams — 1881 Hon. Mr. Williams

— 1890

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1872 Mr. Smith — 1882 Mr. Fraser

— 1890

Mrs. Jordan — 1873 Hon. Mr. Williams — 1882 Hon. Mr.

Williams — 1890

Mr. Williams — 1873 Mr. Smith — 1882 Mr. Nicolson — 1891

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1873 Hon. Mr. Williams — 1882 Hon.

Mr. Williams — 1891

Mr. Williams — 1873 Mr. Lockstead — 1883 Mr. Chabot — 1891

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1874 Hon. Mr. Williams — 1883 Hon.

Mr. Williams — 1891

Mr. Phillips — 1874 Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1883 Mr. Chabot

— 1891

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1874 Hon. Mr. Williams — 1883 Mr.

Williams — 1892

Mr. Phillips — 1874 Mr. Kelly — 1883 Mr. Smith — 1892

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1875 Hon. Mr. Williams — 1884 Mr.

Fraser — 1892

Mr. Curtis — 1875 Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1884 Hon. Mr. Williams

— 1893

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1875 Hon. Mr. Williams — 1884 Mr.

Williams — 1893

Mr. Chabot — 1875 Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1884 Hon. Mr. Williams

— 1894

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1875 Mr. Smith — 1885 Mr. Smith — 1894

Mr. Chabot — 1876 Hon. Mr. Williams — 1885 Hon. Mr. Williams

— 1894

Mr. Williams — 1876 Mr. Smith — 1885 Mr. McClelland — 1894

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1876 Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1885 Hon.

Mr. Williams — 1895

Mr. Kelly — 1876 Mr. Williams — 1885 Mr. Phillips — 1895

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1876 Hon. Mr. Williams — 1886 Hon.

Mr. Williams — 1895

Mr. Fraser — 1877 Mr. Williams — 1886 Mr. Gardom — 1896

Mr. Chabot — 1877 Mr. McGeer — 1887 Mr. McClelland — 1896

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1877 Hon. Mr. Williams — 1887 Hon.

Mr. Williams — 1896

Mr. Chabot — 1877 Mr. Morrison — 1887 Mrs. Jordan — 1897

Mr. McGeer — 1877 Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1888 Mr. Wallace

— 1898

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1878 Mr. Williams — 1888 Hon. Mr.

Williams — 1898

Mrs. Jordan — 1879 Hon. Mr. Williams — 1888 Mr. Chabot

— 1898

Mr. McGeer — 1880 Mr. McGeer — 1888 Hon. Mr. Williams

— 1898

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1880 Hon. Mr. Williams — 1888 Mr.

Chabot — 1898

Privilege Meeting of Social Education and Welfare committee. Mrs. Jordan .— 1899

Mr. Speaker — 1899

THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 1973

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I would

like to rise on a point of privilege. I would like to find out

from you, Mr. Speaker, when the debates in this House have

started to be judged in terms of dollars and cents. The

Attorney General alleged in a recent

article — Lorne Parton's

column — that debates in this House cost $1,000 an hour and

therefore the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) and

myself cost this Legislature $20,000 in debate on Bill 42. If

that is the case, the entire debate cost this Legislature

$45,400 on debate 42 and the whole thing could have been saved

by pulling the bill, Mr. Speaker.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): You just wasted another $75.

(Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise another

point of order. Can we somehow, Mr. Speaker, get our matter of

semantics straightened out so that when amendments come out to

bills or bills come out — we are still not getting them on

time. I realize last evening you were very kind…and went

down to the repeating room or the Xerox room …

MR. SPEAKER: You mean your printing room.

MR. PHILLIPS: Printing room, yes. At about 6:30 p.m. finally

a lovely lady from the Press and myself got copies of this

amendment run off and I was late getting home to my lunch.

Surely to goodness…

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know whether I should have left you

alone with her.

MR. PHILLIPS: What's that?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know whether I should have left you

alone with her. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm quite safe, Mr. Speaker, quite

safe.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I'll vouch for that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a point that we have discussed

in this Legislature before — getting copies of the bills. Here is a case — I

would pray, Mr. Speaker, that you will do something in your power to see that

when amendments are introduced that the Opposition and the Government Members

as well can get copies immediately. Thank you very much, I'll leave the matter

rest in your very capable hands, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: May I tell the Hon. Members that the amendments

to Bill 42 are not known, of course, to the Speaker's staff

until they are printed up and brought in by message. So,

immediately after the House adjourned we had copies made on the

Xerox from the only copy that was in the possession of the

Clerk's Table. They were supplied to the members of each

group.

I've asked the Legislative Council today to make up, as soon

as they possibly can, a reconciled version with the amendments,

not for official use, but for the aid of Members — that will

show the bill as it would be if it were amended. That's for the

purpose of helping you and in fact at your request, I

understand. So that will be done as quickly as possible.

I'll take up the other very important points of privilege

the Hon. Member has raised and perhaps some time report on

that, if it doesn't cost the House too much by the number of

minutes used.

The Hon. Minister of Health Services and Hospital

Insurance.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House I'd like to withdraw Bill 114 and the amendment

to Bill 114 on the order paper.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver-Burrard.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I would like

to ask leave of the House for the Committee on Social Welfare

and Education to meet at 11:00 a.m. this morning to consider

the matter of tobacco and alcohol advertising.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted? Well, I take it the

House does not agree. Now there's nothing in the standing

orders that I can see that deals with the question of

committees meeting while the House is in session, but there is

a general custom that it does not take place. I can only say

that you have not got the permission of the House.

Introduction of bills.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the

[ Page 1872 ]

Lieutenant-Governor.

MINERAL PROPERTY TAXATION

ACT REPEAL ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor transmits

herewith a bill intituled Mineral Property Taxation Act

Repeal Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government

House, February 28, 1973.

Bill No. 47 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present

a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

MINERAL LAND TAX ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor transmits

herewith a bill intituled Mineral Land Tax Act and

recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government House, February 28,

Bill No. 64 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE TRADE

UNION ACT

Mr. McGeer moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.

15 8 intituled

An Act to Amend the Trade

Union Act Motion approved.

Bill No. 158 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Orders of the day.

House in committee of supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF LANDS,

FORESTS AND WATER RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 132: Environment and Land Use Committee,

$50,924.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for

Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Who are the

personnel on the Environmental and Land Use Committee now?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources):

The personnel, Mr. Chairman, are the coordinator's secretary, Mr. Kinnear, who

has been I think since the committee was formed. He now has a senior clerical

aid and a stenographer or secretarial help. That's all the…

MR. RICHTER: The committee members?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, I'm sorry. The members of the

committee itself include the Minister of Health Services and

Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke), the Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources and (Minister of) Recreation and Conservation

(Hon. Mr. Williams), and the Minister of Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick).

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Through you, Mr. Chairman, would

the Minister put this out in some form of a Press release or

something? I mentioned it yesterday but the citizens don't know

who these people are giving their address. With the land freeze

on and with the appeals that have to go, they don't know where

to start. I think something in writing should be sent,

certainly to all the regional districts, municipal councils and

so on in the province, and a Press release as well from

you.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We'd certainly be pleased to do that.

We've had numerous communications. We now have something over

100 appeals, for example, subsequent to the order-in-council. I

might further report that the Environment and Land Use

Committee met this morning and reviewed further appeals. As I

noted yesterday, these appeals have been processed at an

earlier stage by an interdepartmental committee that advises

the staff of the Environment and Land Use Committee.

As a result, some 30 appeals have been approved. Most of

these are in conformity with local or regional plans and will

include such areas as industrial areas, for example, that were

already indicated under regional plans such as some of those in

the lower mainland region.

Similarly, other areas were approved in which a servicing

programme and residential development programme was

considerably underway by the municipality involved. So a total

of 30 have now been approved. We'd be pleased to send a

circular to

[ Page 1873 ]

municipalities and other interested parties.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Chairman, in relation

to the statements that the Minister has just made, would he be

prepared to have the committee make their decisions and the

reasons for their decisions public, upon request, to

municipalities and regional districts and Members of the

Legislature?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, without doubt.

MRS. JORDAN: And just in relation to a question I asked the

Minister yesterday that he didn't answer; did the Kiwana

property in Winfield go through this committee? I ask for the

decision and the reasons for the decision.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, I haven't been

aware of that particular property around Cherryville in the

Monashee. I will certainly follow it up. It hasn't come to the

attention of the committee itself directly.

MRS. JORDAN: I appreciate the Minister's comment on that

property. That's the Youngstrom property at Cherryville.

The other question I asked yesterday was in relation to the

Mel Kiwana property in Winfield. I appreciate the Minister

can't know the details of every transaction, but if I could be

advised of the decision on the Kiwana property and the reason

for the decision and also, in time, the action that may or may

not be taken on the Youngstrom property.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank you,

Mr. Chairman. I wonder if the Minister would indicate the

extent to which the Environment and Land Use Committee or its

staff may itself initiate inquiries into the land use in

British Columbia? I notice that the staff is quite thin. It

looks as if it is only, as the first position indicates, a

coordinating job.

My concern is, in view of the evisceration of Bill 42 by the amendments that

came in last night, there are large segments of this province which will need

to have some environment and land use attention. I would ask the Minister if

it is the intention of this committee to expand its personnel under its control

so that they may be in a better position to know in advance or at least keep

up with changes in land use policy that arise out of actions of various regional

districts. I am thinking in particular of those outlying areas in my

constituency. The Squamish-Lillooet is one, which causes great concern, I am

sure, to the Minister and to many others as well.

Unless we have an ongoing programme under the auspices of

this committee, I doubt that we're going to make any

significant inroads in the prevention of what may prove to be

serious wasteful use of the land resource and of the

environment.

Also, Mr. Chairman, could the Minister indicate to what

extent requests to the Department of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources for acquisition by purchase or lease of Crown lands

are made known to the staff of this committee, so that again it

might be possible to have some better coordinated use of Crown

lands that has been the case in the past.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I think the points raised

by the Hon. Member are quite valid. The committee has been

reviewing its own role. It's very clear that there is a need

for further increases, so that's actively under consideration

at the moment. It's certainly my own judgment at this stage

that there's a need for a director, for example, who would be

of a very senior level in the civil service so that there could

be coordination between departments, that there could be a

highly technical, able group advising the director and

possibly on various problems bringing people out of the

individual departments to work on them in a coordinated

manner.

There is a need for developing the staff level here, I would

agree. In that sense the committee's got that actively under

consideration at the moment.

With respect to Crown lands themselves, I am familiar with

some of the problems certainly in the Squamish-Lillooet

Regional District and they are quite significant. There is a

need for coordination. Servicing problems and land development

problems in the Alta Lake-Whistler Mountain area are such that

a fair amount of technical work is needed. I suspect probably

there's need for evolution of some kind of local government as

well.

Insofar as the Crown lands generally are concerned, there

are included in the budget increases with respect to adding an

engineer, planner, biologist and so on. So in the Lands Branch

itself there will be an increased staff that can deal with some

of the problems more creatively. I think there's also going to

have to be closer liaison with an improved environmental land

use staff as well. It's something that is evolving at this

stage.

MR. WILLIAMS: One further question on the same point, Mr.

Chairman. What is the relationship between the Environment and

Land Use Committee and the committee which was set up with the

centennial grant moneys from the federal Crown —

[ Page 1874 ]

it's called the Second Century Fund? Has there been close

working relationship with that committee and is the Minister

satisfied with the way in which any of those federal moneys may

have been expended?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, it's only an informal relationship

at this stage, Mr. Chairman. I met this week with Mr.

Hoffmeister, the British Columbia representative, with respect

to the Second Century Fund.

There has been coordination, as I indicated, with respect to

the Gilpin Range east of Grand Forks where there was greenbelt

money, existing provincial Crown and forest lands, plus the

Second Century Fund. The group together in effect has

established what will become one of the fine wildlife

management areas in the province. I think there will be more of

that as we carry on. It's only informal at this stage, but I

think we can develop quite a worthwhile working

relationship.

There has been some discussion with Mr. Hoffmeister about

other possible sites where there might be joint

involvement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace

River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, I'd

like to ask the Minister if he would explain a couple of things

to me. We have the Environment and Land Use Committee; we're in

the process of setting up under Bill 42 a land commission; we

have below the next vote the Deputy Minister of Lands and the

Director of Lands; we have somebody looking after the Green

Belt Protection Fund; and under the Department of Agriculture

we have the Land Clearing Act .

I'm afraid that we might be developing in British Columbia a

nightmare of bureaucracy. I don't understand myself what the

areas of responsibility are going to be and I'm afraid that

many of the civic governments and regional districts are not

aware of what the areas of responsibility are going to be.

Who's going to be the kingpin of this? Who's going to make the

final decision? I realize the Minister is, but the Minister is

not always going to be available.

I know if Bill 42 is passed there's going to be an

all-powerful land commission. Who's going to have

responsibility over what? Where do the designated areas of

responsibility lie? Who's going to make the final decisions?

Are you going to put out some sort of memorandum outlining what

the duties of each department are? Are you going to do away

with the Department of Lands?

Would you explain to me just how this thing is going to

function so that we don't get all tangled up in red tape?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I think it will function very well.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman…

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

confine his remarks to vote 132.

MR. PHILLIPS: I think this has to do with vote 132.

All right, I'll ask then: where does the Environment and

Land Use Committee fit into all of these other committees, and

the Department of Lands and so forth. Please explain it to

me.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, as we see it at this stage, the

Environment and Land Use Committee is a senior coordinating

body of cabinet and there's obviously a range of things that

must be brought together. We have these various land oriented

ministries…

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I see.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The Lands Branch is essentially

responsible for Crown lands under its jurisdiction, and the

Forest Service, for example, is responsible for provincial

forests under its jurisdictions and so on. There is frequently

an interrelationship with Mines, say, for surface rights; a

relationship between the Lands Branch and the mines department

with respect to commercial transport of pipeline questions that

again have implications for the Lands Branch. There is a need

for the ministries to get together to coordinate policies. I

think that was established by the former government; I think it

was a good start.

Now it is clear that the committee is going to have more and

more work. The jurisdiction of the land commission has been

covered in the debate on the bill, and I think it is clear that

the prime concern there is the preservation of agricultural

land, most of which is in the private sector.

Now I think that the Environment and Land Use Committee can

have a growing role in terms of coordinating policies at the

pre-cabinet level, and the intent is to extend the committee's

activities so that there is a greater degree of

coordination.

I think some recent examples with respect to Crown land and

the sale of Crown land for agricultural purposes reflect the

coordination in relation to the goals of the land commission,

for example.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace

River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just one supplementary question. I am to

gather, Mr. Chairman, from the Minister that

[ Page

1875 ]

the Environment and Land Use Committee is the over-seeing

body, and I would hope that in cabinet all the cabinet

Ministers who are land conscious…

Is the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) on the land

use committee? Well, he should be, because we had a case not

too long ago where he's involved in land. Now the Minister of

Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) is

involved in land. But all the Ministers in the cabinet who

really have anything to do with land should be on this land use

committee and they should meet, because sometimes we have

trouble getting you fellows together for a decision.

So I would recommend, Mr. Minister, that you get the

Minister of Highways in because certainly he's got a lot to say

about the use of land — we've heard him talk about blacktop. I

think he should be on the land use committee. I'm to gather

that they're going to be the overall governing body that's

going to look after all these other groups. Is that right? So

if we really want a decision then we are going to go to the

land use committee, right?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There's no question that it's a senior

body and it's going to be a policy formulating body that will

include these Members in cabinet. So it is a senior body and I

think the statute clearly indicates that.

The question of the highways department is well worth

consideration.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Saanich and

the Islands.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Chairman, to

the Minister with respect to the committee. The last few

moments have been spent mainly on coordination at the

provincial or cabinet level. I wonder if he could just take a

few minutes to outline more clearly the coordination and

consultation process with local government, and by "local" I

mean municipal and regional — the manner by which

municipalities at the elected or professional level could give

an input to decisions or deliberations by the Environment and

Land Use Committee, and frankly, vice versa.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I think again it's a good point, Mr. Chairman. The

committee at this stage sees as a first step a senior director. We don't see

any major staff grouping, but an able senior staff grouping and co-opting people

from the departments as I mentioned. It might well be that there could be some

liaison — I think that's a reasonable idea — with the regional districts in

particular, where so many of the provincial regulations and policies have implications

for the regions, particularly in the resource field.

I certainly hope in the longer haul that there will be a

considerable flow back and forth between the regional districts

and the committee and government in terms of modifying or

improving provincial policies insofar as they affect the

regions.

I don't think there is much doubt that, in the past,

resource policies have been somewhat in isolation from the

regions and I don't think that has been healthy either for the

province or for the region. There is an obvious role there to

be played and I think it will evolve in the reasonably near

future.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 132 pass?

Vote 132 approved.

On vote 133: Lands Service, $343,282.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia

River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Vote 133, general

administration of the Land Service Branch.

I see the coordinator's salary here has been reduced and it

is customary for salaries to increase. It has been for the past

several years, and I am wondering whether the coordinator of

the Lands Branch for some unknown reason has possibly angered

the Minister and has brought on this reduction in salary? The

Minister if bringing about punitive financial measures against

the coordinator.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right.

MR. CHABOT: Is that the reason why his salary is being

reduced while all other salaries are being increased?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, I wouldn't allow him to tamper with my

salary. (Laughter).

MR. CHABOT: So, we'll see whether the coordinator will get a

salary increase like everyone else. I can't understand why his

salary is being decreased from $18,360 to $17,520.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Right. I might say, Mr. Chairman, there

is no coordinator of the Lands Service and nobody has been

getting paid in that position. Really, it is a clerical error.

There is nobody and the salary is not being paid.

I might just say that Mr. Kinnear, the former coordinator of

the Lands Service, is now with the Environment and Land Use

Committee. That's the explanation.

MR. CHABOT: That's right. Then why leave his

[ Page 1876 ]

salary if there's no one there and he's not getting a

salary? Why leave his salary in the estimates? What are you

going to use that money for?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Have you got any suggestions?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the Hon. Member have any further

questions?

MR. CHABOT: Oh, yes. I have more questions, yes. Now we're

talking about the general administration of the Lands Service.

We have to relate it to the Land Commission Act because

it's going to be that big, powerful body. We talked about that

Environment and Land Use Committee just a few moments ago and

that's the big umbrella body. Now we are having another big

umbrella body, the Land Commission Act .

Is it going to absorb the function of the administration of

the Land Services; or is there going to be duplication of

services between the Land Commission Act and the Lands

Branch? Is there going to be duplication? Or is there going to

be some form of coordination between the two?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We'd better hire that coordinator.

MR. CHABOT: Well, you said you don't need him. But is there

going to be some coordination or is it going to be just another

little bureaucracy set up to tinker around with land — the

Land Commission Act ?

Over the years I think the Lands Branch has played a very

important role and a very active role in land management in the

Province of British Columbia. I would hope that these people

who are trained and knowledgeable in the matters of land

continue to play an important role. I'm sure they would have

had, no doubt, a lot of ideas on the Land Commission Act

and maybe these are the people who did prepare it, I don't

know. But I'm wondering whether there has been any relationship

or any communication with the Lands Branch on the establishment

of the Land Commission Act .

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, if maybe the Minister would

indicate if he is going to fill the position of coordinator of

Land Services; and if he is not, would he consider amending

this vote?

May I direct the attention of the Minister to the last

item under general administration, code number 031: ecological reserves, $20,000.

Would the Minister indicate if that is an administrative expense with regard

to ecological reserves, or how is that money used in this particular case?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The ecological reserves vote there is

essentially for field work in relation to investigating

potential ecological reserves within the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Omineca.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): Mr. Chairman, just a couple of

short questions: In my riding for some time now — over a year I

would suggest — there has been a land freeze on for some

people. I'm wondering if the Minister would be able to tell me

if there is going to be a lifting of the moratorium on land in

Omineca or in sections of Omineca.

Although there are sections where a person who is already a

bona fide farmer and is operating a farm is allowed to apply

for their land in many eases we have people moving into the

area who are prospective citizens of my area and are unable to

obtain land because of this moratorium. I'm wondering when the

moratorium will be lifted and if any other surveys have been

made concerning that.

I also have another problem. I think it's rampant throughout

the interior. People have in the past obtained land but the

government has said when they obtained this land that they are

not liable for access. In many cases, it's just impossible for

these people to make their own access or the access actually

has to be made through other private lands. In many cases this

is denied to these landholders.

Some of them have moved onto these lands and have been

making access through other private lands. In the meantime, the

absentee owners of these lands that they were using to make

access to their property, have returned and refused them

access. There they are, bottled into their properties with no

way of getting in and out. Usually they have to make some form

of road through some other Crown land. If this land were to be

occupied, they would be cut off once again. I'd like to know if

anything is being done in this area.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: One, the question of the farmland policy:

there has been a moratorium with respect to new farmers

acquiring land in that area. It's limited to the existing

farmers and it's limited to sites that are at least 50 per cent

arable. I think there is a need for review in terms of looking

at the feasibility of opening up the area for new people. That

hasn't been undertaken yet. I think it should be.

The question of access problems is a very difficult one. It

may well be that there's a need for some

[ Page 1877 ]

statutory changes in highways statutes. It may be that we

should reconsider our highway standards in relation to rural

land development. That again may be something the Environment

and Land Use Committees could discuss, if the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) were present.

It's a complex problem. I know that there are a lot of

blockages now as a result of the present situation. It's quite a bit of staff work to just go through the whole

process of searches and analysis with respect to the status of

old rights-of-way and that sort of thing. But it's something that we should have more of an input on

from the staff. I'd be pleased to go into the specific areas in

detail with the Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 133 pass?

Vote 133 approved.

Vote 134: Lands Branch, $1,123,216 — approved.

On vote 135: Pre-servicing Crown lands for sale or t lease,

$500,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): On vote 135, Mr. Chairman, is

there going to be any policy change in the pre-servicing of

Crown lands? A fairly good job has been done before in it being

put up to open tender. Do you contemplate any changes?

The other thing — I hope they're looking at garbage sites

and so on more consciously in these new areas that…

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: What kind of things?

MR. FRASER: Well, disposal of garbage and so on. In prior

years those were left out. What I'd really like to know is

whether any policy change is contemplated in the disposal of

these lands after they're serviced.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Not at the moment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia

River.

MR. CHABOT: On vote 135, there's been a tremendous increase — from $300,000 to $500,000 — allocated in the vote. I'm

wondering if the Minister would elaborate and tell us why he

needs this additional $200,000; what specific projects he

considers undertaking this year and the location of these

projects — whether it's lakeshore he's looking at or

subdivisions. If they are subdivisions, just where will these

take place?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We have some 13 areas underway. This

includes areas like Port Hardy, for example, where there are

serviced Crown subdivisions, and potential new town sites in

the north. It's hardly a tremendous increase. Part of it is

just an increase in standards in terms of servicing for the

town subdivisions. As I indicated, there are some 13 sites. In

terms of developing Crown land, $500,000…

MR. CHABOT: Well, the Minister might say it's not very much,

but when one looks at the increase in he amount allocated for

this purpose, one sees it's a two-thirds increase. So it's a

substantial increase. The Minister can say $500,000 isn't very

much money if he wants to. I'm not going to say that

myself.

I'm wondering. You have 13 sites. I would presume that these

are leasehold sites with a 20-year lease. I'm wondering how many

of these 13 sites will be for sale. How many of these Crown

lands that are being serviced by the Crown at the moment are

going to be lease development and purchase. The vote

specifically says "pre-servicing Crown land for sale or lease."

How many are going to be for sale?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In terms of the ones underway, most of

them will be for sale. A relatively small portion will be for

lease.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 135 pass?

Vote 135 approved.

Vote 136: Surveys and Mapping Branch,

$2,841,754 — approved.

On vote 137: University Endowment Lands Administration

Act , $10.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Conflict of

interest. (Laughter). I'd like to address a few questions to

the Minister regarding the university endowment lands. As the

Minister well knows, this unique area was set aside by this

provincial Legislature to provide a financial endowment to the

University of British Columbia.

Two-thirds of a century has passed without there having been

any endowment of any kind from these lands to the University of

British Columbia. Indeed, the lands do not even belong to the

University but are still in complete and total charge of the

provincial government.

Mr. Chairman, in my view the name of the university

endowment lands should be lived up to in two ways. The first of

these is to turn the university

[ Page 1878 ]

endowment lands over to the University of British Columbia.

Then they would be indeed university lands. That would still

not satisfy the criterion of endowment. Unless one were to try

and do the grotesque thing of converting this into a high-rise

area, I think it would be impossible really to provide any

reasonable financial endowment to our universities from such

lands.

The lands can serve to provide something far richer than

that and ultimately of greater value. This is an intellectual

endowment to the university and to the Province of British

Columbia. The campus of the university will need, at one time,

to be expanded to look after the coming generations who will

want to participate in the skills that that institution will

have to offer.

More than that, if we are to get on with the job of building

a new industry in British Columbia that will stand in

partnership with our resource industries, we're going to have

to have a means for developing those skills which are

essential to modern sophisticated industry around the world.

The centrepiece for this already exists in the Province of

British Columbia's own research council. It's never received

the nourishment it should have had, so it remains a dwarf

compared to what it should be. Indeed, the contribution of the

provincial government to the B.C. Research Council has not

grown for many years. A pity, but we can hope for a change of

philosophy.

In the meantime, many people think of these endowment lands

as providing a situation where that catalyst would come for the

development of a thriving, sophisticated secondary industrial

climate here in British Columbia. It wouldn't take all or even

a large part of the lands, only that little nest that now

exists in the area of the B.C. Research Council.

The important thing is not to leave the endowment lands in

their present dismal state. The area has been logged off. It's

swampy and, really, it's an unused and unattractive area. At

the very least, if you wanted to leave it as a park, you should

plant some decent trees there and drain off the swamps.

I would hope that the Minister would see fit to turn the

endowment lands over to the University of British Columbia.

Perhaps he'd give us some indication of his long-range

philosophy in that regard.

Mr. Chairman, while the Government tries to make its mind up as to what should

be done with those endowment lands, they're gradually disappearing at the rate

of about a foot a year, starting with the Point Grey cliffs and working back

towards my own home in the Point Grey district. Something needs to be done to

shore those cliffs up. This has been said over many years, but every time a

scheme comes forward a Minister vetoes it. It seemed to me that we were getting

very close when the new Minister took over. He spoke very encouragingly about

plans that his department had to see that those cliffs

would be protected. And then, lo and behold, it all stopped. So what we'd like

to know is: when will the Minister do something to protect those cliffs? Just

when? Let's forget about the scheme, but when will we stop the erosion?

Finally, this is perhaps a trivial item, but the Minister

knows what I am referring to. It's the "uglification" of the

endowment lands. Mr. Chairman, some nitwit got the idea a year

or two ago that it would be a bright thing to fence the golf

course in the university endowment lands. A very ugly fence has

been put up at a considerable cost to the provincial

government. When one inquired as to why this fence had to be

put up — because it's not usual to fence golf courses — reasons

were offered such as there were too many rapes on the golf

course and the fence was going to stop it. But it wasn't

stopped by building the fence — it was stopped by catching the

rapist.

There were suggestions that there was horseback riding on

the course at night. People do horseback ride but not on the

course and certainly not at night.

So really the case for building this ugly fence around the

golf course didn't seem terribly strong and the fence did cost

the taxpayers a considerable amount of money.

The fence didn't get up all the way around the course

because the local residents raised hob when they first saw the

fence posts going in. On the north side, of course, it's a

little cul-de-sac — I doubt if even a rapist could find it.

It's away off in one corner. They put the fence posts up and

then they just left them. So, Mr. Chairman, for a

year-and-a-half these ugly sticks have been standing there on

the north side of the university endowment lands and the red

tape of the government and so on are just leaving them there

with nothing being done.

We talk a lot about aesthetics in the province, but it just

shows you how impossible, when one has bungling bureaucracy, it

is even to get the simple things of life done.

My question is: will the Minister take these ugly posts

down, please?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): With all the need of the use of

that land, all you've got to talk about is some fence

posts.

MR. McGEER: You weren't listening to what I said.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With respect to the endowment lands

overall, Mr. Chairman, the 1,700 acres outside of the

university grounds represent a

[ Page 1879 ]

considerable potential and a potential that has just never

been harnessed, as the Member indicated, for 70 years or

something like that. There's no question but that that land

should be put to use. That land, as close as it is to the city

and the services of the city — the water utility, the sewage

utilities and so on that are available for the endowment lands

are, in effect, partly wasted because they're not put to use on

the endowment lands.

The lands do have an open-space potential as well, and that

should be considered. It's my intent to have a design team

commence work this spring and look at the potential and prepare

recommendations for the Government with respect to the full use

of the endowment lands, so that they don't lie there and waste,

as they've done for so many decades.

It's a unique potential among the large cities of Canada. We

intend to seize that potential and make the best use of the

opportunity that we have at our hands now. So we're going to

need outsiders to help us in terms of determining the future

potential of those lands.

Regarding the university itself, it's my own personal

judgment — and I can't really separate that from my Ministerial

responsibilities — that the university has probably suffered

from having too much land and that in fact a sprawled-out

campus is a result of having as much land as they have, so much

of it in parking lots and so much unattractive as a

result. They have a lot of land to the south that they are simply

not using at all, part of which the research council enclave is

within. So that the university has already been advised that

there is no intent on the part of this Government to see the

university campus expanded onto the endowment lands. That

simply wouldn't be considered. At this time when the university

enrolment in fact is declining there can be no rational

argument, despite a dean's committee and everything else, with

respect to expanding the campus of that university.

Some of the great campuses of this continent are in

downtown, limited areas. The University of B.C., I genuinely

believe, has suffered from having too much land.

On the question of the erosion problem at the cliffs, we

have now had the first report from Dr. Weger from Berkeley, the

University of California. He recommends some modifications with

respect to the Swan-Wooster recommendations. The funds are

available in the budget for the protecting of the Point Grey

cliffs. Dr. Weger is making some minor amendments to his own

work and will advise the city parks board as soon as those

final modifications are complete. We expect that quite

shortly.

With respect to the fence on the golf course, I am afraid I can't quite see

it in the perspective that the Member does. I intend to spend some time on the

endowment lands after the House prorogues and I'll have

a look at the fence. I gather it's been painted green, which really doesn't…

MR. McGEER: The fence posts have been painted green?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I think the fence itself has

been.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : Green plastic? O.K.

I am afraid I can't see it as quite the great problem that

the Member does, but I'll certainly look at those posts and

have a review committee and a design panel and an aesthetic

analysis. We'll see what we can do about that "massive"

problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Just further to the Minister's comments and

those of the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer), which are very well taken, I would just like to throw

in my own on the university endowment lands. I make no attempt

to suggest I know anything about landscaping, but without being

overly critical when the Minister said that the university has

probably suffered from too much land, I would suggest that

certainly up until the last year or two they've probably

suffered from too much licence in the development of the

campus. It's very disappointing to me as a citizen in British

Columbia to look at some of the original architecture out there

and some of the buildings that have been put up, particularly

up until the last year or two. There's certainly been a great

deal of money spent on them and yet one feels that there's been

no continuity of thought probably between the years of 1945 and

1964. While I wouldn't advocate for a minute that the

Government interfere too much in the functioning of the

university and in the direction of its development, I would

hope that with the Minister's own training and past experience

there are ways to economize but still enhance the environment

and atmosphere of such a major area.

I recognize that the new library is a marvellous experiment

and I hope it's a successful one. It's going to take time for

it to settle in, I'm sure the Minister would agree, as a

taxpayer and someone who's interested in the university, that

the very well intentioned thoughts that have gone into the

campus during those years have not reflected what the people

would like to see.

As I say, I wouldn't encourage him in any way to interfere

too directly and take over the control of the campus, but I

hope that there will be more effort to create the environment

that it should have. In so

[ Page 1880 ]

doing, I also hope that an overall plan will be drawn up

that will recognize that that area is one of the most beautiful

natural sites in perhaps the world. There is danger of over

cultivation, I think, in creating our environment, and I would

hope that attention will be given to tidying up or creating

some natural areas so that it doesn't become a planner's dream

rather than a place that really responds to the various needs

of the people, and that there will be a lot of emphasis given

to reasonable natural areas, or semi-natural areas.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: I'd just like to ask the Minister if he talked

about this design team that he's having come in to evaluate the

potential of the university endowment lands.

I wonder if the Minister would care to elaborate on just

what kind of a design it is. Is it a design for low-cost

housing? Is it a design for golf courses? You might bring in

Robert Trent Jones as your design expert if you had one thing

in mind. If it were low-cost housing, you'd bring in that

fellow from Habitat — Moishe — whatever his name is.

The question is: just exactly what is the orientation of

this design team? What is their leaning? Is it towards golf

courses or is it towards low-cost housing?

Mr. Chairman, if I could agree and yet disagree with the

Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), the University campus

is an architectural omelette. It's a complete mess. One of the

very typical areas, quite apart from the university campus, has

been spoiled because of that. The reason has been the penury of

the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no.

MR. McGEER: Yes, Hon. Member, it's perfectly true that you

cannot build in expanding areas. Due to demand, you haven't the

money to do it. You throw up cheap buildings. This has been the

tragedy.

Having said that about the former government, let me remind

the present government that they've cut the capital budget down

even further.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, I would…

MR. McGEER: …you're going to put up further crummy

buildings on the endowment lands…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would draw it to the

attention of the Hon. Member that we're discussing the

endowment lands, not the education system. I'd just ask you to

relate your remarks to the endowment lands.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'm striving to do that and as

quickly as I can. What I'm saying is that if you don't have

sufficient money in the budget to put up nice buildings on the

university endowment lands, then what you do is put up tatty

buildings. That's been the tragedy. The budget in the past has

been so bad that the buildings have been tatty. We want to see

an end to that.

We want to see handsome buildings, which, of course,

requires the co-operation of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Barrett). He's frowning there and obviously feels very unhappy

about spending money at the University of British Columbia.

But, Mr. Chairman, I only want to ask the Minister, having made

this point which I hope will be…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: Conflict of interest? Mr. Chairman, I deeply

resent any suggestion that there's a conflict of interest here.

I do not live on the university endowment lands. I live within

the city limits of Vancouver. The constituency is Point Grey

and the university endowment lands are part of that

constituency which I am happy to try and represent.

It's the Minister's responsibility. He's the one who would

have a conflict of interest. He knows how much money should be

spent on those endowment lands and here he's having difficulty

with the Minister of Finance, who apparently doesn't agree.

Mr. Chairman, I'm merely asking for the orientation of this

design committee. Who will they be? Housing experts, golf

course architects, university designers? It might give us just

a little hint of the plan that the Minister evidently has for

that magnificent tract of land.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 137 pass?

MR. McGEER: I was on my feet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Do you have a point of

order?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you want to go back to the vote?

MR. McGEER: Yes, I'd like to go back to the vote. The

Minister was standing up to answer the question and, Mr.

Chairman, the Premier was on his feet and the chairman couldn't

see him. (Laughter).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We'll be glad to oblige the

Hon. Member. If the Minister would like to answer, he may do

so.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There's times people stand tall but I

don't think that was one of them.

[ Page 1881 ]

(Laughter).

The question of a design group with respect to the endowment

lands: that's simply a goal at this stage. We haven't

considered a team at all. We haven't considered terms of

reference as of yet. Once the House has prorogued, we'll have

the time to spend on that kind of worthwhile endeavour.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: I think the Hon. First Member for Point Grey

(Mr. McGeer) is a classic example of why we need intellectuals

in certain areas, but certainly not in the handling of money. I

disagree, Mr. Minister. I think there has been a lot of money

spent on the university campus and there will be on the

university endowment lands.

What has happened is that there hasn't been the proper value

and the proper concept of that money in its utilization, I hope

that the Minister recognizes that money is not the be-all and

end-all. It's what one does with that money and how the use of

that money relates to a functional aspect of its purpose and

its relation to people. There isn't going to be a limitless

amount of money, I'm sure, to spend on those endowment lands.

We charge you with this, Mr. Minister, and we ask you — there's

much in what the Member says — to recognize that there will be

a limit and that that money is well spent in relation, as I

say, to its functional purpose and its people orientation, and

not too highly a cultivated manner.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 137 pass?

Vote 137 approved.

On vote 138: Forest Service — general administration,

protection and management of forests, $28,370,434.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon, Member for Cariboo.

MR. FRASER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this is the

right vote to take it up on — development of campsites in the

forests. I believe that last year 300 were worked on, either

improved or new ones created. My concern is that in my large

riding of Cariboo, we haven't very many facilities from

Williams Lake to Bella Coola, a distance of 300 miles. Your

department has a lot under reserve but there's no development

there. I was wondering if there's any plan or any money in the

budget to look after this large recreational area. There are

lots of people. Campsites aren't available and private

enterprise doesn't seem to want to go ahead either. There are a

few of them but not enough.

I'm also concerned about one other thing in the grazing

division. I think this comes in here; it's regarding your

agronomists and the inventory of grass. It seems to me that

they've been taking inventories now for five years. They still

haven't got any answers. I was wondering where they think

they're going. The cattlemen are trying to increase their

herds. The beef prices are better. They depend on Crown range

lands. When they apply for an increase, they're constantly

rejected on the basis that the forestry doesn't know what grass

is available and they're advised that they are still taking an

inventory.

The cattlemen aren't very happy about this situation. I

think it's about time that some inventory figures were

available, and that they don't keep holding the cattlemen down

at the herd levels they had even five years ago. It's the

feeling of the cattlemen that the grass is available but the

agronomists say it isn't. Those are two items I'd like to hear

from the Minister about.

HON. MR WILLIAMS: With respect to the recreation areas, as I

recall the amount budgeted is approximately $300,000 for

recreation facilities within provincial forests. I know that

there is a need on the road from Williams Lake to Bella Coola.

I can't advise now, with respect to the breakdown, whether

there are any funds for that area. I am convinced there is a

case for it. We'll review it in relation to that problem.

The question with respect to grazing: it is under another

vote actually — 150 I think. The problem of increasing head and

more intensive use of range land is one that I'm not as

familiar with as I should be at this stage. Again, it's

something that I will spend some further time on. I think

there's a need for more of a biological sciences input with the

grazing division. There's also a need for some sort of

cross-department activity with respect to grassland management

generally.

The whole question of a kind of a grasslands administration

is something that I think deserves attention, rather than just

a grazing division per se. I hope that I can give you a more

productive answer at a later stage.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for

Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could have a

breakdown on three votes: 015, 017 and 042? three votes: 015,

017 and 042?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: If there are any further questions, I

might just check the details.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace

River.

[ Page 1882 ]

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): With regard to the

general management of the forestry resource within the

province, Mr. Minister. One of the largest uncommitted areas at

the present time of timber within the whole Province lies in

the Fort Nelson area; between the Fort Nelson and the Liard

Rivers there is a tremendous quantity of unharvested and

uncommitted timber, Would the Minister give me an indication of what the future

plans might be for that area? At the present time the Fort

Nelson Lumber Company has timber which they are working on in

the immediate Fort Nelson area. There's certainly ample room up

there for a viable pulpwood industry, although it may be a few

years down the road.

I would like to know if the Minister has laid out a plan for

the harvesting of that timber and whether it will result in

tree farm licences being issued in there or some other type of

licence to cut. The general management of that area: will it be

on the same basis as the management procedures in the rest of

the province or in the Vancouver forest district, or do you

have plans of a special nature for the committing of that

timber that is available? We should be looking at that in

future years, if not immediately, in the Fort Nelson area.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With respect to code 015, Mr. Chairman,

31 aircraft were retained on contract during the fire season to

provide the basic requirements for detection, supplies and

control of forest fires. Six light aircraft were under contract

for fire detection. The total was distributed as follows:

Prince Rupert, 2; Prince George, 2; Cariboo, 1; and Kamloops,

Three aircraft are under contract for patrol and

administrative flying. These aircraft are located at Vancouver,

one — a Beaver; Kamloops, one — a Cessna 337; Nelson, one — a

Cessna 337. All other forest districts were allotted funds to

charter local aircraft as required. Fifteen air tankers are

under contract for initial attack.

The distribution of the tanker craft was as follows:

Vancouver, one — a Canso; Prince Rupert, two — Cansos; Prince

George, four — 826's; Kamloops, five — Avengers; Nelson, three — Avengers.

Six bird-dog aircraft were under contract to direct the air attack operation.

The bases for these aircraft were as follows: Vancouver, one — Aero Commander;

Prince Rupert, one — Cessna 337; Prince George, one — Cessna 210; Kamloops,

one — Cessna 2 10; Nelson, one — Cessna 337. One Cessna 210 alternated between

Prince George and Williams Lake. One Hillier 12E Helicopter was under contract

to the Vancouver forest district. All other forest districts were allotted funds

for local charter as required.

Two new air tankers made their appearance last summer, the

P2V7 Neptune and the Douglas DC 6. The P2V7 Neptune was used

operationally on a limited number of fires and the DC6, which

was not operational until late August was only able to

demonstrate its effectiveness in demonstration drops. I think

that gives an idea of the range with respect to that code.

I think the further one was 017 — purchase and maintenance

of radio equipment, an increase of $63,000.

The capital assets of the radio

section have a replacement

value now of approximately $4 million. The cost of annual

replacements to maintain the equipment at a serviceable level

is approximately 10 per cent of that. In addition, maintenance

costs are increasing due to an increase of about 12 per cent in

the current year for parts and an increase in outside

maintenance to supplement our own crews as well.

Leased lines for radio and telephone have increased 3 per

cent in relation to circuitry requirements and there are

further requirements with respect to northern development along

the Cassiar Highway.

Harvesting licences, fire-fighting stand-by crews, vote 042:

that is an amount that we get back, actually from the holders

of the timber sale harvesting licences. It is simply a change

in the bookkeeping arrangements and it was essentially there

before but wasn't reported.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Supplementary for North Peace River.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I realize the Minister

was busy looking up those votes when I addressed a question to

him, so I'll put it to him again.

It's a matter of the uncommitted timber in the Fort Nelson

area and the plans of the department as to the harvesting of

this wood at some future date. There's only one company

operating there right now, the Fort Nelson Lumber Company, and

I know that they probably at this time have adequate timber for

their requirements and needs.

But we do have a tremendously large available cut in that

area. What are the plans of the department regarding harvesting

of timber in the Fort Nelson area? Will you issue tree farm

licences up there, or do you have some other plan of forest

management in the process?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, as I understand it, Mr. Chairman, it is not

something that I have investigated in detail. But one of the problems is the

deciduous level in the terms of forest cover and aspen, of course, is one of

the main components. So,

[ Page

1883 ]

something like 30 per cent of the available resource is in

that category, and that's a factor in terms of the economics of

the mill. I gather that's not entirely settled in terms of the

economic feasibility of a mill in that location. It's something

that is being studied by the staff.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Mackenzie.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): A brief question, Mr.

Speaker, to the Minister. In my constituency of Mackenzie there

are many areas that are under tree farm licences or timber

leases. While the private companies build roads into these

areas the public is, in many instances, denied access on these

roads and what I thought was Crown land. Part of the reason is

that the companies claim vandalism and/or fire protection in

summer time. However, many of these areas are not being

actively logged at the moment and yet the gates are still shut,

denying some of our people access to these areas for

recreational purposes.

I was wondering whether the Minister could answer or find

out for me why this is so, and if these gates should be or

could be opened for the use of the public.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It certainly varies with different

circumstances. I think that in many instances the roads could

in fact be opened up so that there could be more genuine

multiple use of these areas. But there are problems, of course,

in terms of where there is logging activity and the use of the

road and the danger. Nevertheless, my sympathy is with respect

to greater access to all Crown lands in the province and the

single TFL tenure is one area that really does have to be

opened up.

The government did make some changes with respect to the

road to the northern end of Vancouver Island north of Gold

River, particularly with respect to commercial vehicle access

to the communities at the north end of the island. So, I am

certainly sympathetic to greater public access to the Crown

lands and I'd be pleased to review the individual ones that the

Member is concerned about.

MR, CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Supplementary to the remarks the Minister

made about the north end of the island. Certainly one appreciates the fact that

tolls are now a thing of the past. We thank the Minister for that. However,

the hours of operation are still a source of considerable concern and I wonder

whether he has been having continuing discussions with the companies concerned

on this question to try and give a little better access in terms of hours.

This matter has not been mentioned by him for some time since his announcement

regarding tolls, and I wonder whether he has got anything further to report?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I think that part of what was agreed to

earlier that the companies accepted was commercial vehicle

access throughout the day, as I recall. As to hours, that is

something I'd be willing to review further. We haven't had

discussions of late with respect to that question. However, the

highways department is in the process of building a public

route as well to the north end of the island, a fully public

route. I'll certainly look into the hours question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Omineca.

MR. KELLY: I would like to direct a couple of short

questions. Just recently the Department of Forestry has

conducted a survey through the northern region, and

north-western region — central regions I should say — of the

province. Because, of course, the lifeblood of my riding is

forest-related I am very anxious to know if and when the report

would be made available. You know that I need to really have

some idea as to what the Minister is prepared to do for these

small operators in my riding.

Question number two is that apparently last year the

Department of Recreation and Conservation and the forestry

department saw fit to do some clearing of the Whitesail Lake,

which was drowned by the Kemano project. This is a massive

operation and I am wondering whether the department is prepared

to give aid to the people who are now doing some of that

clearing, and whether it's possible that the project could be

enlarged, because at the present rate of clearing there is no

doubt it would take many, many years before these two lakes are

cleared out. I know there are other lakes in the province that

suffer from the same problems. It looks like it will have to be

something that the department will have to go into in a big

style in the near future.

The present operator is taking out mainly select timber, but

there are thousands of acres of timber that are dead in that

lake that will never be a good product.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to know what the Minister

would do about some of the departments of which he is the head.

I feel that these departments are not co-operating with one

another. Although this might come under Recreation and

Conservation, it relates to forestry, too, and so I bring it up

at this time. I think that the Wildlife Branch is not getting

the complete co-operation of the Forest Branch. In my

particular riding this is most obvious. In recent

[ Page 1884 ]

meetings that we've had I think it has also been shown. I

think it's just a matter of getting those departments together.

I hope it won't take too long before this is accomplished.

Thank you.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. On the question of the

staff report with respect to the north-west, it is an in-staff

document at this stage. It's really a matter of developing

policy from the factual base that's been established. It's

really at that stage. It's not intended to be a public report,

at least not at this stage.

I'd be pleased to discuss the individual potential or

problems in each of the ridings affected, however, and make

arrangements in that regard. It is our hope that we can

establish smaller independent operations in the region to a

greater extent than has been the case in other parts of the

province.

Regarding the Whitesail Lake area, there is a need for us to

spend some time with the private operator that has been

salvaging in the lake and I think doing quite a good job, but

doing it with either marginal or no return in comparison with

the contract that was agreed upon between the former Minister

of Recreation and Conservation (Mr. Kiernan) and the former

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Mr. Williston) — a contract in which there was no departmental or staff input

whatsoever. It was simply determined by the Ministers jointly,

with no input from the people who were really most familiar

with the problem.

It's rather ironic that the more successful activity has

been that by Bond Bros. where there has been no aid whatsoever

compared to this previous example where there was a substantial

public underwriting of the operation and rather limited or no

success. So the question of the best way of dealing with the

problems on that lake is a matter of economic analysis and one

in which we would involve ourselves with the private company

that has been successful. We do expect to meet with the private

company in the reasonably near future to discuss their end of

the operation.

With respect to the third point — co-operation between the

Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Branch — I think there

has been more co-operation in recent months between the Forest

Service and Fish and Wildlife than there has been in a long

time. We've had regular meetings with respect to specific areas

and I'm rather encouraged by the steps taken so far and the

kind of relationship that's evolving.

I think it's become clear that there's a need for a more neutral

group to work with the two departments. In that sense some senior

staffing in the Environment and Land Use Committee could be the kind of

catalyst that's necessary to resolve conflicts between the various

resource agencies. That will be developed throughout this year so that

we have an integrating agency in the ELUC that works with the two

departments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, through you to the

Minister, I'm rather interested in the amount of preparation

being made to hire temporary summer workers, particularly

students, by the Forest Service, as this was an area that was

indicated to us would be one of the major areas for the

Government to take steps. Yet I see that the amount of money

being voted for temporary assistance is actually reduced over

last year. This appears to be quite contradictory to what was

my understanding of what the Premier said in answers to

questions in this House about job opportunities for students in

British Columbia in the coming summer. I wonder whether this is

simply a printing oversight or a mistake of some sort or

whether we're going to have supplementary estimates to deal

with summer students' work or things of that nature.

It seems pretty strange that the one department singled out

by the Premier as being the one that's going to bear the burden

of providing summer employment to students happens to be in the

process of cutting down on the amount of money available.

Well, there are a number of conclusions: either you can pay

them a lot less or you're not going to hire as many or whatever

it might be. But I would like his comments on why this has been

cut back and how we're going to employ more students if we're

not going to vote more money for the purpose.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, that is before the House and

so it's really a joint funding between the bill and the

department. It will be the Accelerated Reforestation Fund. It's

a joint pooling of resources, in effect, from both the bill and

the estimates.

The actual funding that we have is $2.8 million for youth

employment through the Forest Service in the summer. There will

be 1,000 people employed in this activity, and there will be

the joint pooling of these funds and the bill that's before the

House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I checked the book and I don't think the

bill is in yet, is it? I may be wrong, but I understand that

this is going to be done by a separate bill funding specially

and that the number of jobs will be 1,000. Could the Minister

indicate how many more this is as compared to last year?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There were about 800 plus or minus last

year; there will be 1,000 plus or minus this year, in this kind

of summer activity for youth employment in the Forest

Service.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I take the Minister's

[ Page 1885 ]

comments then as indicating that the basic thrust of youth

employment will be within his department and the major

programme under youth employment for the summer will be this

one which increases the number from roughly 800 to roughly

1,000?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There are funds in Recreation and

Conservation as well with respect to summer youth employment

and that will be covered under the separate department. Any

additional funding is a matter of Government policy and for the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) to consider.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace

River.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have another question

to the Minister concerning this matter of employment, in this

case not employment of students but employment of people

already in the logging industry.

I have before me a copy of an

article from the Campbell

River Courier dated March 19. The essence of the

article is

that if the Tsitika-Schoen area, which is in M&B's TFL

(tree farm licence), is taken out, it will result in the loss

of jobs for almost 700 people, most of them living in the

Campbell River community.

I know that the area is presently under a study reserve

which we have been told will last for two years. The

article

indicates that M&B did not plan to log the area that is of

major concern in the main valley for a period of 10 years, but

they were preparing roads to go into that area and so on, They

do indicate from the report they gave this newspaper that there

could be up to 300 people directly involved in the logging

business laid off if that area is taken out of their TFL, and

that another 400 people who are dependent upon the loggers for

their income could lose their jobs. Would the Minister give us

an indication of what thoughts he has on this matter?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The Schoen Lake-Tsitika area is, as the

Member indicates, one of the areas that is under

interdepartmental study so that we can develop an integrated

resource management plan for the area. The Schoen Lakes, for

example, were highly recommended by the Parks Branch at the

time the TFL itself was considered. The former Minister chose

to totally ignore the recreational recommendations at the time

that he allocated the tree farm licence.

It's unfortunate that in many of these instances, when these

long-term tenures were established, the recommendations of a

significant staff, group and interest group were ignored.

That's why we have these kinds of problems at the moment.

The Tsitika is the last drainage area on the eastern side of the island that

has not been affected very much by logging. It's also

an important area in terms of wildlife, with the elk herd that is in that valley.

What's going on now is simply a study, an interdepartmental study. It's not

affecting the short term plans of the logging companies, so that employment

is not affected at all during the duration of the study. The employment level

will remain exactly the same.

The question of a programme, with respect to both industrial

and wildlife and recreational activities, is something that

will end up as the final product of the study. At this stage

there's no reason to expect that employment will be adversely

affected.

MR. SMITH: A further question on the same subject, Mr.

Chairman. What disturbs me is the fact that in a direct quote a

Mr. Hemmingson, who is really in charge of the area, has said:

"No logging is planned in the main part of the valley for at

least 10 years. This should give adequate time for any group to

carry out scientific studies without interference in their

present programme." Yet a logging road into that area was

stopped, which was of a long-term nature.

So there is a conflict between the position of the Minister

and the position of a top representative of M & B as to

what constitutes an interference into a long-range project and

study that could be well carried out, according to his direct

quotation, without taking that area out of their TFL. This

seems to be the whole crux of the matter as they see it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sure there will be many occasions

when Mr. Hemmingson and I disagree, but we do so on a friendly

basis.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A point of clarification on Tsitika: do I

understand the Minister correctly that at the moment there is

simply a study going on? He shakes his head affirmatively.

That's good. But no change in terms of company activity in the

area? He shakes his head and looks rather doubtful.

What I'm interested in is road building. Are they

constructing roads at this time in preparation for any future

activity? This obviously is preliminary to any other work. So

at the moment, this is completely frozen? Nothing is happening

at Tsitika? Thanks very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank you,

Mr. Chairman. I'd like to direct the Minister's attention back

to the matter of

[ Page 1886 ]

reforestation and the accelerated programme. Could the

Minister indicate what permanent establishment has been created

in the sense of nursery stock producing areas throughout the

province?

It's always been my understanding that one of the serious

drawbacks to a reforestation programme in the public areas was

the lack of a sufficient quantity of nursery stock. If the

accelerated reforestation programme is to really carry out the

job needed to be done in this province, we must have nurseries

established in various regions of the province capable of

producing stock which can be used in reforestation in those

particular regions, taking into account the different

elevations, the changing climatic conditions and so on.

I would like to know the extent to which this permanent

establishment has been created. Without that, the summertime

employment of students in reforestation projects is going to be

interfered with. That's one matter on which I'd like the

Minister to indicate what the position of the department will

be.

Secondly, on another matter, Mr. Chairman — in connection

with the management of forests and the proper realization of

the highest and best value from the forest resource, it has

always been my understanding that appropriate sorting and

utilization of the various qualities of wood was essential. In

this province we have seen developed a system approaching the

time when saw logs will go to sawmills; logs capable of being

used for plywood production will go to plywoods; logs capable

of being used only for pulp will go to pulp. In the newsprint

field, those logs which are needed to provide about 85 per cent

of the raw product for the newsprint plants would go there.

I wonder if the Minister could indicate whether there is, in

the Forest Service, any check made on the utilization of logs

at this level. Once they have been severed from the ground and

turned into logs and brought to the manufacturing plants, is

any examination made to determine how well we approach the

optimum use of the timber resource in this regard?

Could I also ask him a question regarding the Ocean Falls

operation, where the Government has indicated that there will

be a sorting operation carried on? Will the saw logs which may

be produced in that area be removed during that sorting process

and continue to flow to sawmill operations? Can we be certain

that only logs not capable of being used for sawmills will

eventually find themselves in the groundwood operation at Ocean

Falls and then into newsprint production?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With respect to reforestation, Mr. Chairman, we are

ahead of the goals with respect to seedling production by a year to a year-and-a-half,

something like that. That is the 75 million production level. The new nurseries

are at Campbell River, Red Rock — which is in the north — Chilliwack and Surrey.

There's a new nursery now under development in the Salmon Arm area known as

Skimikan. Its first crop will be down next year at Skimikan.

In addition, there's a container seedling production being

expanded at Duncan, Red Rock and Surrey. The production level

in 1973-1974 will be that 75 million level. I think it is

proceeding as fast as is probably feasible at this stage.

The question of the use of the resource in terms of

optimizing the use of the timber is something that is probably

further advanced in the interior than it is on the coast. The

further allocation of the resource is dependent upon the kind

of optimizing of the use itself in the interior.

Some fairly good analyses are underway or just about

complete with respect to some of the interior forest districts.

Further allocations or handling of the resource in relation to

industry will be dependent upon those analyses. That is, if

they are optimizing the full potential of the wood resource,

then that kind of performance will be rewarded. That's

essentially what we're working toward in the interior.

The coast requires considerably more work. We have

situations in which the wood is not being allocated in an

adequate way because there really isn't the sawmill base, as

was indicated in the north-west. The mills in the north-west

are using material that could well be used for lumber or for

veneer or other purposes. It's going into pulp and that's a

waste and a loss. It's a matter of building up the industrial

base generally in the region in order to maximize our return

from the wood itself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the success in this activity in

the interior is largely because the manufacturing plants in

production there can utilize virtually all by-product chips. We

get the problem in most of our coastal operations. I was

wondering because we are going to have the opportunity to look

at this through a government — controlled operation at Ocean

Falls.

Is it the Minister's suggestion that there may be some

attention paid to the way in which the round wood is being used

at some of these coast operations? Can we assume from this and

from what the Minister says about the inadequacy of sawmills

for the utilization of this wood on the coast that maybe at

Ocean Falls we might see a sawmill? Obviously, a considerable

number of saw logs will be passing through that sorting

operation and where are they going to go?

[ Page 1887 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, they can always sell them I guess.

I have directed the staff that with respect to the coast,

third-band allocation would be dependant upon this kind of

analysis and study and other factors as well. So there has been

no third-band allocation on the coast, pending this kind of

study and review.

As to Ocean Falls: it is going to depend upon the

recommendations of management at Ocean Falls.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could have your

indulgence for just a moment to ask the Members to extend a

welcome to some students from the Eric Hamber School who have

just arrived in Victoria and are in the galleries now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's out of order, but they are welcome.

MR. McGEER: I would like to ask the Minister a question now.

Regarding reforestation: the Minister made many, many speeches

in the past about the necessity for reforestation, and from the

Liberal benches we did too. Mr. Chairman, the problem was that

figures were presented about the numbers of acres in British

Columbia that were not satisfactorily stocked and would

therefore require reforestation before the cycle of bringing

them back into production could commence.

My question to the Minister is: what is the acreage in

British Columbia today that is not satisfactorily restocked:

And at the present rate of production of seedlings, how many

years will it take to restock those areas? Will it be 1,000 …

100 or how many years?

The second question I would like to ask is whether we are

doing experimental work in this reforestation to get out better

and faster-growing trees — so that we restock with the good

ones…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Mr. Member, I believe we are

still on vote 138. Perhaps if we pass vote 138, then we can

discuss vote 139 on reforestation and forest nurseries.

MR. McGEER: O.K. fine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 138 pass?

Vote 138 approved.

On vote 139: reforestation and forest nursery, $5,490,660.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member can proceed.

MR. McGEER: I am glad to know I'm in order. Could the

Minister just give us some indication as to what sort of

targets we are setting in order to take the unproductive forest

lands in British Columbia and get them back into production

again?

The other complaint, Mr. Chairman, that has continually been

made is that the seedlings that are available are being

preferentially given to the private tree farm licence holders

and that there hasn't been a comparably aggressive

reforestation programme going in the public-sustained units. So

the big operators are doing well, and the poor little

independent is stuck with what seedlings are left over, if any.

What can the Minister tell us about the fairness in the

availability of seedlings, that is, does the little man get as

good a shake as the big man in having access to the

seedlings?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Chairman, the amount that is

being planted is 28 million…with respect to industry — that

is the majors in the industry. The amount being planted

publicly is 43 million in terms of…43 versus 28

million.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, seedlings — not acres. The problem is

a massive one and we do have considerable amounts of work going

on in terms of setting priorities and that sort of thing — seeing to it that this does take place on the better, more

productive lands. For example, the not satisfactorily restocked

lands are considerable. I think I have documented them in the

past from the other side of the House.

The steps we propose to take with respect to the old

tenures: for example, in terms of requiring reforestation

activities on the old tenure is one step forward. Similarly,

the increased production in these nurseries is another step

forward and increased activity in the public sector, in the PSY

uses, is another step forward.

There is much to be done and I don't deny that. I think we

are moving at a reasonable pace and I hope that it can be

accelerated further.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for

Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister,

could I have a breakdown, please, of vote 016 — equipment and

machinery — on 139?

[ Page 1888 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Meanwhile, I will recognize the Hon. Second

Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: While that is being looked up, I would

just like an explanation, a quick one I am sure, of the two

first lines of the vote — 001 and 006 — where office expense,

heat, light and power and water have gone up 25 times what they

were last year. This seems a little out of line in view of the

fact that

section 031 — forest nurseries and planting, which

is the guts of this whole vote has only gone up about 5 per

cent. I wonder if the Minister could explain why he has had

such a fantastic increase in administrative costs?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With respect to the heat, light, power

and water expense, vote 006 — it is a transfer from another

account actually, so I don't think the differences are very

significant in fact.

Equipment and machinery breakdown: I'm afraid we don't have

that at hand but I'll request the Deputy to provide the details

for the Member by memo.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 139 pass?

Vote 139 approved.

On vote 140: forestry and correction camp programme,

$30,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I wonder if the Minister would care to

indicate whether he has had an opportunity to assess the value

of this particular programme. There hasn't been much published

about it and perhaps it is understandable in some respects that

not too much publicity has been given. But, it has always been

my view that this programme was one of the forward-looking and

perhaps one of the most exciting programmes that the previous

administration adopted under this department, and joining as it

does, was a serious responsibility of one of the other

departments of government.

Does the Minister wish to comment upon this? Has there been

some assessment or should it be raised under the estimates of

the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr.

Levi)?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I think certainly from our department's point of

view, it is extremely successful and worthwhile. I am sure, well in fact I know,

the Minister of Rehabilitation feels the same way. I haven't visited the camps

yet myself but I plan on spending a considerable amount

of time in the field once the weather improves and once the opportunity is provided.

They are continuing work at Campbell River, Haney,

Chilliwack and also a 300-acre seed orchard at Red Rock in the

Prince George area. Other benefits have included lumber

supplied to some five sawmills and a range of other use of the

wood. They are producing shakes, survey stakes, fence posts and

working with fire suppression crews, on range management

improvement and the like. So it is a most productive programme

and while I haven't made any field inspections, I expect to

this summer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the largest item in this forest

research is just "projects." I'm sorry, I'm on the wrong vote

again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We'll just pass the vote and

then we will go on to that.

Shall vote 140 pass?

Vote 140 approved.

On vote 141: forest research, $330,650.

MR. McGEER: I'm very successful in being in order. Thank

you, Mr. Chairman, but I know the House will be pleased that we

are sort of pressing ahead here — even keeping one vote ahead

of the debate.

We are on to forest research, Mr. Chairman, and the big item

here is "projects." Not much detail beyond that, so I wonder if

the Minister could just give us an indication of what those

projects are.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The main research activity that is going

on at the moment is the work of the productivity committee

which is carrying out…Their hope is to establish some 200

plots, as I remember correctly…500. We are proceeding

fairly well with respect to these sample plots.

There are most detailed analyses going on with respect to

the plots in terms of what fertilization does, what thinning

does, what various activity does with respect to the production

of the wood resource. So that's really the main research

activity that is going on. That's funding also from bill funds

in addition to those in the main budget itself.

I might say the University is closely involved with respect

to this work. Dr. Munro from UBC spent some time in Scandinavia

and Germany and elsewhere looking at exactly what they were

doing in the productivity field. It's my understanding that

while we're late in terms of moving into

[ Page 1889 ]

this work, the quality of the work done is probably of

world calibre. While it's unfortunate we're as late as we are,

we're able to take advantage of the work done elsewhere, so

that the analyses and activity will be on a world scale.

The other kinds of things that are going on cover a range of

matters from land classification to tree breeding, plant

ecology, silviculture systems, natural regeneration, choice and

trial of species, nursery practice, direct seeding, planting,

spacing, forest fertilization, tending of stands and so on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Just to pursue this, I'm so pleased, Mr.

Chairman, to know that we're getting along well. Of course I

would think we'd want to take it for granted that what we would

do here in the forestry field would be of world calibre; indeed

one would like to think that the people from Scandinavia would

be coming here to learn every bit as much as our going

there.

Mr. Chairman, if I can make a little plea to the Minister,

it would be to jack this vote up maybe ten-fold. You can't do

very much in the way of effective research projects on a budget

of $215,000 a year. You're looking at maybe three, four, five

scientists and their very small number of research assistants.

We could very well stand, in my view, an aggressive contract

research programme with the universities as well as a very

large in-house scientific staff belonging to the Forest Service

itself.

Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister if he

would entertain the idea at some future time — hopefully not

too far in the future — of establishing a proper research

division within the department of forestry complete with field

laboratories, generous financing from the handsome revenues

that come in from the producing forest companies, designed

specifically to promote the development of new forest species

that grow faster, to learn how to get better production out of

the species that are already in existence, and to hunt for new

uses for wood.

Just to make a comment if I can, Mr. Chairman, I might say

that the forest companies in British Columbia today are

conducting research at an unacceptably low level. The

laboratories are too small, the commitment to research as a

percentage of sales must be one of the lowest of any major

industry in existence. The forestry industry of course has a

reputation for being a low-technology industry.

When one goes to high-technology industries such as pharmaceuticals, fine chemicals,

electronics and so on, you're looking at expenditures on research that

run 5 to 15 per cent of gross sales. So that for an industry with sales

of perhaps $1.5 billion, by aggressive research standards something in the order

of $150 million a year might be spent. If one were to go to the very lowest

technology industries, you might be looking at $15 million a year.

But I dare say the forest industry wouldn't even spend a

tenth of that — I'd stand to be corrected — but certainly they

wouldn't compare even with the lowest major industries in

expenditure on research.

When the industry itself is showing such little interest in

improved technology, then the government really should move

into that vacuum by taking revenues from the forest industry,

sponsoring its own research laboratories within the civil

service, contracting out to the industry itself; but doing

something so that our number one industry here in British

Columbia is not trouping around the world trying to find out

what technology is taking place in countries where forest is

not number one, but maybe number five, six or seven.

Really, an ordinary state of affairs would be to have the

people from an area that relies to a large extent on its forest

industry flocking around us to find out how to grow the

trees.

Vote 141 approved.

Vote 142: public information and education, $94,750.

On vote 143: Forest Service training school, $177,234.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: I wonder if the Minister could just tell us what

this forest training school involves.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I think basically the ranger training

school at Green Timbers. It's the training of staff within the

Forest Service.

Vote 143 approved.

Vote 144: grant to Canadian Forestry Association, $25,000 — approved.

On vote 145: engineering services and forest development

roads, $3,132,250.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace

River.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, under this vote, forest development

roads, would the Minister indicate if there are any plans this

year for the department to

[ Page 1890 ]

construct a road beyond the bridge that was built by the

forestry department on the Halfway River at mile 95 on the

Alaska Highway? There's a road from mile 95 on the Alaska

Highway to the Halfway bridge, which is a Department of

Highways road. It goes into a forest area about 30 miles back

into the Halfway River region. The bridge itself was built by

the forestry department and the road beyond that, which is used

by the forest industry almost exclusively, is in very, very

poor condition. It's not much more than a trail.

Does Forestry have any intentions to spend any money

upgrading that particular road this year?

There's another road that I'd like to mention briefly and

this is one that runs north-east from Fort St. James, a

forestry road, basically built I think with the intention of

giving you access to fires in a hurry. You've been working on

this for a number of years; you're up as far as Johanson Lake

right now. You've passed a number of other lakes and you are as

far as Johanson with the road. What is the eventual destination

of that road? Is it the intention of the forestry department to

go on through to Watson Lake or out towards Muncho Lake or over

into the Dease Lake country with that road? It's a road that

comes probably 250 miles now north-east of Fort St. James. My

question would be: what is the final destination of that

road?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I am afraid with respect to the second

road I don't have the details and my staff don't have the

details either. I am sure we would be pleased to dig into that

question.

The other one, however, the bridge was built by the Forest

Service and that's part of an ongoing policy, namely in terms

of handling some of the difficult costs in opening up an area

and then leaving it up to the companies themselves to handle

the extension. That is the intent in that particular instance.

We would be pleased to follow up the other one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask the

Minister why the difference in maintenance of forestry roads

after they're built? In some forest districts they do a good

job and in others they do a lousy job. I refer to the Cariboo

Forest District. It seems to be pretty good on maintenance; but

in the Prince George Forest District you see a grader about

once every three years. I am wondering what the difference

there is.

I would like to ask one specific question: is there money in this vote for

a new bridge across the Nazko River? The highways department is rebuilding the

road. It is my understanding that the forestry department is going to supply

the funds to do the work. If they are, when do they intend to have the bridge

completed?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, we do intend to proceed with

respect to the bridge and funding will be provided. The actual

details of the timing aren't established but it's expected in

this fiscal year, as I understand it.

With respect to quality of maintenance, that's something

that I might get some feeling for out in the field. We have

decentralization and regionalization of activities and there

are somewhat different attitudes in the different districts.

I'll have more of an appreciation of them after this summer, I

think.

MR. FRASER: If you look me up I'll take you and show you

some.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is vote 145 passed?

Vote 145 approved.

On vote 146: fire suppression, $3,750,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. FRASER: This is for fighting forest fires, I assume.

What is the wage scale paid for fire-fighters?

[Ms. Young in the chair]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It was increased by order-in-council some

two or three weeks ago and as I recall the basic wage is

something over $4 an hour. It was $1.75 plus board before. Now

the board provisions have been reduced but the hourly income

has been increased substantially.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 146 pass:

Vote 146 approved.

Vote 147: forest inventory, $1,900,000 — approved.

Vote 148: scaling fund, $10 — approved.

Vote 149: — silviculture, $2,022,600 — approved.

On vote 150: grazing range improvement fund, $250,000

MR. FRASER: Vote 150. Thank you, Madam Chairman. For the

Minister on the grazing again. Now this is the vote where I

believe seed is purchased and given out. I'm not very happy, or

clear, or both, on

[ Page

1891 ]

how this is given out. I've seen forest rangers asking

cattlemen to beg for the seed. What kind of a policy is that?

Is that the only way they can get it — beg for it? I think we

should be encouraging them to get all they can. You supply the

seed and they'll gladly plant the seed, but I don't see why

they have to beg for it. I wonder what the real policy is on

it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The policy certainly isn't what the

Member suggests. The question of funding with respect to

seeding and priorities with respect to seeding are something

that I haven't reviewed and I will do that.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 150 pass?

Vote 150 approved.

Vote 151: Peace River community pastures, $20,000 — approved.

Vote 15 2: reservoir waterway improvements, $10.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member from

Nelson-Creston.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I'm looking at the portion here, "reservoir waterway

improvements, Duncan reservoir, $300,000" and I'd like to have

some idea of how that is to be spent? Is it to be spent in

clearing?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We've been faced with a massive job by

the former administration for cleanup and clearing in the

Duncan reservoir. Again, I want to spend some time in the field

looking at these operations.

The Forest Service has been carrying them out and it has

developed a good staff ability with respect to mopping up the

mess and making use of the resource as well.

The funding, however, has been shifted essentially to B.C.

Hydro. For the Libby reservoir, for example, the expenditures

for the coming year are something around $2.5 million. That

will become an integral part of the costs of the B.C. Hydro and

Power Authority. We see that as simply a cost of producing

power in the province and Hydro will have to absorb that as

part of the costs of operation rather than as a separate fund

out of general revenue through the Water Resources Service.

Now we may have to make some adjustments in terms of phasing Hydro in to this

particular cost load, but essentially Hydro is going to have to bear the brunt

of these costs. It seems not unreasonable at all, Mr. Chairman, that the environmental

impact and clean-up costs that we've had in terms of these reservoirs should

be reflected in the power rate. It seems clear that we can meet some of these

costs right now without affecting power rates; but if we want a higher standard

of development with respect to these reservoirs, then it will be a cost tied

in the end to the cost of energy in the province.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. CHABOT: I see from the reservoir waterway improvement

that Mica reservoir has had a substantial reduction in the

amount allocated for clearing. Last year it was $2,000,000;

this year it is down to $1,000,000. No doubt the Minister must

conclude that the programme that was undertaken by the former

government relative to this clearing was a substantial and

realistic one — one that was meeting the needs of clearing the

reservoir behind Mica Dam. There's been a cutback, so obviously

he's satisfied that the work that has been done in the past was

reasonable and fair and met the needs of the future

recreational potential in that particular area.

I am wondering why there has been this substantial cutback.

I certainly don't want the Minister to go around and say that

there has not been a good programme behind Mica reservoir when

he has decreased the amount allocated by $1 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you satisfied that it's a good

programme?

MR. CHABOT: Yes, I am satisfied that it is a good

programme.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I suppose a factor is that on March

29 the dam was declared operational and the flooding begins.

There is not too much room for loggers under water in the

reservoir, and so the funding has changed because we didn't

want loggers drowned.

The programme, however, is being reviewed and we're having

outside advisers looking at the whole question of reservoir

improvement. We may very well find after a new programme is

established that funding will have to be considerably increased

once the pond is created.

MR. CHABOT: Just a supplementary question on that point. The

Minister suggests that that reservoir will fill up in a matter

of weeks. It will take years. They could successfully remove

any debris or any timber behind the reservoir as the water

rises. The Minister know that, and for him to suggest that

there is a possibility that loggers will drown in the next few

weeks on a clearing project is unbelievable. I think the

Minister, if he is at this time, as he had led me to believe,

not entirely satisfied with the clearing project, then I think

he should allocate the necessary

[ Page 1892 ]

dollars so that clearing can continue even as the water

rises gradually over the next 10 years.

AN HON. MEMBER: But you people said we wouldn't have to

allocate dollars. You said the Americans would…

MR. CHABOT: We did. We've allocated millions of dollars as

the vote indicated. Two million…

MS. CHAIRMAN: Will the Member address the chair.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question on the same point. Two

million dollars allocated last year; a substantial cutback by

the NDP. They don't believe in clearing reservoirs anymore.

They're cutting back the allocation that was originally…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: If you really believe there's a need for

improvement behind Mica, allocate the dollars so that the work

can be undertaken.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe

Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Madam Chairman, it seems to me that the Member

for Columbia River is on the same kind of ground that he

expects those loggers to stand on. (Laughter).

Pretty shaky, Jim. It reminds me of when I was in

university; I took a course of logic in this. It was quite

clear that if you start with a false assumption you can reach

almost any conclusion. (Laughter).

Madam Chairman, I am sure that we are not going back at this

late stage into all of the terrifying prospects that were

created by the flooding of so many of our valleys in British

Columbia. May I just ask the Minister that, based upon

expenditures of this kind each year, can he forecast how long

we may be obliged to continue such expenditures and, therefore,

carry this kind of burden which was bequeathed to us by the

former administration. Is it going to be a continuing annual

expenditure of this size? Because whether we carry out through

the department of this government or whether it's paid for by

Hydro or paid for by us, it is an expense on the people of

British Columbia. I, for one, would like to know for how long

we will continue to face this expense?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, we are really talking in terms of

over a decade or maybe two decades.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 152 pass?

Vote 152 approved.

Vote 153: Forest Service general administration, $134,984 — approved.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Madam Chairman. To the House Leader — is the House Leader prepared to allow a lunch adjournment at

some time today or do you expect to go through a vote which is

$65 million, including such things as pollution control and

land development, prior to the time that we adjourn for lunch?

I just ask the position of the Hon. House Leader.

HON. MR. HALL: The position of the acting House Leader is

that we want to get on with the people's business. Can you

call a vote either for or against?

AN HON. MEMBER: Bulldozer.

Vote 153 approved.

On vote 154: water resources service, Water Rights Branch,

$1,015,214.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. FRASER: This is on vote 154, is it?

MS. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is.

MR. FRASER: Thank you, Madam Chairman. To the Minister, all

we ever hear in this province is the flood problems in the

lower Fraser Valley. I would like to say that the Fraser River

is a long river and there are problems in the interior as well

caused by high waters and the erosion that it's causing. There

are a lot of troubles on the Quesnel River, which is a large

tributary of the Fraser.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I wish the Fraser River would not fight,

please.

MR. FRASER: The erosion going on in these two rivers that

I'm aware of is quite extensive. I'd like to know what the

Water Rights Branch is doing about it. They have a fairly

efficient staff — I don't think enough of them — but what are

the policies about correcting some of these things?

Last but not least — and I'm glad the executive

vice-president of the British Columbia Railway is in the House — they built a dike to protect their own property in the Town

of Quesnel last year and by doing this, they diverted the Quesnel River right onto

[ Page 1893 ]

private property. They are going to lose this property

within 30 days. The Town of Quesnel and the people who own the

property have been writing all winter to the water resources

department and all they ever get back is, "We acknowledge

receipt of the letter. It's under study."

Well, you haven't got much longer to study because the

water's starting to rise and there's going to be up to 100

acres taken out right in the townsite because another

government body performed an illegal act. That's what they did. And I refer to the

British Columbia Railway. I'd like some answers.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With respect to the upper reaches of the

Fraser, there has been agreement now in just the last few

months with the federal government so that the

federal-provincial cost-sharing agreements will extend to the

upper reaches of the Fraser system as well. It may be that the

disasters of last summer at least have brought about this kind

of co-operation between governments. That's one worthwhile end

from that misfortune.

The studies are being carried on with respect to upstream

storage as a factor in terms of dealing with flood problems on

the river. The problems in flood plains, though, is something

that has never been analysed in the past by staff to the degree

that was necessary in terms of evolving a decent programme.

Just the mapping work, the photometric work that is necessary,

early flood information and so on, has never in fact been

brought together. There is, in fact, going to be a need for

some supplementary aid for special work this summer so that we

can really get on with the job of beginning to understand the

problems of our flood plains in British Columbia. The work just

hasn't been done in the past.

I find that incredible in a water-rich province like this,

but it's simply a fact of life.

Regarding the problem in Quesnel itself, I'm not familiar

with the problem. I'm not familiar with the activity of B.C.

Rail in that regard. I am sure that the staff in the Water

Rights Branch would be quite willing to review the whole

question with the Member so that we might try to achieve some

solution.

MR. FRASER: Thank you, Mr. Minister. But the one in Quesnel

is rather urgent and I'd like your staff to look at it right

away and then lay a charge against the British Columbia

Railroad for building the dike illegally in the first

place.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's an interesting idea.

Vote 154 approved.

On vote 155: assistance to improvement districts,

$25,000.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Madam Chairman, to the Minister. Would he tell

me what the $25,000 is for? If you're going to give assistance

to the improvement districts in this province with regard to

their water, it's going to take a lot more than $25,000.

One of the improvement districts in my constituency could

use the whole amount just to solve one particular problem that

they have. I am speaking of the North Pemberton Improvement

District.

The fact of the matter is, Madam Chairman, that these

improvement districts are finding it increasingly difficult to

provide the services for the members of the district and this

has simply terrifying consequences. In the past winter in the

North Pemberton Improvement District, by reason of the cold

weather and lack of snowfall, they suffered great expense with

regard to the operation of their water system.

While they've had very fine co-operation from the Minister's

department, both in water resources and in the forestry

department — the Deputy Minister of Forests was prepared to

allow some of the equipment to be used to extricate this

improvement district from this particular problem that they

had.

But they still face the situation that they have a poor

water system that surely must be under standard. The water

source is in constant danger of freezing during the cold winter

months. Improvements must be made because it's an area of

expanding population. It serves the schools in the area. If the

system fails, then there's no water in the schools. I just

think that there should be a better programme for assistance to

these improvement districts than we have at the moment.

There's no question that they're empowered under certain

circumstances to sell bonds and raise the moneys that they need

in order to carry out the responsibilities of the improvement

district, but in many of these outlying areas that's just not

possible. Indeed what has happened in this particular

improvement district is that the directors who have the

responsibility find it so great that there's a tendency to

withdraw their attention from this important function.

I think that if there were a more aggressive programme with

more moneys made available and greater offers of assistance

from Victoria than the staff of the department has already most

readily given, that we could solve many of. the problems in

these areas.

Year after year, $25,000. It just is not good enough for the

job that needs to be done.

[ Page 1894 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I would agree with the Member that

$25,000 is very little. It's essentially used just for interim

financing problems with respect to very small districts. The

main funding is through provincial acquisition of the

debentures through our pension funds and the like. I think

there is a need for work in this area and it might well take

place with the Department of Municipal Affairs.

Frequently there's a need for something beyond the

improvement district itself, so the range of services can be

provided. I expect that in the coming year we can review and

maybe integrate our activities to a greater extent.

Vote 155 approved.

Vote 156: water resources service, Canadian Council of

Resource Ministers, $52,750 — approved.

Vote 157: inspector of dikes, $50,808 — approved.

Vote 158: water investigations branch, $1,034,528 — approved.

On vote 159: investigations, hydraulic surveys and projects,

$1,950,000.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. SMITH: On vote 159, Madam Chairman. One of the problems

that I frequently encounter is this matter of erosion and water

runs. It seems to be prevalent particularly in land adjacent to

the Peace River where the flats above the river of very rich

farmland get inundated in severe storm conditions. Eventually

one of the canyons backs up behind the first elevation of

farmland above the riverbanks and lets water down through these

farmers' fields in great quantities, forming water runs which

start out as a little stream about a foot deep running down

through the field and before long you have a water run 20 feet

deep and 50 feet across.

With every one of these problems that we've encountered, we

have come to the branch and seem to have a tremendous amount of

problem trying to convince them that it's somebody's

responsibility other than the poor farmer whose land is

affected. It doesn't seem fair to me that an individual farmer

should be responsible for trying to repair what in a matter of

a couple of years can become a major erosion problem. Yet the

success of getting the department to take an interest in it has

been anything but great.

I wonder if the Minister could provide some guidance and

assistance to these people. It's not really their fault that

they have a major water run coming down through their land that

creates a bad situation.

If it's not looked after, with the type of soil you have on

the river flats, particularly above the Peace, those things

will cut to 30 or 40 feet deep in a matter of two years.

Suddenly you have a great ravine 40 feet deep and 100 feet wide

across some of the best farmland in that whole area. I wonder

if there is not some way of the branch becoming involved in the

protection of this land.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: This is something that has taken a fair

amount of time. It's clear that a thorough, comprehensive

approach or philosophy just hasn't been established. In terms

of the projects committed for the coming year, I just might

note the ones we have in mind, plus completion of previous

ones.

Those covered or proposed to be covered are the Nicola River

in the District of Houston, Buck Creek, Pouce Coupe, the Kettle

River in Grand Forks, the Granby River, Boundary Creek, the

Village of Pemberton the Lillooet River, the Bella Coola River,

Strachan Creek, Similkameen River, the Town of Terrace, the

Skeena River, another project on the Skeena River, the

Illecillewaet River near Revelstoke, the Eagle River and the

City of Fernie. Those are the main projects in mind for the

coming fiscal year.

It's a real problem to determine the kind of balance one

should have in terms of the value of the land being protected

and so on. I think that the programme to date has essentially

been an ad hoc programme, in effect, dealing with problems as

they come up or come to notice. It isn't part of any kind of

comprehensive activity or some overall philosophy. I think

that's needed.

Beyond that, I don't know if I can be, very helpful. We're

simply carrying on with respect to projects at hand, for this

coming year at least. We hope to establish a more comprehensive

programme. It's partly tied to this kind of survey and

inventory that I indicated was necessary a few minutes ago. We

just haven't done the mapping work, in terms of flood plain

problems and so on, that is necessary. We're going to have to

have supplementary funding to move into this area in a

worthwhile way.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Madam Chairman, a question on

this erosion. When I asked the question before, the Minister

said they had made an agreement with the federal government,

But what is the formula? Who initiates what on riverbank

protection up country?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's going to be jointly between the

communities and the province. They should work together and the

federal government will share in the funding. The bulk of the

initiation is

[ Page 1895 ]

going to have to come from this level. Again, the kind of

flood plain analyses that I was just talking about are

necessary prior to establishing some decent programme.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Since the

Minister brought up the question of analyzing flood plain areas — I wasn't sure that this was the vote in which we should be

talking about that, but perhaps we can. I really only want to

ask the question of how that programme of defining flood plain

areas is going or whether it's going at all.

I would also like to ask whether or not some committee — whether it's the Environment and Land Use Committee or some

other committee — would listen to appeals from individuals in a

situation such that they're inside the definition of a flood

plain at the moment, but because of improvements in diking over

the years — particularly since 1948 — there's no possibility

that there will ever be water on that land again. It's well

diked and well protected. There are many areas like that in the

Fraser Valley.

I think it's a serious problem, that the definition of those

flood plains be given to the local areas so we know where we

stand, particularly in relation to housing development on

ordinary farmland at the moment. Is there a programme going on,

Mr. Minister, and is t