1975 Legislative Session: 5th 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)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 1975

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3029 ]

CONTENTS

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

On vote 126. Mr. Smith — 3029

On vote 127. Mr. Wallace — 3032

On vote 128. Mr. Smith — 3043

On vote 130. Mr. Smith — 3043

On vote 131. Mr. Phillips — 3044

On vote 134. Mr. Smith — 3044

On vote 136. Mr. Phillips — 3044

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

The House met at 10 a.m.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

LANDS, FORESTS AND WATER RESOURCES

(continued)

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

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman, it's nice

to know that I was recognized this morning.

I would like to cover a few points with the Minister

concerning his responsibilities, not particularly on lands this

morning, but on the forest area of his responsibilities. One of

the things I would like to hear the Minister comment on is the

matter of export of chips from British Columbia to other

marketing areas. This may have been discussed briefly before,

but, as I understand it, at the present time we do have a

surplus of chips to the demand that we have available in the

plants that can manufacture the chips into pulp. That flow of

chips will continue to increase and escalate, and the

stockpiles will grow unless we find some other market.

There is presently a market for some chips, a limited

quantity at least, in the Province of Alberta at Grande

Prairie. The price, of course, is less than would be paid on

the existing market in British Columbia because of the chip

stabilization bill that has been passed. There are probably

markets in the United States for chips, and that price would

perhaps be less. But I suggest to the Minister that it would

certainly provide a cash flow for a business which has suffered

substantial setbacks in the last 18 months, and that the cash

realization from the sale of chips, even at a reduced price

outside the boundaries of British Columbia, would provide at

least part of the cost of maintaining payroll and the operating

expenses for a depressed industry.

As I understand it, there is a concern not only for short-term supplies, but

there is also a concern in the minds of industry in developing long-term contracts

for the sale of chips outside of the province. Mr. Minister, it is impossible

for them to even enter into negotiations at the present time. The reason it

is impossible is that they have no real idea of what amount of stumpage will

be charged in the long term. They know the policy of the government as it is

now and today and for the foreseeable future, but not far enough into the future

to reliably negotiate contracts for the export of chips. They feel, and rightly

so, that any long-term contract entered into will have to be backed up with

the assurances that the price paid for chips will not substantially escalate

in a period of better markets, and therefore put them into a position of tremendous

deficits which they would incur in honouring contracts they entered into.

I would like to know, first of all, if the Minister is

prepared to allow the export of chips, at least on a short-term

basis, particularly to the Grande Prairie area where, I

understand, there is a market for a limited quantity at the

present time.

Secondly, I would like to know if he is prepared to sit down

with the industry and discuss the possibilities of entering

into long-term contracts for the export of chips with the

United States or offshore markets wherever they may be

found.

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

Mr. Chairman, we are certainly prepared to look at medium-term market proposals,

that is longer-term than anything we have considered to date with respect to

chip exports. We are prepared to look at any proposals, so if any of the firms

put their proposals or market propositions in writing, we will seriously consider

them. We understand there are some, but we have received only one in writing,

as I understand it.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, in the consideration of proposals

from the companies, is the Minister prepared to give the

companies which may have a market potential available to them

some commitment that the stumpage rate they pay will be at

least in proportion to the price they receive? As I understand

it, this is one of the big stumbling blocks at the present

time; they have no assurance that if the market recovers to a

certain extent they will have a continuity in supply of chips

at a price that will allow them to continue the export of those

chips.

They may very well find themselves in a position of paying

more in stumpage and in rates to the Crown than they can

receive where they are locked into a contract. Is there some

way of negotiating this on the basis that the company could go

into a contract with some assurance on their part that they

would not suffer grievous financial loss as a result of it?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think we can say that we are certainly

prepared to be fair and realistic, as we have been throughout

this past year, with respect to stumpage arrangements in

difficult market times. It is reasonable to expect that that

will continue.

MR. SMITH: There are another couple of matters I wish to

pursue with the Minister this morning, Mr. Chairman. One is the

Minister's attitude with respect to the remote locations in the

Province of British Columbia where there is a potential for

wood production, and the people, of course, that will be

employed in those remote locations.

[ Page 3030 ]

As the Minister is aware, and I'm sure everyone in this

House is aware, we have a tremendous problem with labour

turnover, not only in the forest industry but in any industry

that is remote or isolated from metropolitan areas or large

communities. Now one of the ways of overcoming that problem is

to create instant towns. Regardless of what might be said about

the instant towns, they did create places for people to live

and maintain a family atmosphere.

Is it the intent of the Minister to proceed along that line

with respect to new areas of production? I can think, for

instance, in the north between Fort St. John and Fort Nelson,

in that Blueberry area, and so on, of large tracts of timber

that will eventually come into production. Yet the nearest

community to the location of the timber will be maybe 150 miles

away — 50 to 150 at least. I think that is going to create the

need for organized communities, such as Mackenzie became an

organized community, to provide services for the people living

there and maintaining that pulp mill.

Now I don't envisage communities the same size as Mackenzie,

but I can see a number of communities in the northern part of

the province of 1,000 to 1,500 people. They will require all of

the people services any community requires. I think it would be

a much more pleasant atmosphere if people were able to live

with their families in these communities, adjacent to their

jobs, than to be faced with this continual turnover that we

always experience where men are separated from their families

for extended periods of time.

During the construction of the Portage Mountain dam, it was

often said by the personnel of Hydro: "We have three crews at

Portage Mountain. We have the crew that's coming, the crew

that's working and the crew that's leaving." It was just that

bad. I've talked to some of the personnel on that project — the

management personnel — who tell me that over a period of two

years they know of employees that have been into the job, left

and back again as many as four times in a two-year period. So

either we're going to have to gear industrial production to

that situation or we're going to have to provide communities

for people to live in and maintain themselves and their family

in close proximity to the job location. What is the Minister's

opinion as to the direction the government will go in this

respect? It is a problem that's going to occur more and more

frequently.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm not really sure how I can answer that, Mr. Chairman,

other than to say that where we've been involved more directly in the northwest

we have focused on reasonable expansion of the existing communities — strengthening

the existing communities. The Burns Lake example is one that has been referred

to several times. Ideally, if we can do that and simply grow from an existing

base, there is much to be said for that. It certainly appears from our experience

to date that there are fewer problems in that kind of situation.

The area you refer to between Fort St. John and Fort Nelson

I am not personally familiar with. I'd like to spend some time

in that area but I haven't.

I think it's more a matter of analysis and carefully

considering the options and then trying to take an optimum

route. That's all too obvious, but at any rate, in the

northwest we're really working from existing community-based

situations and growing from there.

MR. SMITH: A matter that I'd like to pursue for a few moments with the

Minister is the matter of the cleanup of the floating debris in Williston Lake.

Regardless of what the Minister may personally think, the lake is there and,

really, one of the problems, I think and I know, was created by B.C. Hydro itself

within the last two years.

The need for a large pondage and a large retention basin is

obvious if the full capacity of the Portage Mountain site will

be maintained. If we're going to use all of the generators

installed there on a continuous basis, the requirement for a

tremendous amount of water in captivity is No. 1 essential. The

other thing would be to use some of the generators on a peaking

basis and only cut them in when they're required. Regardless of

that, there is a need for a tremendous amount of water.

The cleanup of the basin area was progressing quite

satisfactorily for a number of years, and two years ago most of

the floating debris was out of the lake. But because of a

management decision, B.C. Hydro decided to raise the level of

the lake in a year when we had a substantial snow pack back in

the mountains, which was okay. But I don't think they realized

that when they made that decision to raise the level of the

lake, they were also going to end up with far more trash in the

lake than they'd had for many, many years. This is exactly what

happened, Mr. Minister.

The lake level was raised by about two feet above the

high-water level that was first recommended before they opened

up the gate to allow water to go over the sluiceway. When that

happened, every bit of trash that had been lying on the shores

of the lake for a perimeter area of hundreds of miles was

picked up by the higher water level. As the water went down,

most of that ended up back in the reservoir, so we now have a

condition in Williston Lake where there is presently more

debris, more floating material than at any time in the last

five years.

What I suggest to the Minister is this: in a year when we

have a substantial snow pack, give consideration to again

taking the waters up, or at least not any higher than that. But

by some means, once the trash is deposited at the high-water

mark on

[ Page 3031 ]

the perimeter area of the reservoir, never, but never go

back to that same degree of elevation in the lake again. At

least you wouldn't wash all that stuff back into the lake, and

over a period of years you would be able to either burn it or

dispose of it on dry land rather than in the reservoir

itself.

I think that would be preferable to having that trash washed

back into the lake in a period of a heavy snowfall or heavy

snow pack and large run-offs. You'd be able to at least attack

the problem on dry land during the summer months. It would seem

to me that this is preferable to the present system which

allowed, as a decision of management, the lake to increase

beyond the level that had originally been contemplated, and as

a result, washed hundreds of thousands of tons of floating

material into the lake.

I'd like the Minister's opinion as to what the plan of Hydro

is in that respect.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the decision to go ahead

with the Bennett Dam and create the Williston pondage was taken

by the former government. It was basically a single-purpose

project, and that was the bulk of our criticism with respect to

the idea. The single purpose was the production of hydro

electricity.

Now the Member is suggesting that we should control the

level of the pondage relative to the accumulation of debris. If

you've got a billion dollar plant, which I suppose it would

probably be fair to say that is, and you play around with the

water just in relation to debris, then it's just an economic

insanity. So the decision was made; it's a hydro-electric

project. You optimize your situation with respect to the

production of electricity as part of the whole system in the

province. That's what they did.

In years when there is high water, high snowfall they might

want to capture that water because of fear of a lower year

subsequently and so on — and it is a huge storage basin. So it

just isn't feasible to think in terms of operating the system

relative to debris.

As far as debris is concerned, that's another inheritance

from your government. We've put in a fair amount of work in

that regard in terms of dealing with the problem. Cleanup is on

a priority basis and is related to the sites along the lake

that have a recreational potential. That analysis, again, was

carried out by our government. The biggest lake in the province

had no recreational analysis whatsoever under the former

administration.

There is $2.5 million in the budget this year for cleanup in the Peace pondage.

There has been additional funding for a wood chipper, so the Forest Service

will be handling a chipping operation for material from the pond that can be

chipped and used in pulp mills. In addition, in the last several months a major

barge basket has been created so that debris that cannot be used economically

will, in fact, be burned out in the middle of the lake in a huge barge. As a

result of the problems you gave us, we have developed a very creative capability

within the Forest Service to deal with the mess.

MR. SMITH: Well, Mr. Chairman, it's nice to hear the

Minister thump himself on the back every opportunity he gets.

But I'll tell you that the cleanup of Williston reservoir

started long before this man was a Minister of the Crown. Many

hundreds of million cubic feet of timber came out of that

reservoir and I am suggesting to the Minister — I am not only

suggesting, I am telling him — that from personal experience

and having viewed the lake from the time it was first created,

water conditions, with respect to floating debris in the lake,

were far better five years ago than they are today. That was a

direct result of....

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

rates?

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

moments ago.

That debris was a direct result of a decision by B.C. Hydro

to increase the water level in the years that there was

sufficient snow pack to do that. All I'm suggesting to the

Minister is that there must be an optimum level above which you

will probably not, in the foreseeable future, require an

increase.

If the management personnel of Hydro have this bench mark

established, then why not, the first year that we have

sufficient snow pack, flood the reservoir to a level of a foot

and a half or two feet beyond that bench mark? As the water

recedes, then you will deposit a tremendous amount of that

floating material high and dry on the ground. It could then be

bulldozed into piles, separated if it was worthwhile doing

that, but at least burned. You could get rid of it once and for

all; it would be a completed project. As long as you knew that

the established bench mark would never be exceeded again, you

would have no problem. The material that you deposited on the

shores could be burned during the summer months or in the

wintertime at the convenience of Hydro and their crews. You

could get at it and there would be no problem.

My goodness, B.C. Hydro, foreseeing the fact that they might

have to spill water, put in a $10 million or $12 million

spillway which is being used — not every year, but on the

average of every second or third year since the dam was built —

to spill excess water that you didn't want to store. All I'm

suggesting is that instead of accumulating that debris in the

lake itself now, separating it and burning it on barges out in

the lake, why not take a look at the other suggestion of piling

it up on shore, letting it accumulate above the

[ Page 3032 ]

high-water level and then disposing of it on shore rather

than in the lake. I think it's well worth the Minister's

investigation.

It could only be done in a year of heavy snow pack. It

couldn't be done this year, for instance, because we don't have

the snow pack in the mountains, as we have had on previous

occasions. But every so often we do have a tremendous snowfall

and an accumulation there which would allow Hydro to flood that

lake, or raise the water level to a bench mark and beyond it.

It has to be in relation to the ability of the dam to withstand

the hydraulic pressures and all the rest it would involve, but

this is an engineer's calculation. I am sure that they built in

sufficient safety margins when they originally designed the dam

and the project.

I would ask the Minister if he has given it consideration or

if he would consider it, because I think you would then, at

least, have an opportunity to dispose of a lot of waste

material on a year-round basis except for a very dry season

when forest fires would be a tremendous hazard.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: As the Member suggests, there are

certain safety limits. One foot on a reservoir as huge as

Williston is extremely valuable in terms of power production.

Some of the ideas that the Member suggests may deserve some

further look.

Vote 126 approved.

On vote 127: Lands Service, Environment and Land Use

Committee secretariat, $3,660,982.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I am really just

concerned to have some detail from the Minister about this very

substantial increase. In the course of his salary vote we have

realized, and rightly so, that the forest industry and the use

of land is a very important factor attracting the attention of

government to a greater and greater degree. But we are dealing

here with a very substantial increase in both staff and money.

I notice that the increase in staff is from 23 people to 90. We

have substantial salary increases from $382,000 to almost $2

million.

There is this item in this vote which is appearing in many other votes right

through every department of this government; it is the phrase "temporary assistance."

Frankly, I don't think that we have had a very effective answer from any of

the Ministers as to the very substantial use of temporary assistance. We have

heard a great deal about salary contingencies but this item in vote 127 increases

from $25,000 to $836,000 for temporary assistance. I am puzzled that such a

large fraction of the budget in this vote should involve something called temporary

assistance. I wonder if this relates in any way to the programme the Minister

announced in January about an employment programme to try and mitigate the unemployment

in the forest industry. Or are those two separate programmes altogether — the

one to deal with unemployment or this $836,000 to deal with temporary assistance?

We are throwing these terms around in each of the Minister's votes. I think

that with such large sums of money involved they deserve questioning.

Rentals increase from $50,000 to $344,000. I just wonder if

the Minister could perhaps give us some more specific

information, first of all on the very substantial gross

increase in the vote and, secondly, some details on the

specific items I mentioned.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, it is true that the budget

has gone up considerably, but it is one of the areas that I am

proudest of in terms of expenditures. I think that we are

getting value for our money in this area. I don't know if the

Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) has seen the small report,

which is sort of a

summary of the annual report. Maybe we could

send it over. I think that the

summary says what the roles of

the secretariat, the cabinet committee and the staff have been.

As you know, it involves consolidation of the resource analysis

capability that was formerly with the Canada Land Inventory

staff. That has been supplemented and added to so that we have

an excellent team of professional analysts in terms of

analyzing land capability for a wide range of purposes. In a

province as rich as this and with such complex

interrelationships, that was a very real gap and a real need. I

think that the work they are doing is unsurpassed. This small

report gives a kind of feeling for what is going on in this

agency.

The employment programme in the forest is something separate

from this vote. The rental figure is the result of a

consolidation of the professional group and the former Canada

Land Inventory staff. The rental thing can be explained in that

way. Part of it was formerly under another vote with respect to

the back-up technicians and resource analysis staff along with

the professional corps of some 25 or 30 people in the

secretariat. That explains the jump there.

The temporary assistance item is that and a range of

formulae and calculations that our accounting staff has

developed.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Unlike other speakers today I

would like to congratulate the Minister for getting his initial

vote through. It looks like he will get this one through as

well. I think that he has been doing a very fine job as

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

I would like to comment on the Minister's job as chairman of

the Environment and Land Use Committee. I have some suggestions

and questions regarding the operation of the committee and

the

[ Page 3033 ]

Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat as it

pertains to agricultural land in my riding and waterfront

protection and development out on the estuaries.

As the Minister will recall, the Environment and Land Use

Committee conducted hearings in Richmond regarding the use of a

farm last fall — the Howard Wong farm, a 158-acre market

gardening farm which the municipality wanted to have rezoned

for an industrial park. At that time we had a 9,000-name

petition in the community opposing the rezoning and a request

that the land be put in the agricultural land reserve in order

to protect the farmland and also to preserve the waterfront and

some sloughs in the area and some of the natural environment

and to keep industrialization of the Fraser down as it pertains

to the fishing industry.

The hearings, when they finally presented their decision,

did not put the land in the reserve. There was a fair amount of

land — 50 acres — put into agricultural allotment gardens and a

buffer strip along the river, and the sloughs were protected.

So it was a compromise solution. In effect, we had a buffer

zone between the industrial reserve the municipality is putting

in and the agricultural reserve to the west and between there

and the river to the south.

However, what I'd like to bring to the Minister's attention

is the speculation and blockbusting that's going on in the

areas adjacent to that reserve in recent weeks. More

specifically, I refer to the hearings held by the GVRD on May

21, which I attended, where the requests were made to have the

riverside industrial park expanded to the east. At the hearings

there were a number of developers presenting their proposals. I

might say in passing that the hearings were somewhat one-sided

because the developers mostly met during the afternoon and had

half an hour or an hour to make presentations, while people

concerned about these developments being proposed didn't get to

speak till late in the morning and only had two or three

minutes each. Mr. Robert Bonner represented some of the

speculators in the area and spoke for 45 minutes on behalf of

people who, we believe, are American speculators from Seattle — Ritter and Blum — owning a piece of property in the area.

Actually they don't own it; they have an option on it with

some farmer. They offered him $10,000 an acre, little more than

agricultural value in that area, and expect to make a profit of

$40,000, $50,000 or $60,000 an acre if they can get it

rezoned.

Anyway, Mr. Bonner had suggested — I'd like to make some direct quotes of what

he said — that "about 2,600 acres of secondary reserves in Richmond south of

the Knight Street bridge are high-priced and much more suitable for industry."

He went on to say: "Whether you value the land at $10,000, $20,000 or $40,000

an acre, there are very few things that can be economically grown and give adequate

returns." He suggested that because of the agricultural land reserves and the

environmental implications of people trying to protect the foreshores and so

on, inevitably the agricultural land reserves cause either great benefits or

great loss to people. "When we have great benefit we have tax laws to skim off

the profits but when we have great loss to people," he suggested, "we should

be giving them some kind of compensation."

He was actually suggesting, I think, that in the areas of

Richmond where the speculators have moved in, as I will show

later, they would be able to gamble in land, which in effect is

what's happening in the area and while they were gambling in

land they should be able to gamble and win. I'm just wondering

if this is Social Credit policy in this province. If you go

down to Las Vegas to gamble you generally expect to lose; you

don't always expect to win.

In the areas that I am concerned about around Riverside

industrial park that the ELUC was studying earlier this year, a

number of developers have gone in there and bought land since

the agricultural land reserve was set up in 1973. I wish to

discuss this aspect specifically. It's probably the most highly

speculated area in Richmond. South of Steveston Highway in

Richmond there are 1,600 acres of land owned by real estate

interests adjacent to the Riverside industrial area.

The most prominent speculators in the area are German

interests with a San Francisco address — Fromm, Werner, Fishell

and Holmgren — which own 368 acres to east and west of

Riverside park. In 1969 they purchased 42.6 acres for $170,000;

in July, 1974, they sold this land to Sun Life Assurance for

$990,000. This is after the agricultural land reserves were set

up. So now part of the land is owned by Sun Life Assurance.

That was 42.6 to the east of Riverside; they also own 326 acres

to the west of Riverside. They assembled this between 1970 and

1972 for $1.1 million. It was, I should point out, No. 1

farmland — this is roughly agricultural prices of around $3,400

an acre.

In January, 1973, they entered into an option with Western

Realty Projects — again after the agricultural land reserves were

set up — the price now $4.2 million. Western Realty Projects, I

might add, was an active opponent of the land bill, and not

only was an opponent but was the company I mentioned during the

Bill 42 debate which had secret documents that indicated that

they wanted to go into the agricultural reserve lands that were

zoned agriculture by the municipality and buy the land up and

try to convince the local governments to rezone the land so

they could make some rather large profits. Apparently they're

still doing it, because not only in this area but in other

areas in my community, and probably through the rest of the

greater Vancouver area, they're going in and buying up land,

even

[ Page 3034 ]

though it is frozen under the agriculture reserve.

I quote from the report that I quoted in 1973. In their

report they said: "The major emphasis should be placed in

purchasing unzoned agricultural land in the next two years."

This was written in 1972. "Assuming a 50 per cent participation

rate in total lot sales in Richmond, we must then purchase

approximately 1,200 acres to satisfy our goals between 1972 and

1984." This is from the Richmond Land Acquisition Report, 1972

to 1984, by Western Realty.

Well, Mr. Chairman, they're still buying land even after the

Land Commission Act has come in, and this land they optioned

was for $4.2 million. In this case they didn't exercise the

option but actually turned it over to another company, which it

turns out is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Western Realty

Projects.

In June, 1974, this area to the west of Riverside was

optioned by Adera Construction and Techram Securities Ltd., and

they took out an option for $5.9 million. In February this year

Gilmour Estates has taken over that option. The land now that

was originally purchased for $3,400 an acre in 1971 or 1972 is

worth $18,000 per acre. If it's rezoned and taken out of the

reserve, it would be worth probably around $70,000 per acre. So

you can see the type of game that's being played by the

speculators. It's sort of like a speculative ping-pong game.

The speculators bounce the ball back and forth to each other,

adding larger and larger options and sometimes actually buying

the land outright and tossing the ball back and forth and then

claiming that they're losing money — "if the land isn't viable

for farming, the land couldn't be protected for

agriculture; the waterfront shouldn't be protected for

fisheries," and so on.

Well, it appears that the Nu-West project was more and more

of a blockbusting technique. The Richmond council is

recommending that the lands to the east of the agricultural

reserve — the land I mentioned that Sun Life Assurance bought

between No. 5 road and the freeway in July, 1974, the land that

Western Realty optioned at around the same time.... The

municipality is recommending that that should be taken out of

the reserve, arguing that the land they got out at the last

time for Nu-West isn't big enough. Now they argue that the land

cut off by Nu-West is isolated and this is a reason that they

should expand the area up to the freeway.

My feeling is that outfits like Sun Life Assurance, who bought the land after

the agriculture reserve, really don't have a case. Western Realty, which turned

it over to Holmes Smith Properties Ltd. — a wholly-owned subsidiary of Abbey

Glen Corp. which is the new name for Western Realty — really doesn't have a

case, because they purchased the land after the agricultural reserves were set

up...and that the land should stay in the agricultural reserve in order to

be sure that that particular development that we dealt with last fall and earlier

this spring, the Nu-West development, does not expand to start the industrialization

of the Fraser along the south arm from the freeway to the west.

I think right now that the way the compromise is set up by

the Environment and Land Use Committee, it is set up that it

does contain the development and prevents it from spreading.

But once further land is allowed to go, then it's going to

spread through the whole area because, as farmers quite well

point out, it's very difficult to farm in an industrial

area.

This raises another problem. The farmers at the hearings

said that they were facing considerable problems with regard to

industrial development in their areas, and not just industrial

development but other related pressures upon their farms. I

think that the ELUC secretariat should perhaps make some

studies on the agricultural areas as they pertain to farms in

the Delta area in particular, and some areas in Richmond where

the Highways department has dissected their properties, where

B.C. Hydro is putting through power lines, and so on.

The farmers at the hearings made a very good case that when

their lands are dissected they can't adequately farm. There may

be some ways that the government can see to assist in land

assembly so they can trade land on one side of the highway — or

on one side of a Hydro right-of-way — with the farmer on the

other side so that the farms can be consolidated into an

efficient farm again.

The farmers also complained about crop theft and traffic and

problems of urban encroachment on their properties, and I have

some suggestions as to how that may be overcome as well.

There are recommendations I'd like and have for the ELUC to

consider. To start with, with its specific reserve in Richmond,

I'm wondering if the Land Commission or the ELUC would be

having hearings after the GVRD makes its recommendations,

because it looks like the GVRD may go along with Richmond

municipality. We have a case where each mayor — and this is one

of the flaws we have in the Land Commission Act — in a suburban

area has a piece of land that he wants to get out of the

agricultural reserve for some reason or other, whether it is

justified or not, and it is a situation where they are the ones

who are going to make decisions and recommendations as part of

the GVRD, and they will be backing each other up. The mayor of

Delta wants 2,000 or 3,000 acres out, the mayor of Richmond

wants 600 or 700 acres out, the mayor of Surrey wants some out,

and the deck is stacked because it is a situation where they

will be backing each other up to get their particular lands out

of the reserve.

So I would like to impress upon the Minister that it is

important that there be some input to the Land Commission or to

the ELUC, as there was last fall over these hearings, even when

the GVRD makes its

[ Page 3035 ]

recommendations, because I think the tables are stacked.

Secondly, I think that the ELUC and the Land Commission will

have to consider that wherever possible no land should be

exempted from the reserve, that any land removal in Richmond

anyway, in the vicinity of the Knight Street Bridge, where Mr.

Bonner was talking about, or an extension of the Riverside

industrial park, would be a blow to continued agricultural

development in Richmond, just as the removal of 3,000 acres in

Delta would be a blow to production in the whole Fraser

Valley.

I'm not going to go into the agricultural aspects of it,

because this is not really the direct concern of the ELUC.

Suffice it to say that whenever a farm is lost, there is a

reduction in the amount of services by local businesses that

are provided because the businesses end up going out of

business and moving their services out of town, and if you want

to get a part for a tractor you have to go to Langley instead

of getting it at Richmond, and things like that. So whenever

services move out, then there is a loss of agricultural service

to the community, and the more farms that are lost, the less

viable agriculture is.

Thirdly, I would like to suggest that while this problem of

speculative gambling seems to continue even in spite of the

Land Commission Act, perhaps some legislation could be

considered that would assure that profits would not accrue to

the owner of the land if the land is rezoned to a higher use.

This would quickly remove the constant demands for rezoning and

allow more orderly planning. In my consideration, profits from

rezoning really rightfully belong to the community that

provides the services and provides the need for that rezoning.

Land, whether it is residential land, foreshore land — which I

am going to mention later — or agricultural land should not be

a commodity which can be gambled upon. Therefore there should

be some law that would not just tax the profits in the small

way through income tax or capital gain tax, as is already done,

but to assure that the entire profit of a rezoning would go to

the community involved.

Fourthly, in many cases absentee owners aren't farming the

land themselves and they are leaving the land in low productive

use. I think that they should pay higher taxes in order to

encourage them to bring it into full production. We could have

lower taxes for bona fide farmers and people who are actually

carrying on farm operations to maximum potential, as they do in

Holland. I think in Holland they have since 1936 had a

differential between those who just rip off the land and those

that actually carry out proper farming methods.

Fifth, where roads such as those of the Highways department are going through,

road rights-of-way, and easements for B.C. Hydro dissecting the farms make farming

uneconomical, I would suggest that the government involved, whether it is the

province or, in many cases, the municipality putting a road through, should

be prepared to make some attempt to reassemble the land, perhaps under the greenbelt

fund or something like that, purchase the land and either hold that land or

redistribute it with the adjacent farmers and offer it to them for their use

so that new economic units can be created.

Furthermore, quite often there has been a lot of damage to

drainage systems and other adverse physical changes due to this

type of dissecting of farms, and I think these should be

repaired or otherwise compensated for.

Sixth, in some cases where industrial and residential areas

seriously encroach upon farm areas or recreational and

conservational areas, then it should be considered that buffer

strips such as golf courses and parks could be considered to

separate the two zones. This again, where new developments are

going in, should be paid for by the developers, the people who

are putting in those developments. In other cases perhaps the

local governments could carry this out. Where it is not

possible to put a buffer zone in, then perhaps adequate

fencing, chain-link fences or page-wire fences and so on, could

be put in between the environmental areas, agriculture areas

and so on, and the industrial and residential developments. I

would suggest that maybe the ELUC could carry out a study in

this regard to look into the feasibility of adequate buffer

strips and fencing and so on between these zones.

I think these are suggestions that would help to stop the

speculation in the areas that we are hoping to preserve, and

would quell some of the complaints that we have had from people

who are trying to operate a farm in there.

Finally, in my own area there is another area that I haven't

raised and that is the Sturgeon Bank area, which was not put

into the agricultural reserves. It's land which, if farmed,

would be No. 1 farmland but it's part of the Fraser River

estuary. It's outside the dikes in Richmond and it's under

immediate stress as well. There's an outfit called Pacific Rim

Investments which has been going around to the property owners — there are about 600 acres of this estuary privately owned —

and they have gone around and offered them quite a large amount

of money, about $10,000 an acre for the land. A lot of the

people are thinking of giving them options. Of course, the

speculators here are just gambling that they can get the land

rezoned. They could dike it in and because it is not covered

under agricultural land reserves, they might be able to get

some kind of developments outside the dikes in Richmond,

whether it be industry or housing or whatever.

What I'm hoping is that the secretariat might regard this as

one of the areas of stress that the Minister suggested earlier

might be studied in the

[ Page 3036 ]

coming year. Conversations with the Minister suggested that

the resource management areas that have been set up throughout

the province might be able to take on the job of carrying on

environmental studies similar to what I have suggested might be

covered by a coastal zone commission, and that they would look

into estuaries, islands and so on. I am suggesting that a study

should be carried on in the Sturgeon Banks area because the

speculators are getting into their little ping pong game of

tossing options back and forth in that area as well. It will

see the prices going up and up and up and the owners thinking

that the land is valuable when really it is valuable only as

foreshore and as feeding areas for the young salmon and various

marine environment and as part of the Pacific flyway. It should

not be developed for housing or for industry and I think it's

very crucial that this area be investigated in conjunction, I

believe, with the federal fish and wildlife service, which has

been carrying on investigation for a number of years, and

perhaps with the Department of Recreation and Conservation as

well, and the fish and wildlife service who have also carried

out some studies. But I think there is need for an overall

study and I think the ELUC secretariat would be the one to

co-ordinate this study and come up with some recommendations as

to how this estuary could be protected and preserved and how

the owners of the property who are in there can be compensated

for their land rather than have the speculators move in and get

options on the land and then control it and try to make it out

of estuary use and into industrial development.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): I have a couple of brief questions

to direct to the Minister. Last December there was a serious

slide in Port Alice at which time many of the houses were

damaged by the mud and debris that came down the mountainside.

One of the homes, as a matter of fact, was lifted right off its

foundation and moved about 30 feet from its original location.

It was fortunate at that time that no one in that community was

injured by that slide. The council and the people at Port Alice

were most appreciative of the response they received from the

provincial government at the time through the disaster fund.

Trailers were moved in, people were quickly relocated and work

was undertaken in order to repair the damaged homes and other

damage that occurred to the Village of Port Alice. The mayor of

Port Alice, Alex MacLeod, has been most complimentary about the

kind of response he received from the provincial government and

I wanted to reply that to the Minister as well.

Since that time there have been several studies of the mountainside itself

to determine the stability of the particular area behind the community of Port

Alice. It is my understanding that there is still some doubt about the stability

of that whole mountainside and one of the reports at least indicates that there

may be more work required on the side of the mountain itself. I also understand

that the Department of Highways, which has been involved in conducting one of

the studies, has indicated that certainly the Department of Highways would not

be involved in repairing any mountain or doing any work on the mountainside.

That whole question and the discussion concerning the mountainside at Port Alice

has now been turned over to the Environment and Land Use Committee. My question

to the Minister is whether or not this has been discussed at the Environment

and Land Use Committee and what sort of response there was and what sort of

discussions are taking place and what is happening.

My second question concerns the Tsitika-Schoen moratorium

area which has been under study for two years. Public hearings

were held some time ago. The transcripts from all the public

hearings, I understand, had to be researched by the secretariat

and eventually the Environment and Land Use Committee will have

to make a decision on the future of the Tsitika-Schoen. Could

you, Mr. Minister, advise me when that decision might be

forthcoming? Thank you.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The Member for Richmond has given us a

pretty clear picture of some of the activity in part of his

municipality and some of the ideas he has suggested are

certainly interesting and areas in which the government has

been carrying out analysis in and might well by prepared to

take legislative action at a later stage.

Certainly the problem of absentee ownership is one that

concerns all of us. It does generally mean a loss in

productivity of the land. It means that there isn't the control

that there really should be at home, as we see it. The question

of absentee ownership, and dealing with it in one way or

another, is one that will have a fairly high priority with the

government in the coming months.

The question of the Greater Vancouver Regional District and

their review of the secondary agricultural reserves, again is

one that is very important. In view of the Member's statement

of each municipality having its own particular ox to gore, one

can't help but think that it is starting to look a little bit

like the American Senate. At any rate, it will be very

interesting for us to keep a watching brief on. I'm sure that

the committee will be actively involved in the review process,

and we will consider all of the options in terms of public

input or whatever.

The possibility of obtaining some of the revenue from a change in land use,

particularly going from agricultural to higher economic-return use, is one that

has been actively looked at, I understand, by the Department of Municipal Affairs

and, to some extent,

[ Page

3037 ]

by the secretariat staff as well. There might well be more

proposals forthcoming in that area.

Sturgeon Bank is complex and probably a long-term kind of

area that we will also have to watch fairly closely.

With respect to the Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) and the

problems at Rumble Beach in Port Alice, there has been review

by the Highways department and Water Resources, and the matter

has been discussed by the Environment and Land Use Committee,

but it is considered primarily a Water Resources problem. The

Highways people have passed that buck to us.

On the basis of the reviews to date, there is a consensus

that a cleanup programme should be pursued with respect to the

watercourse, that it should be maintained and that there should

be regular monitoring. Funding is being provided to see that

that is done. In addition, Rayonier will participate with the

Water Resources Service and Highways in that process and that

programme.

There have been consultant studies done, but I think the

feeling of our professional staff is that the analysis is

lacking and there is a need for additional expertise. They have

suggested an engineering programme. Our professionals are not

satisfied that engineering programme would give the results we

want, so the expenditure might not, in fact, be as productive

as the consultants suggest. We will have to proceed and bring

in further experts, particularly in the soils and foundation

field. As we see it now, this is primarily a soils problem and

we need additional expertise.

In the meantime, maintenance, cleaning, cleanup and regular

monitoring will take place on a joint basis with the company

and the Highways department in concert with Water

Resources.

It is the kind of problem that is not limited to this area.

In the past we just haven't done a proper job in terms of flood

plain analysis or looking at alluvial fan problems such as this

one. There just wasn't a look at the kind of delicate structure

that we are building on in this province when we built

communities in the past. That isn't the case now. At least

there is a decent programme in flood-plain mapping and work by

the Water Resources staff so that this kind of settlement being

dropped in in delicate situations should be avoided in the

future.

So far as the Tsitika-Schoen is concerned, the matter is coming before the

Environment and Land Use Committee at our next meeting. We anticipate that the

matter can probably be looked at in more than one phase. We foresee, at this

stage, a first-phase compromise which would allow the preservation of the critical

areas and the maintenance of employment. That will be reviewed in detail by

the committee at the next meeting, but it looks as though there is a first-phase

compromise that can deal with the conflicts, maintain employment and preserve

the most critical areas. Second-phase work is complete. At least at this stage

it looks like most of the interests can be accommodated in the first phase.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, I would like to

make a few brief comments and ask a few questions about the

Environment and Land Use Committee's role as one of the players

in the farce that's known as the refinery follies. The Member

for Richmond (Mr. Steves) talked eloquently about speculators;

he referred to speculators being in a ping-pong game, tossing

options around. I'd like to suggest that the government is

becoming the biggest speculator in British Columbia in areas

like Burke Mountain and Surrey. I wonder what the Environment

and Land Use Committee thinks, given its concern about the

environment of this country, when another part of government

can come along and just plunk down a dirty, polluting, smelly

refinery in the middle of one of the finest valleys in British

Columbia. Where does the Environment and Land Use Committee

stand on that?

I think it's time we found out what kind of studies have

been done in this whole area. We don't know. We got conflicting

reports from various parts of government. One part of

government tells us that studies have been done; another part

of government tells us studies haven't been done. One part says

they are underway; another part says they are finished. It's

time that we found out exactly where they are and what they

have recommended.

Environment Canada says that in order to do a proper

environmental study for an oil refinery on Sumas Mountain, they

need a minimum of one year and perhaps two years. Yet here

we're talking about going in and plunking down a refinery after

a few months of studies, if that. There's a serious conflict

there somewhere. The Environment and Land Use Committee should

be vitally concerned, too, about the sources of oil because if

the oil doesn't come from Alberta.... The Economic Development

Minister (Hon. Mr. Lauk) says the oil has to come from Alberta,

yet the Premier, speaking down east, says that maybe we'll

accept oil from Alaska. Who's right? If we accept oil from

Alaska, are we at the same time accepting tankers down our

coastal waters? The Environment and Land Use Committee should

be vitally concerned about that.

I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, the people of British Columbia,

and certainly the people of the Surrey and Langley areas, are

fed up with this business of indecision on the refinery, and

not knowing what's going on.

Interjection.

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

[ Page 3038 ]

who is undecided; it's your own Members of government. Every

Minister in your government gives a different answer to the

same question. In Surrey we won't accept the comments from the

Economic Development Minister that we deserve a garbage can in

our backyard. That's nonsense! We won't accept it in Surrey or

Langley or any of that Fraser Valley area. We refuse to bow to

the blackmail of the British Columbia Petroleum Corp. — that's

what Vander Zalm is saying, Mr. Chairman. The Environment and

Land Use Committee had better take a more serious look at

this.

The Mines Minister (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) doesn't know. He's not

even sure that anybody's been talking about a refinery. The

Economic Development Minister doesn't know, the Agriculture

Minister (Hon. Mr. Stupich) doesn't know, the Premier doesn't

know — maybe the Minister in charge of the land use committee

does know.

I am now convinced that this whole thing is just an ego trip

by the Premier and his former roommate, James Rhodes, the

chairman of the B.C. Petroleum Corp. When they were sharing

rooms they used to sit around in their pajamas dreaming about a

great socialist experiment in a refinery. Now they have a

chance to bring it to fruition, maybe — if they can get the oil

and if they can get the land.

I'd like to know whether or not the Environment and Land Use

Committee was part of a study in this refinery operation. I'd

like to know whether or not the Environment and Land Use

Committee recommended that the refinery not be placed in

Surrey. I'd like to know whether or not the Environment and

Land Use Committee took

part in any of the studies which were

done by a Victoria consulting firm, and whether or not any

other areas were studied besides Surrey.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's a bit much to have the government

called a speculator in obtaining land for people in Burke

Mountain — some 50,000 to 70,000 people can be accommodated. To

acquire land from absentee owners in north Langley, some 2,000

acres, and have those lands in control of the people of British

Columbia — getting rid of that kind of absentee control — and

increasing our options in terms of making the greater Vancouver

or lower mainland region a more livable place, that's really

what those things do.

In terms of the Environment and Land Use Committee staff, there has been a

review of the work done by the consultants with respect to the Surrey location.

Similarly, there has been review and other work with respect to the other refinery

proposed for Sumas Mountain. The group will be fully involved in the ongoing

process of determining locations. Beyond that, the pollution control branch

has very rigid standards with respect to emissions and pollution control of

refinery standards, which are as high as anything on this continent. Those standards

would apply regardless of analysis and study. So very rigid standards would

be applied, whatever the location.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'd like to ask the Minister whether he

would comment on whether or not the Environment and Land Use

Committee has, in fact, recommended against Surrey as a site

for the refinery.

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

this stage.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, vote 127, of course, shows a

substantial increase from the year before — it's up about

$1,400,000. It would appear that at least a good part of that

vote is reflected in several new departments the Minister has

created and which were not previously part of the Environment

and Land Use Committee secretariat.

For instance, I notice the Minister contemplates a

department of agriculture and forestry, another one that will

deal with climatic conditions; geographic conditions — I

presume recreation, soils and geology and wildlife and so on.

There are one, two, three, four, five, six different

departments that we have not previously voted funds for, Mr.

Minister.

I'd like to know if these departments are presently active

and if the personnel contemplated in this vote, which are

substantial in number, are now actually civil servants of the

province. Have they been hired? Are they in the employ of the

secretariat at the present time? Just what stage of development

has taken place with respect to the money that you would ask us

to vote on this particular

section of vote 127?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think it's simply that we've given

more information than we did in the past and under the former

administration. All of this group basically were on staff

before within the Department of Agriculture under the Canada

Land Inventory grouping, so we've simply broken it down in

terms of the specialties. The only real addition we've made is

the core group of some 25 to 30 professionals over the last two

years.

MR. SMITH: Another question. As I understand it, Mr.

Minister, this was mainly a transfer of personnel from the

Department of Agriculture to your department, so there has not

been any great increase in the number of people actually

involved. Is that correct?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, in terms of the analytical back-up

staff, in terms of agriculture, forestry, climate, geographic,

recreation, soils and surfacial geography, wildlife, in those

categories, yes.

[ Page 3039 ]

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

L135.

MR. SMITH: Yes, okay.

The other question is the tremendous increase in travel

expense shown on page L136, an increase from $25,000 to

$334,000 — 13 times greater than the previous year. It would

seem that the Minister or, at least, the departmental personnel

anticipate travelling a great deal more this year than in the

past.

There's also a vote increasing the amount of money for

consulting fees and expenses from $50,000 to $350,000, which is

a 700 per cent increase. I'd like to ask the Minister the

reason for the tremendous increase in these two votes — the

travel expense vote and the consulting fees and expenses

vote.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Again, the same explanation applies with

respect to the $25,000 and the $334,000 on travel expenditures.

The amount by the old Canada Land Inventory group was under

another vote and the core professional group was the $25,000

figure. The two have been merged into one single amount now so

that the bulk of the money would have been in a sort of a

single bundle number with the Canada Land Inventory group

before. So that explains that kind of huge disparity. But again

the reason is for inventory work in the summertime, just

getting our inventory data in these various areas from

agriculture, forestry, recreation, soils and surfacial geology,

that sort of thing.

What was the other question?

Interjection.

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

I think again there were other funds in the budget last year

that in fact made the number beyond $50,000 in other votes. But

a fair amount of this is on projects such as Burns Lake where a

wide range of work is necessary from working with the

Department of Labour on job-training programmes for Indian

people to looking at problems in towns like Mackenzie and

seeing to it that the sort of commercial analysis in terms of

the potential for improving the shopping centre and having an

economically viable, larger shopping centre in a resource

community on the frontier.... There's really a wide range of

specialties from economists to you-name-it. It's actually a

fairly tight budget for the purpose.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'd just like to ask the Minister again, with regard

to the refinery, whether or not his department agrees with Environment Canada

that one to two years is necessary in order to do a proper assessment of pollution

problems and environmental problems associated with establishing a refinery.

The second question: I would like to follow up on something

the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) asked. I didn't really

think that the Minister gave a very satisfactory answer to the

question with regard to the increase in cost for temporary

assistants — a tremendous increase from $25,000 to

$836,000.

Is that in the wildlife portion of this vote only or is that

for the whole department? What kind of staff does it cover,

really? The Minister left the impression with me at least that

this $800,000 was some kind of an accounting trick that his

accountants in the department have dreamed up. Above that

$836,000 there is a $62,000 vote which is not earmarked for

anything. I was wondering what that $62,000 is for.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a subtotal.

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

The third thing that I would like to ask the Minister has to

do with pecking orders, I suppose. Where in the scheme of things

is the land use secretariat? Is it the final arbiter over the

Land Commission that decides on all land use problems in this

province, for instance? Has in fact the Land Commission become

only a sort of planning tool to assist regional districts in

establishing their land reserves? Could the Minister comment on

whether or not the diminution of authority from the Land

Commission in favour of the Environment and Land Use Committee

secretariat has anything to do with the recent resignation of

the chairman of the Land Commission, Mr. Bill Lane?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm afraid that I really can't comment

at this stage in terms of times for refinery studies other than

to say that on the basis of our experience with the federal

government almost anything can be done in a quarter of the time

that it takes them to do it and on a reasonable scale. If they

say two years then I would guess six months. That isn't

facetious; that's the result of experience. I don't really

have any fuller information than that at this stage.

On the question of the staffing and funding there is a

mixture in terms of people already in fact on staff. It is

partly covering people who have been on staff on a temporary or

semi-continuous temporary basis. It is a mixture of things like

that. I think that that covers a fair chunk of it in fact.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would just like to

ask the Minister how the secretariat cooperates with other

government departments with regard to land use. For instance,

if B.C. Hydro wanted to buy a chunk of land for a substation

[ Page 3040 ]

wanted to put through a power line would they consult with

the secretariat? If the Department of Recreation and

Conservation wanted to buy a farm which they would use for

wildlife do they check with the secretariat before making that

purchase?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Only very major programmes or

expenditures come before the Environment and Land Use

Committee. If it was a huge land acquisition then it would most

likely be discussed by the committee; a substation probably

wouldn't come before the committee but a major transmission

line might very well. Generally a lot of those things can be

resolved at the staff level, working together. The technical

committees meet on a regular basis as well and resolve a lot of

these matters so that they don't have to come before the

committee itself.

MR. PHILLIPS: Suppose that the Department of Housing wanted

to buy some land somewhere and put in a housing development.

Would they check with the secretariat? Who would really have

the final say? Suppose that the Environment and Land Use

Committee secretariat decided that there shouldn't be a housing

development in that particular area or the Department of

Agriculture wanted to put a ranch in a particular area. Would

the environment and land use secretariat have veto power over

one of these other departments?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That remains to be seen. It is a matter

of cooperation and negotiation and happy discussion and these

matters get resolved in a harmonious way.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm just a little bit concerned because

suppose the land use secretariat didn't agree with some of the

policies of the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr.

Lauk) in a certain area. Suppose the Minister of Economic

Development wanted to allow a development — not necessarily a

government development but a private industry development — in

a certain area and the secretariat didn't agree. I would like

to know who would have the final word.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: If the Minister is a member of the

Environment and Land Use Committee then it would all be

resolved harmoniously.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm still concerned about this, Mr. Chairman,

because we have changed the name of the Environment and Land

Use Committee to the "Environment and Land Use

Secretariat."

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

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

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, I would certainly be glad to. The

secretariat is the staff group that advises the committee, and

the committee is a nine-member committee comprised of cabinet

Ministers: the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr.

Lauk), the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea), the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Lorimer), the Minister of Recreation and Conservation

(Hon. Mr. Radford), the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) and others who are not here

today.

At any rate, the group works harmoniously. It meets on a

weekly basis and resolves these areas that used to be areas of

strife and conflict in the days of former administrations.

MR. PHILLIPS: The total of vote 127, which is the

Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat.... Do you mean

to tell me that the secretariat that advises the committee has

a budget of $3,660,982?

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

morning.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's the back-up staff for the committee.

But I notice that this isn't under the Provincial Secretary as

an advisory board, so....

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources can talk in very soft terms about tremendous

cooperation, but really it is this Environment and Land Use

Committee secretariat that is really the most powerful

instrument in British Columbia today.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you have already told me the secretariat

has control over Hydro, would have control over British

Columbia Railway, has control over the Department of Mines, the

Department of Housing and the Department of Economic

Development, certainly would be able to, with the legislation

that we have on the books today, overrule local governments,

would be able to overrule the Pollution Control Board, because

with the tremendous staff they can always do sufficient

research, Mr. Minister, to justify the end.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: They can always do sufficient research. You

were in charge of this particular secretariat; therefore, Mr.

Chairman, this makes the Minister the most powerful man in

British Columbia

[ Page 3041 ]

today!

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Nonsense.

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

to a baby octopus....

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

MR. PHILLIPS: This year the octopus is growing and the

tentacles are reaching farther and farther afield into every

avenue of life in British Columbia. Control, Mr. Chairman. This

instrument, this octopus has control over every segment of life

in British Columbia and that Minister has control over the

octopus! All he has to do is stick in his prod and the

tentacles wiggle out. He can even override his own cabinet

Ministers and he can certainly override the Premier.

This is where the power in British Columbia lies today, and

this Minister wants this octopus to grow. He wants it to grow

and grow and grow, and instead of having the proper number of

tentacles, he wants to increase the number of tentacles, so

that this Minister will virtually control the Province of

British Columbia and bring it to its knees. Any segment of

society can be brought to its knees by this octopus that that

Minister is creating — an octopus, Mr. Chairman, that is being

fed by a bureaucracy heretofore almost staggering the

imagination, the bureaucracy that is feeding this great octopus

over which this Minister has control.

The Minister knows it.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't need any snake-bite remedy, Mr.

Minister, but here we have people, ordinary citizens in British

Columbia, who first of all have to wallow through this mire of

bureaucracy before they can control this octopus. It is getting

so that people in British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, are just

throwing up their hands when it comes to dealing with that

Minister — throwing up their hands.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, they are certainly throwing up their hands because

here he is, the king of British Columbia, sitting on his throne, all-powerful

— I won't use the other words. But this is really what this department is, Mr.

Chairman, and no matter what area of the province you are in or what segment

of life you are in, here we have this Minister, and it is through this instrument

that he can control the economy of British Columbia, he can control the industry

of British Columbia, he can control the Crown corporations of British Columbia,

he can control the municipalities. This is why, when I say this is the most

powerful Minister in British Columbia, even more powerful than the Premier,

I am right on, because he will feed this octopus, and he will feed his bureaucracy

so that he will have a shell around him so large that the ordinary person will

never be able to penetrate.

What will we find? We will even find government departments

wallowing in the mire of bureaucracy because of a decision that

he doesn't want to see go ahead. He can have them bogged down,

and this is what is happening in B.C. today.

It's practically impossible to see the Minister. If

something wants to go ahead, he can let them wallow in this

mire of bureaucracy until they finally choke and give up. This

is why he has all this power — frustrating people in British

Columbia. This is the man who really controls the Province of

British Columbia, and this is the instrument that gives him

that power. In future years I can see this growing even larger,

giving the Minister more power. The octopus will grow, the

tentacles will reach out and they'll be searching around to

find if they've missed one little segment of our society.

The Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr.

Radford) knows what power the Minister has. As you go through

this vote, this Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

and his secretariat does not rely on the biologists in the

Department of Recreation and Conservation. No, no, Mr.

Chairman. He's going to hire his own biologists and his own

research officer under Recreation so that Minister, through

this bureaucracy he is building, can go to the Minister of

Recreation and Conservation, and if the Minister of Recreation

and Conservation says that his biologists tell him this, the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources will tell him

he's wrong. "I have done my own research, and you can't do it."

That's exactly what will happen in the research with regard to

soils and surfacial geology.

He will be able to override the decisions of the Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) because he will have done his

own research. And as I say, when he directs this bureaucracy to

move in a certain way, they will come up with the decisions

that that Minister wants. The Minister will give guidance to

his research staff, and the decisions that Minister wants will

be the decisions he gets from his bureaucracy. We have

witnessed that in British Columbia before when we had results

of studies tabled in the Legislature last year with regard to

the price of chips and the surveys that were done.

That Minister gives the guidelines, and the people who work

for him bring him the results that he wants or, I'm telling

you, they will be on the outside looking in. So I just want you

to know, Mr.

[ Page 3042 ]

Chairman, that this is really the instrument.

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

climate.

Look at his research in agriculture. He has one, two, three,

four agriculturalists working in his department. He evidently

will not rely on the agriculturalists working for the

Department of Agriculture because, as I say, when he wants a

decision to lean toward a certain result that this Minister

wants to obtain, he will have his agriculturalists give him the

results he wants in those decisions, and he will override the

Minister of Agriculture.

So this is it, Mr. Chairman. Even wildlife biologists,

recreation biologists — you name them — this Minister has them

in his research staff. This is why this Minister is the most

powerful. It's no wonder that the Minister of Economic

Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) becomes frustrated in trying to

develop the economy of this province. We could do away entirely

with the Department of Economic Development, with Mr. Lauk and

his staff because that man, the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources, is the man who controls the economy of this

province. He has it right in his grasp. Nobody can do anything

in this province unless they bow to the will and the whim of

that all-powerful Minister. That all-powerful Minister. He is

the man who will....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are discussing vote 127, and

not the Minister's vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm not discussing the Minister's vote.

I'm saying that this is the instrument through which this

Minister controls the destiny and the economy of the Province

of British Columbia.

I just want to say it once more and then I will sit down.

This is the most.... Well, you know how you have to bow to him — the backbencher who is clapping. He just turns around and the

sheep will follow. But that's the Minister. I'll tell you,

they're right on when they're following that Minister because

any time he turns around and wants a smile, he gets it because

they know that if they want anything in that government, he is

the Minister they have to get the okay from. So they're right

on. At least I give them intelligence for knowing in their

caucus and in their cabinet where the power really is. The

power really is in the hands of the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources — the most powerful man in British Columbia

today.

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

Minister....

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): You called him

weak-kneed last night.

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

that!

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: You withdraw that. I did not call him

weak-kneed. I said he was the most dangerous man in British

Columbia, and the most powerful man. Why would I turn around

and call him weak-kneed and spineless?

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

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

me.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: He's just picking on a poor little Member,

that big, powerful cabinet Member. The poor little Member for

South Peace....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Member for South Peace River take

his seat? I have recognized the Member for Langley. I would ask

the Hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) and others

not to interrupt so that the Hon. Member for Langley may make

his remarks.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think

it was an "octopus-prodder" he called the Minister. He's not

weak-kneed. I don't know whether that's unparliamentary or

not.

Mr. Chairman, I just wondered if the Minister might comment

on the question I raised earlier regarding the reasons for the

chairman of the Land Commission leaving government service and

whether or not it was because of some kind of a conflict with

the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat — whether or

not the job of chairman of the Land Commission has now been

reduced to nothing more than a file clerk or an office boy

because of the power that this committee does have. Where does

this committee stand on the pecking order, because we believe

that it can veto any department of government on any kind of a

project at any time.

Is it the ultimate committee for final solution of land-use

problems in British Columbia? Does it have the right to veto

the orders and decisions of the Land Commission and did Mr.

Lane find himself in conflict with this situation? Is that one

of the reasons he left government service?

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

[ Page 3043 ]

understanding that Mr. Lane left the Land Commission for

personal reasons, and I'm satisfied that that is in fact the

case. There were a range of specific personal reasons that were

the final determinant for him in deciding to change his

position. The job that he has with the Greater Vancouver

Regional District is one for which he's really quite well

qualified. As you know, he had a long history in the

Municipality of Richmond. So his background is primarily urban

and his role in the GVRD will be primarily urban. That is

considerably different than the Land Commission, which is more

concerned with agricultural land preservation and some of the

conflict problems in the hinterland generally. So I think it's

a matter of personal interest and that kind of thing. I don't

think any comment other than that is necessary.

Mr. Lane also felt, I believe, that all of the critical

initial work had been done with respect to the establishment of

the Land Commission, that the principle is now broadly accepted

around the province and that his work with the regional

districts in fact is part of the reason that that is now the

case. Those that opposed the bill, I think, now realize that

that was another one of their many errors in terms of long-term

strategy against this government.

Vote 127 approved.

On vote 128: Lands Service, general administration,

$872,796.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I notice that you have created the

position of special adviser to Lands Service and there's a vote

of $25,000 for the person who fills this position. Do we have

such a person and who is that person?

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

Minister, Mr. Borthwick.

Vote 128 approved.

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

approved.

On vote 130: Lands Service, pre-servicing Crown lands for

sale or lease, $2,000,000.

MR. SMITH: I presume that this is the vote where you provide

the funds necessary for pre-servicing in areas where the

Department of Lands takes the responsibility for creating

residential subdivisions. Is this the vote?

Would the Minister indicate to the committee the number of

projects that are presently underway and where they're located

at the present time — the ones that you are actively involved

in at the moment?

Could he indicate to the committee what's their

locality?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, we do have a list, Mr. Chairman.

There was a wide net cast and discussions have been carried on

with numerous regional districts regarding a broad programme

beyond this kind of funding. That's assuming it was all

provincial development and spending and not some other

alternative.

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

you?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Those that are underway right now are

Port Hardy, some really suburban type development in the Port

Hardy area; Comox, a rural subdivision in the Comox area; a

rural subdivision in Nanoose; Lanceville; Bear Lake; a major

development in Kitimat called the Cable Car Development; Pink

Mountain rural subdivision; Fort Nelson, a small development;

Williams Beach, a fair-sized development at Williams Beach;

Bellevue Road; Parksville, a rural development; Chatsworth

Road, Parksville, a rural development; Cumberland, a rural

development; Cortes Island, a rural development; Egmont, near

Powell River, just initial work underway; Pemberton, a suburban

development; Lillooet Lake, a recreational development; Powell

River, a rural development; 93 Mile House; Nazko Road, a rural

development; Webber Road, Barkerville, a rural development;

Logan Lake, a rural development; Gold Bridge, a rural

development; Clearwater, a rural development; Granisle,

development; Hudson Hope; Midway, a small development;

Mackenzie, a rural subdivision; Aberdeen; Prince George,

infilling development. Those are the ones current.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I would like to say a few words, Mr.

Chairman, with regard to the development in the

Squamish-Lillooet area. It was referred to under the salary

vote, the C.B. Cunningham recreation area. I think this is a

development that is worthwhile.

It's an area that apart from recognizing the late Charles

Cunningham, who came into that area some 40 years ago and

worked as a game guide and a photographer and a great

conservationist.... Not only would it recognize this person,

but it would help to set aside an area for wildlife. Here we

have the bighorn sheep in their native state. What has happened

there over the years is that the cattle ranchers have moved

their saltlicks right up into the alpine areas so that they are

eating the grass that the sheep would eat during the winter.

The mountain sheep survive on the side hill so long as there is

long grass; they can start the snow rolling and get at the

[ Page 3044 ]

grass. But with the ranchers going right up into the alpine

and semi-alpine areas, putting the saltlicks up there, the

cattle go up and eat this grass and then there is no way for

them to survive during the winter.

I believe that in this province — certainly in that part of

the Yale-Lillooet riding — we have some of the most beautiful

scenery and some of the best fishing and hunting that you will

find anywhere. But due to the faulty management of the previous

administration, in areas where pictures were taken of as many

of 40 moose in one herd, today there are virtually no moose. I

think we have a great obligation to this generation and future

generations to attempt to restore that area and restore that

wildlife.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We'll be glad to consider the proposal

under this vote, Mr. Chairman.

Vote 130 approved.

On vote 131: Lands Service: surveys and mapping branch,

$4,671,190.

MR. PHILLIPS: Would the Minister advise what policy he is

going to take under this with regard to opening up agricultural

land in the Peace River area? Are you going to go in, do the

surveys, build the roads first and then put the land up for

option or lease, or are you going to allow people to go on the

scattergun approach we've been using in some areas? A person

goes in, they get a family, a few more families; then there's a

big call for the road, we fight for the road and we fight for

the power line. What is your thinking on that?

There are many millions of acres that are still under scrub

brush — poplar or aspen — that could be brought under

production. Are you going to go in and map it first, put in

temporary roads and then open it up? Just what is your thinking

on this?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I am sympathetic to that idea as an

approach, all right, Mr. Chairman. But this vote is survey and

mapping, which has nothing to do with that kind of development.

It's the broad mapping programme for the province and the

serving of all departments.

Vote 131 approved.

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

approved.

Vote 133: Lands Service, University Endowment Lands

Administration Act, $10 — approved.

On vote 134: Lands Service, University Endowment Lands

golf course, $287,314.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask the

Minister — I believe this is just a transfer from one vote to

another, is it not? Was this previously covered off in another

vote under your departmental estimates, or is this a separate

vote altogether?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It is now a separate vote. It was

formerly combined with the whole UEL vote but we have

rehabilitated the golf course and have created it as a separate

entity. That's what has happened here.

MR. SMITH: It is the intention, then, of the department —

you talk about rehabilitation of the golf course, and now you

have the provision of funds under a separate vote — to turn the

golf course into a public course? Is this part of the...?

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

MR. SMITH: Was it always a public course?

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

still an open system.

MR. McCLELLAND: Does the Minister expect that the golf

course will lose money or make money? What's going to happen

there? Will this vote be covered off by the earnings of the

golf course, for instance?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The expectation is some losses this year

but that after this year it will make money.

Vote 134 approved.

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

approved.

On vote 136: Forest Service, general administration,

protection, and management of forests, $48,801,573.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) wants to

speak on this. He is at public accounts. Would you accept a

four minute early adjournment to give him an opportunity? I

could talk for four minutes but.... (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: We know you can talk.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, I

have no choice but to move the committee rise, report

resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

[ Page 3045 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolutions

and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Before the House rises I would just like to say that there

appears to be a slight misunderstanding about what happened last night. I would

like to make it absolutely clear that when the Speaker is called in to deal

with a matter of refusal to withdraw epithets or words that are not parliamentary

and the Member refused to do so, the offence is a disobedience to the order

of the Chair to return to order — not for the expressions used. In this case

one newspaper, for example, has said that it was for words used; it is really

the disobedience to the rule of the Chair. It is the duty of the House to uphold

the Chair when disorder occurs. I want to make it absolutely clear that the

Chair has that duty. Whether or not the issue is the nature of the word used,

it is a question of upholding the House, the Chair, and the dignity of the House.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1975, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada