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)

TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 1975

Morning Sitting

[ Page

2949 ]

CONTENTS

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

On vote 126. Mr. Smith — 2949

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): It's a pleasure to

continue the debate on the estimates of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources. The matter that I want to raise briefly with

the Minister this morning concerns the leasing of lands in the

province mainly for leasing, improving and eventually acquiring

title for agricultural purposes.

Because there was at one time a tremendous amount of

potential agricultural land in the B.C. side of the Peace River

block and in the Fort Nelson area, we have probably had more

people apply for agricultural leases than in any other part of

the province. One reason is that it is favourable to farming in

that particular area; secondly, the land was available.

In the two years-plus since the NDP took office in 1972 I

have been inundated with letters from people complaining about

the treatment they have received from the Lands department

respecting their particular leases. There would seem to be a

policy — whether written or unwritten I'm not sure — on the

part of the Minister (Hon. R.A. Williams) to use any and every

excuse to cancel an agricultural lease so that the land will

return to the Crown and the lease, if it is ever renegotiated,

will be on a different basis. Mr. Chairman, this was never the

intent initially, and I don't think that sort of reasoning

should be part and parcel of the system in British

Columbia.

From the Minister's own statements, I think it is well known

that if he had his preferences and desires there would be no

such thing as land in fee simple in the Province of British

Columbia entitling the owner or person residing there to own

that land. I would like to recall to the Minister's attention

that if it had not been for the desire of people to own their

own property and farm on property other than that which was

rented or leased there would not have been the development that

we have experienced in the Peace River district respecting

agriculture.

It seems odd to me that the government should use whatever technique is available

to them to discourage development. That is exactly what your department has

been doing in the past two years. Almost any excuse has been used to write letters

to applicants or holders of agricultural leases to deny them or cancel that

lease. I have numbers of letters from different people; they all complain about

the same thing. It extends anywhere from a small acreage in Fort Nelson for

a home site to leases on a

section or two of agricultural land. Almost invariably

these people are told by letter from the government that they have reconsidered

their position and that they have not met the terms of their lease agreement,

or the number of acres required under the lease agreement, or the number of

acres required under the lease is not apparent from the latest inspection, and

their leases will be cancelled forthwith. Is this the policy of the Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources? Is he breaking faith intentionally with

the people who have only one desire, which is to improve their lot and become

farmers in their own right? It is a natural desire, I think, on the part of

many people.

I would like to quote from a few of the letters that I have.

I am not going to take up a great deal of time in the

committee. I have one here from a man in Fort Nelson who

acquired a lease for a home site. He went through all of the

steps that are involved. He applied for a lease some time ago

and was told by a Mr. B. Ward in the Lands department how to go

about getting this lease. He went through those steps and was

concerned that nothing was happening. He had a number of phone

calls and conversations with Victoria. Every time he phoned

they told him that things were moving along and they were

progressing, and not to get impatient. Five weeks ago your

department told this man that he didn't have to phone any more

because he had filled all of the requirements and his lease

would be forthcoming. The personnel in the department that he

talked to said that everything was going through and not to

worry about it.

This gentleman says he's made at least 20 phone calls to

Victoria on this matter and each time he's been told: "Things

are progressing. Don't become concerned. Everything is going

along fine."

He had his approval from the Department of Highways and the

Department of Public Works, in whatever respect they have

authority in this particular instance. They were in agreement

with his right to lease a home site.

He took it one step at a time as he was told to do by the

officials of the Department of Lands but, lo and behold, two

weeks ago, or about that, he received a notification from the

Department of Lands that indicated he couldn't lease the land,

that it was going to go up for public auction and that he'd

have to bid for it if he wanted. Now this is after a period of

months, years, and where he was led to believe that everything

the department required of him was being done. Now he's told:

"Sorry, Buster, you're going to have to bid for that home site

and it'll go up for public auction." Why the change of policy,

Mr.

[ Page 2950 ]

Minister? Why was the man encouraged to apply for land and

then, at the time when he had gone to a lot of trouble and

expense, find that he's going to have to bid for land that he

thought he had a right to lease? He had been given every

indication by government that they would honour their

commitment to him?

I have another letter from a resident in Fort Nelson who has

been told that his agricultural lease would be cancelled. Why?

He failed, in the department's mind, to provide the

improvements to the land that were required under his lease

agreement. But there's where the conflict lies, because this

man says: "I've done far more improvements than I was required

to do by my lease. I haven't seen a land inspector around here

since I started on this job. Yet I'm told by remote control

from somebody in Victoria that my right to lease this property

is cancelled."

Unfortunately, Mr. Minister, there are too many of these

same types of problems occurring in the Fort Nelson and Fort

St. John area. Time after time after time people are being put

to excessive expense to prove to the satisfaction of your

department something that the land inspectors should have been

able to see in the first place, and that is that in many cases

the people involved have kept their end of the bargain and made

the improvements necessary to maintain their leases.

The only question that I have to ask is: are the personnel

of the Department of Lands carrying out instructions, explicit

instructions from the Minister, indicating to them that their

job is to find whatever means possible to prevent people from

maintaining the land they have an agreement over, between

themselves and the Crown?

There's also the odd case where the land in question,

because of weather conditions, is subject to problems of

maintaining the improvements. A number of people have come to

me with the problem that because of wet seasons they were not

able to complete entirely the number of acres of improvement

they were supposed to do each year, and they have asked for

extensions. At one time, if the case was legitimate, the

extension was almost automatic — at least the first time that

it was asked for — to give them a chance to maintain that

property and to develop it. Now it would seem that the reverse

is true and that if a person applies for an extension it's

almost automatic that it's refused.

I think the Minister, Mr. Chairman, is derelict in his duty

if he feels that treating people this way in any way adds to

the stature of his department or helps maintain the economy of

this province. These are not fly-by-night people that I'm

talking about; these are solid citizens, Mr. Minister. They are

people who want to have a place of their own and by their own

sweat are prepared to work hard to get that and attain what

they have perhaps thought about for a lifetime. I would say that it's time for the Minister to

come clean with the people of the province. If his policy is to

use whatever excuse is possible to cancel out leases on Crown

land, then say so. If it's not, then it's time that he told the

public of this province just exactly what his policy is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 126 pass?

MR. SMITH: No, Mr. Chairman. I put a question to the

Minister. I realize the rules of the House say that he does not

have to answer it. But I think that in fairness to the people

who have agricultural leases and home leases in the Province of

British Columbia, in Fort Nelson, in the Fort St. John area, he

has an obligation to answer the questions I've put to him.

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

The answer is no. No such directives are given, Mr. Chairman. In fact, the job

of the Lands department staff is to carry out the Land Act, and that's what

they do. In fact, we've generally been liberal in terms of renewal of leases

where there hasn't been full performance in these obvious agricultural areas

where it's individuals involved and where different things can happen that would

present performance that one could understand.

The leases I'm familiar with that have been turned down have

clearly been non-performance and clearly questionable in terms

of their agricultural use. One classic example that I recall is

a lease that was granted by the former Minister, Mr. Williston,

to one Ben Ginter on the edge of Prince George. It was clearly

not an agricultural lease but rather one that had a tremendous

urban potential as well as small lakes and so on on the

property. I had no qualms about seeing to it that that was

turned down because of non-performance; but it's only in

special cases like that that I've been directly involved.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I'm not talking about land speculators or large

industrialists. I'm talking about average citizens who come to me with their

problems and write me or send me copies of letters that time and again have

gone to the Minister or to the Department of Lands — to the attention of the

director with copies to me. These are individuals who have leases on anywhere

from a home site of a few acres or five acres to a quarter-section or a

section

of land — a

section and a half sometimes — adjacent to property that they've

already proved out. These are legitimate cases of people who seem to run into

a continual roadblock from the Department of Lands as the situation now exists,

respecting the fact that they haven't either crossed their t's properly or dotted

their i's in a manner that was acceptable to the department.

I say to the Minister that I think he should review

[ Page 2951 ]

that policy, because it's being unfair, grossly unfair in my

opinion, to a number of people who have worked hard to get

where they're at and are prepared to continue doing that for

the sake of developing a farm for themselves and perhaps their

family beyond them.

It would be different if it were an isolated instance that

happens only on the rare occasion, Mr. Minister, but I can tell

you frankly that I have more correspondence over this one

particular problem than perhaps any other that comes across my

desk. So it's not a rare incidence, an isolated incidence. It

seems to be a matter of almost daily occurrence. I believe that

the Minister should check closely into what is really going on

with these leases and find out if for some reason the

information that's channeled down to Victoria where the final

decision must be made as to whether a lease is maintained or

cancelled is in fact correct information, or why these people

feel that the policy is not only against them but in many cases

they're being harassed in their attempts to develop a farm or a

home site.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman,

just briefly at this stage I'd like to explore with the

Minister his thoughts on the timing of resource development in

British Columbia.

You know, Mr. Chairman, the Minister is a member of a party

- and I think the pre-eminent member in terms of the

ideological leadership question — that believes, in terms of

resource development, that things should be left in the ground,

for example, and maybe trees should be left on the hill, I

don't know. That's what I'd like to explore with him. We have

in British Columbia hydrocarbon resources which timing isn't

really a question on. We're pumping all the oil we can; we're

discovering all we can. On natural gas we have certain kinds of

commitments, and on coal the development will go ahead as

quickly as we can find markets, I presume.

But I want to ask the Minister particularly what his

thoughts are on the timing of the development of our forest

resources and one specific mineral resource, because it's

become such a cause celebre and he is head of the Environment

and Land Use Committee and he is the man who is probably giving

the leadership in this area. I want to ask him why he feels

that investment in British Columbia pulp mills can't go ahead

more quickly. Why is it that we had an official of the Council

of Forest Industries tell us earlier on this spring that B.C.,

with half of Canada's softwood reserves, has only $168 million

committed to expanding production in the pulp and paper

industry in the three-year period to 1977 as against comparable

spending of $1.35 billion in Quebec and Ontario during the same

period?

I'd ask the Minister if he agrees with sources in the forest industry that

suggest there are six to eight viable locations for new pulp mills in British

Columbia. Why aren't there some plans for those going ahead?

Is this a matter of departmental policy — the discouragement of

the industry in putting forward plans for new pulp mills? Or is

it just a question of the industry being scared, of investors

being scared of this government and not wishing to go ahead?

What does the Minister think is the right timing?

Does he not agree that there is a lot of forest growth in

British Columbia every year that is rotting rather than being

productively harvested when it could be?

Then I would like him just briefly to tell us whether he

supports the general theme of his party, that we are better to

leave ore in the ground because it is not going to go bad,

rather than take it out this year and next year to provide jobs

for British Columbians, while development goes on in other

parts of the world. Mr. Chairman, obviously, I am not going to

go into that too deeply. It's in a different portfolio.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: And obviously, neither am 1.

MR. GIBSON: I wish you would tell us a little bit about it,

Mr. Minister, because a lot of us think that you're the guy

who's really setting the policy in this field.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You're wrong again.

MR. GIBSON: I don't think we're wrong. I think you're the

guy who pulls the strings in that field.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the Hon. Member has to assume that the

Minister is responsible for certain things under the votes, and

then just work on that basis rather than speculate as to what

he might be responsible for.

MR. GIBSON: Well, we have to make our best guesses, Mr.

Chairman, so we try and get some answers out of the man we

think is calling the tune. I'd just like him to talk briefly

about that anyway. But particularly, could he give some

attention to that question of the six or eight pulp mills that

we should be building in British Columbia?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I certainly think there may well be

opportunities in terms of further pulp mill investment. I don't

see it on the scale the Member does, at this stage. There are

complications in British Columbia — the complications of

tenure, for example, which we have inherited from numerous

administrations, so that is one difficulty. The market

currently is also rather soft and world inventories are

building up considerably in some sectors of the

[ Page 2952 ]

industry. At any rate, I am rather encouraged; I think there

will be development proceeding and the opportunities are there

in some areas in the province. Detailed investigation is going

on with respect to the feasibility and economic liability of

those projects.

MR. GIBSON: Just a brief follow-up, Mr. Chairman. I wonder

if the Minister could identify some of those areas where

feasibility studies are going on.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Not at this time, no.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): A few questions to the Minister

that weren't answered yesterday: Plateau Mills and its

operation.

Specifically, to whom did you charge that 50 miles of road

that was built from Plateau Sawmills or Vanderhoof south into

the good area of the Cariboo? I'd like to know whether that

cost was charged to the Plateau, or if it was charged to the

Forest Service vote. I'd like to know the amount for 1973 and

the amount for 1974, and what's budgeted for 1975 to continue

this road and invade country that doesn't belong in the area

for Plateau Sawmills' operation.

The Minister probably doesn't know about this, but I'm sure

that his Associate Deputy Minister of Lands knows. The

Squamish-Lillooet Regional District came up with a kookey plan

to establish a Charles Cunningham Wilderness Area in part of

the north — part of, I would describe it, of the

Squamish-Lillooet Regional District and the south part of the

Cariboo Regional District.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Yes, it has the support of the Hon. Minister of

Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) who is the MLA for part of this

area, and I'm the MLA for another part of it. He supports

this.

But what I want to say to the Minister is that I want to

know where it stands. I think I know, from the letter that the

Associate Deputy Minister wrote, that further studies are going

on and, hopefully, the studies will take until about 1992, but

there is a good chance these studies might end in 1975. In

other words....

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): That would be

Social Credit speed.

MR. FRASER: Right. I would like to know what the Minister's

feelings are on this because we're talking about multiple use,

and this government talks multiple use then does another

thing.

They are going to try to put this huge part of central

British Columbia into a wilderness area which, again, has been

grazing area for the beef industry for 150 years and still is today, although greatly reduced. So

is the policy to eliminate the cow entirely and turn it over to

the grizzly bear, the porcupine, the moose and the deer? I

don't know how we are going to make a living in this country

when it is all put up to, as I mentioned, multiple use. In

effect, what you are saying is single use. I can tell you that

the area I know, which is in my riding, this suggested area, is

a large, large area for grazing for the cattle industry and

they are very alarmed about it, particularly when I think,

again, all these brainy ideas are coming from the lower

mainland.

We don't mind these people taking

part in the good life we

have in the interior, but we resent the fact that they set all

the guidelines.

AN HON. MEMBER: Were you not aware of the public

meetings?

MR. FRASER: I certainly am. I was certainly aware of the

public meeting at Whiskey Creek about this. A lot of people

showed up, mostly civil servants — no elected people certainly

representing government I'm talking about. They proceeded to

give a snow job to the citizens that pay the bills. That's what

happened at that public meeting; we're getting fed up with this

kind of nonsense.

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation):

The ranchers supported it.

MR. FRASER: Where were you? You're the Minister

involved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. FRASER: Where were you? You're the Minister

responsible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member address the Chair,

please?

MR. FRASER: Let some elected people show up once in a

while.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member address the Chair,

please?

MR. FRASER: Well, bring that Recreation Minister to

order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point is well taken. I

would ask the Hon. Minister not to interrupt.

MR. FRASER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So much for that. I want to talk about land

[ Page 2953 ]

inspectors for a minute. I think all in all land inspectors

in the lands branch do a real good job. But I think another

problem is that we haven't got enough of them.

HON. MR. RADFORD: How many did we have under your

regime?

MR. FRASER: That's history; the record is all there. In any

case, due to increased applications the Minister has now

restructured this department. As I said yesterday, I'm happy

about this; I hope it will expedite land applications. But I

have reason to believe a freeze has been put on hiring by this

government, including the hiring of additional land inspectors.

I'd like this senior Minister of the government to comment on

that fact. They are short of qualified land inspectors — field

people, particularly, and administrative people. Is it true

that there is a freeze in this department on hiring any type of

personnel? If this is the case, how long is this freeze on for,

and when was it put on?

The other thing I want to enlarge on a bit this morning is

the serious chip situation — the oversupply in the province. I

asked the Minister yesterday about shipping chips to Alberta.

It's my information that they will take a limited number of

chips, specifically at Grande Prairie, Alberta, and they'll pay

$18 a unit. This is certainly a lot better than burning them

and getting zilch out of them and creating pollution as well.

Or is it your policy to give licences to pollute? You'd rather

do that than sell some of these at $18.

The problem is the timber bill we passed and in turn the

Minister setting a minimum of $35,000 a unit. Therefore I don't

think the operators can accept this price or they're breaking

the law. I asked this question yesterday and the Minister put

on his roller skates and went around the mulberry bush on that

one. I didn't get an answer; I'd like to hear what he has to

say about that.

I also would like the Minister to make a note of this and

ask him if he's going to take any disciplinary action against

the Forest Service that went out there 20 strong to get Mr.

Bennett's cattle and cut down trees in a provincial park and

built a holding corral there. I think that's disgraceful that

knowledgeable people in a large rural area would have to pick

on an area that has been set aside for years for the enjoyment

and use of the public. They could have gone 200 feet and been

off this land and built the holding corral. I'd like to know

how these decisions are arrived at. This has happened and I'd

like to know what the Minister is going to do about this.

That leads me to another problem in the — I forget how you

describe them — reserves for park purposes in forest land. I

spoke last year on this. In my riding, particularly — say, from

Williams Lake to Bella Coola — there's a beautiful area, the

Chilcotin Plateau.

There's all kinds of reserve land there in the forest, but

how does the public know about it? There's no sign whatsoever

on Highway 20 designating that these are for park reserves — in

other words, that they can be used by the general public. On

that subject, I know that these things all cost money, but I

don't think it costs a lot of money to put a sign up that it is

a park area in a forest. I would also like to know how much

money is designated each year for the development of this type

of park.

Last but not least, I know that I'll get the old static as

that's about the only response that you get to questions like

this, but time moves on. I want to refer to abandoned forest

roads — thousands of miles of them in the Province of British

Columbia where they were authorized and built by a logging

company. The timber is cut, the operator leaves and the road is

there. Over the period of years — this again where the left arm

of the Minister doesn't know what the right arm is doing — the

citizens apply for land along these abandoned roads, and they

are granted land applications by the Lands department on Crown

land, whether it be for agriculture or a residential site. It

usually happens while the logging is in operation. Then the

logging ceases and the forestry department pulls out and so do

the loggers.

Where the citizen thought that he had access, he finds out

all of a sudden that after having lived there for five years he

hasn't got any — it's not in the highway system. The Forest

Service take their usual cop-out and say that they have no more

to do with it because the logging is all finished. Is that the

way to treat the citizens of our province?

This Minister's budget is spending $144 million. Isn't there

a few thousand dollars in there for maintenance of these roads?

They don't want them paved, but they like them snow-ploughed in

the winter and maybe graded once a summer. The forestry

department has all this equipment. I might say that they do a

better job, when it is working, than the Highways department's

equipment. There is no question about that. The only trouble

with it is that it doesn't work enough or in the right

places.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You don't want the empire extended even

further, do you?

MR. FRASER: Other than the fact that these roads were all

permitted by the prior administration, you were elected in 1972

and that wasn't yesterday. You haven't done anything about it.

What are you going to do about it? Are you going to keep on

saying no to these innocent citizens?

Another thing that you have done to these citizens is triple

their taxes. So they are contributing something, but they have

less public convenience than they ever had.

The other thing that comes under this Minister is

[ Page 2954 ]

rural electrification. The next thing that they want is

rural electrification. They apply to that conglomerate Hydro,

which finds all kinds of ways to turn them down if they can't

beat the money rap. If they haven't got the money, they come up

and say that where you live is not on a properly gazetted road

so you have to go to the Highways department and get them to

gazette the road. They go to the Forest Service who says that

they would be glad to get rid of it. So it goes to the Highways

department. Of course, you know what happens then. They say

that there is no way they are taking any roads over; they can't

look after the roads they have. So we have another social

problem — they can't get hydro.

It just compounds; one problem after the other, and it just

rolls on year after year. Everybody in the Forest Service sits

comfortably in their offices in the wintertime while there is

six feet of snow. The directors of Hydro are in their posh

offices while these people are shovelling the snow by hand,

trying to get their kids back and forth to school. That's a

disgraceful situation.

Don't say that I haven't tried to do something about it.

I've tried right up to the district forester. He just laughs

and says that they abandoned those roads a long time ago. That

is wrong. There are hundreds and hundreds of miles of these

roads in the province.

AN HON. MEMBER: How long ago Alex?

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Oh, go back to the

Stampede Cafe.

MR. FRASER: Right. You go back to the Stampede Cafe in

Lytton and see what Mr. Frank has to say about you.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's where he got bucked off a steer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. FRASER: At least he has nerve enough to get on one.

That's more than you have.

Interjections.

MR. FRASER: Anyway, those are a few more problems that have

been swept under that rug, Mr. Minister. It must be 10 feet now

with sweepings that have been swept under it. I would like some

answers this morning.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Regarding signs in recreation areas within provincial

forests, we have been hiding our light under a bushel in terms of this programme,

unlike the former administration. We have decided this might be the appropriate

time to improve the situation. I'm glad that the Member endorses the idea because

he will see many more signs in his constituency in the coming year. These will

be green and white as well as orange and whatever the other colour is.

MR. FRASER: Not orange. Don't make them orange — that's an

NDP colour.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It does get confusing doesn't it?

I would like him to know that there will be 2,127 signs

placed. I hope that the majority of them are in his

constituency. As well there will be $150,000 spent in this

budget, in terms of this particular vote, in the Cariboo forest

district for these recreational purposes in the forests.

Regarding the proposal of the Squamish-Lillooet people with

respect to Charlie Cunningham memorial wilderness area — I have

met with Mr. Cunningham in recent years and he was a strong

advocate of the protection of key wildlife habitat. I think

that the people of the region who knew him are equally

concerned. But that proposal has not yet gotten to our staff at

this level, however. It is something that will have to be

reviewed by the Environment and Land Use Secretariat by the

usual processes. If the Member wants to make a submission, or

if other people with ranching interests in the Cariboo want to

make a submission, it should probably be done fairly soon so

that all of the data is in and the attitudes and values of the

people in the area are reflected before a decision is made.

MR. FRASER: The Environment and Land Use Secretariat.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes.

On the question of road construction south of Vanderhoof

there were various studies by the Forest Service over the

years. The conclusion of the technical staff was that the best

orientation of the Kluskus area and the east Ootsa area would

be towards Vanderhoof, and the road is being constructed by the

Forest Service in relation to those earlier engineering and

technical forestry studies. The amount of road....

MR. FRASER: Is it being charged to Plateau Sawmills?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, it's a road being constructed by the

Forest Service.

MR. FRASER: That's exactly what I wanted to know.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: There were 17 miles built,

[ Page 2955 ]

not 50 miles; but that's not too far off base for the Hon.

Member.

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That's the kind of ratio that is an

improvement over the batting record of the last year.

But 13 miles will be constructed this year. So those are the

figures. Plateau Mills is undergoing a construction programme.

The construction programme, the capital programme, of Plateau

Mills is significant; it's $6.6 million. It's being handled

between Plateau Mills and British Columbia Cellulose, the Crown

corporation, and everything....

MR. FRASER: Yes, I just want to see that next week. Public

accounts.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Rots o' ruck.

The programme is ahead of

schedule and is under estimate,

and it's pretty well par for the course for these creative new

corporations and entities that we have in British Columbia.

Management is excellent. There is very good relationship with

the construction crews. It's proceeding extremely well. It's

not Yankee management. If we'd accepted what you people

probably would have done, it would have been IT&T, which is

something else again.

The manager of Plateau Mills grew up in the Rocky Mountain

trench of British Columbia — Mr. Lucier.

On the question of staffing, I always find it difficult

dealing with the schizophrenic comments of the opposition, on

the one side arguing that we have too many civil servants,

excessive staff, and on the other calling for more land

inspectors.

MR. FRASER: Too many executive assistants, not enough proper

civil servants.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Three.

The whole matter is a matter for Treasury Board and not

under my jurisdiction.

MR. FRASER: Has a freeze been put on the department for

hiring?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You'd have to check with the officers of

the Treasury Board with respect to this.

MR. FRASER: Oh, You're the Minister.

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

save his questions until the Minister has finished.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The problem of Mr. Bennett that was

covered yesterday is something that I indicated I would look

into further. I haven't had full reports yet from the staff in

that regard.

I think my comments about chips that were made yesterday are

equally appropriate for today.

The question of abandoned logging roads is a problem in

relation to rural settlers, but generally, where those kinds

of alienations take place the buyer is made fully aware of the

fact they don't have legal access, or maintained access to the

site at least, so that it isn't really feasible to assure that

kind of maintained access. British Columbia, I think, is the

only province in Canada that meets all of the costs

provincially of regional or secondary road systems. The logging

road system is a tertiary system beyond that. So the

maintenance of all these systems would be virtually impossible

financially. But generally this is looked at very carefully now

in relation to leases, and generally leases or alienations

wouldn't take place where there wouldn't be maintained

access.

The rural electrification question is something that we are

sympathetic to and are prepared to review in terms of the

formula.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, just one or two

questions. I am very interested in the Minister bringing us up

to date regarding one aspect of Can-Cel, and that is the plan

he announced two or three months ago to encourage the

purchasing of shares by the employees of Can-Cel. Questions

were asked, I remember, in the House that the government had

actually bought more shares — I think 272,400 shares — and the

Minister mentioned yesterday that the 79 per cent ownership had

gone up to 82 per cent, although at that time the Minister had

previously said that they might be selling shares just to

maintain 75 per cent ownership for the privileges which attach

to holding at least 75 per cent.

Now it seems an excellent idea to encourage participation in

ownership of a company by the employees. In fact, even the

Tories think that's a good idea and have set some examples

elsewhere by encouraging this. So I think the idea is sound. It

relates to incentive, I think, and I would hope it would

perhaps encourage a more stable management-employee

relationship with hopefully fewer disruptions in the sense of

fewer strikes.

I wonder if the Minister would tell us where his proposal is

at. I have a clipping here going back to the middle of March

saying that a decision would be made about the specific

proposal for the employees in the near future. How near is

near? I wonder if the decisions have been made.

The other question on the same subject is whether or not the

government has any intention of continuing to buy shares in

Can-Cel to the degree of obtaining 90 per cent of the shares so

that, as has

[ Page 2956 ]

happened with Plateau Mills, the government would not be

involved in paying federal income tax. We've commented in

previous debates about the fact that this government claims

that it is just being a competitor in the marketplace and they

don't understand why private enterprise should perhaps be

concerned about the government intrusion into the marketplace,

but if the government concerned don't pay federal income tax, it

makes it just a little difficult to compete on these terms. I

understand that Plateau Mills doesn't pay income tax and I

understand that Can-Cel does at the present time. But if this

government were to continue to increase its purchase of shares

from, I gather, 82 per cent, which the Minister said yesterday

was the approximate percentage owned by the government, by

buying another 8 per cent of shares, presumably it would then

be excluded from paying federal income tax and the profit

figures which the Minister was so proud of the other day would

further increase. But it would be, in a sense, unfair

competition to private companies which have to pay income tax.

I'd like the Minister to comment on that.

The other more general area I wondered if the Minister could

tell us about was the proposed committee of this Legislature on

forest tenure which was mentioned in the throne speech. The

exact quote from the throne speech said: "Following a number of

studies on the forest industry, my government will ask that a

legislative committee to consider terms of reference for an

inquiry into forest tenure policy in the province...." Of

course, the number of studies, I think, which were referred to

were particularly the Peter Pearse reports, which made the

point that tenures really favour the large companies over the

small ones, that more favourable terms apply. I gather that in

relation to some of the large tract licences the terms are over

a longer period of time and they are not subject to competitive

bidding, and I gather that the Minister is in favour of finding

out how perhaps a more equitable situation could be

reached.

I wonder also if the Minister could tell us then whether he

still means to set up this legislative committee, or is he

reconsidering in light of discussions and suggestions that we

go one step further and have a royal commission? I don't see

that if we have one we need the other. I presume that the

forest industry might merit a wide appraisal beyond just the

tenure system. So I wonder if the Minister could tell us if, in

fact, we are going to go ahead and set up this committee on

forest tenure, or is it possible that we may take an even wider

look at the situation by appointing a royal commission?

There are one or two smaller questions I would just like to ask, important

as they are. I know the Minister was very concerned about what seemed to be

a rather indifferent attitude by the federal government to the chlorine tank

cars which sank in the Malaspina Straits. I'm not up to date on the most recent

development, but I was trying to check it out last night and I notice that as

recently as the middle of April there seems to be a rather cavalier attitude

by the various party's concerned. The cars are owned by FMC Chemicals Ltd.,

and MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. own the contents of the cars, and it is said that

they are not interested in financing salvage efforts although the cars have

been located 785 feet deep in the water.

The spokesman for FMC Chemicals, and I'm quoting from his

statement on April 9, said: "It would cost more to raise them

than railcars and cargo are worth. As far as we know the

Minister of Transport is prepared to let them stay as long as

they are in deep water, and 785 feet is plenty deep."

Well, an interesting sidelight to this, it would seem to me,

is that while our technology can put a man on the moon, it

amazes me that we have had such a long drawn out, less than

efficient search for these cars. They sank sometime in February

— I can't recall the exact date — and it took many weeks to

locate them, and now that they have been located there seems to

be an avoidance of responsibility as to not only whether they

are going to be recovered, but as to who is going to take the

trouble to co-ordinate the effort, and who is going to finance

it.

I wonder if the Minister could tell us who is legally

responsible in this situation and what the precise danger is

from these sunken tank cars which contain 340 tons of

chlorine.

Another question involving money which I'd like to ask the

Minister is in regard to arrangements made in Seattle as to the

docking facilities for the Princess Marguerite. It was stated

that the British Columbia government had agreed to pay $25,000

for the car elevator at the Seattle docking facility, but I

also read later on that that was a temporary arrangement and

that actually costs might reach $800,000 for a new docking

facility to be installed at the Seattle pier in 1976. I wonder

if the Minister could explain the whole question of why we are

paying for something this year as a temporary measure and

whether or not we're committed. Have we come to an agreement

with the Washington state government to pay as much as $800,000

for this elevator next year?

The last question I wanted to ask was this: The Minister

made a very interesting policy statement less than a month ago

when he stated that it would become government policy to allow

local elected officials to have control over resource

management. The Minister stated that B.C. would become the

first province to have part of the natural resources governed

by locally elected representatives. The first specific example

that he referred to was the Slocan Valley. Apparently a

committee of Slocan Valley representatives and officials of the

resources department has already been set up.

[ Page 2957 ]

This would seem to me to be a very definite change in

direction in the management of local resources. We've got

municipal government, we've got regional government, and while

I favour the greatest possible local input in relation to

matters that can be handled locally, this would seem to be

quite a substantial change of direction in policy. I've great

respect for locally elected people on school boards and

municipal councils but I see regional districts, for example,

taking on more and more functions. As I've said many times in

this House I'm not the least bit amused by their performance in

the hospital field, certainly in this region.

While the Minister may want to be more specific, and I may

be making some wrong conclusions, although I like the motive to

give local people local control, I am wondering which elected

local representatives he envisages as filling this role. Does

he see them being another function of regional government? Or

is there to be a separate, specific kind of elected official?

Goodness knows, we're getting more and more of them all the

time, Mr. Chairman. We've got community resource boards and

we've got regional hospital boards and we've got regional

districts and we've got capital improvement commissions. I just

boggled a little bit when I read that here was the Minister

suggesting that we should perhaps have one further layer of

control, even as I say that it's a good concept to keep as much

local input, whether it be in hospitals or local government or

parks or what-have-you.

I wonder if the Minister could tell us one or two things.

First of all, in the general concept who will the elected

officials be? Will it be a new level of government with

specific, separate elections held for that purpose, perhaps

similar to the community resource boards? I hope not. I hope to

God it isn't, but we might as well know the unhappy truth if

that's the way it's going to be done. Secondly, does the

Minister plan to proceed just on a very slow, specific basis

from area to area?

Oh, the Minister is holding up one finger, which, I think,

means that the Slocan Valley is the one and only at the moment.

Does he intend to extend this if it's successful, or is this a

pilot project?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the work is only in the

Slocan Valley. That's essentially Slocan Lake and the New

Denver area in the north and the southern part of the Slocan

north of Castlegar. Slocan City is the main centre in

there.

It's genuinely seen as an experiment at this stage; we're not moving that quickly

in the area. I hope to get up into the region within the next month or so and

hold discussions with local people. It's essentially been under the guidance

of the assistant district forester in that region and is the follow-up on really

quite a good study by a local group of people concerned about resource management

in the valley.

I think that earlier reports were somewhat misleading, quite

frankly, in that we see this as a single situation at this stage. We see it

as very experimental. There are not that many regions of the province that are

like the Slocan that are that readily defined. It's an area where the new people

and the older settlers in the community have finally gotten together on a social

basis. There has been real social conflict in the region in the recent past

— that's been overcome. Part of the overcoming of those social conflicts has

been tied to their joint concern about management of resources. We saw that

as a healthy break in social conflict within the valley.

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: They created a society that, I think,

members could join for $1 or something like that. They

subsequently had an election of people from the society. But

there was a full blanket coverage of the valley in terms of who

wanted to participate. It's the kind of place where word of mouth is very quick. I think anybody that was interested had

the opportunity to participate and vote. But that was really on

the society basis. So that's really all that's taken place so

far.

In terms of the actual make-up of a board, as far as I know

that isn't finally determined yet. They've elected their own

leadership within their society but the make-up of a board

which might, say, comprise provincial official officials or

staff and some members from their society isn't yet determined,

as I understand it.

MR. WALLACE: Do you know the size of this?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: They've elected, I believe, about 12

people, if my memory serves me correctly. Again, that's just

for their association but I think a comparable size is

envisioned for the overall group. We regard it as very

experimental. We see it also as a means of significant

management changes with respect to the private tenures in the

valley as well. So there would be a trade-off in the sense that

these people would have some say in the management of the Crown

lands and, in turn, the group would have some say over the

management of the private land. So it would be a negotiated

kind of approach in that basin.

[Mr. Lockstead in the chair.]

The Princess Marguerite. The dock in Seattle has been

renovated. For those that made the trip, I think that the

terminal facilities on the old pier are really excellent. The

kind of modest renovations and so on have brightened it up

tremendously and make it a

[ Page 2958 ]

nice kind of port of entry for the City of Victoria. But

that is entirely temporary; it is for this year. We knew that

when we moved into the project. The $25,000 figure is correct,

but that was regarded as acceptable in terms of writing off the

cost over this year's volume of automobile traffic.

We want to carefully look at the automobile volume this year

and revenues before we make a decision with respect to

facilities on the new pier. The new Port of Seattle

headquarters, which is an excellent new structure — I don't

think it's complete yet — will become the permanent home in

Seattle of the Princess Marguerite. So again, the next port of

entry for Victoria from Seattle will become, in fact, the best

terminal facility in the port of Seattle. It will become

something of a shopping centre as well. So it will be an

exciting place for the Marguerite to pull in, just as the Inner

Harbour here will become more of an exciting place for the ship

as well.

Our options are open in terms of whether structurally these

other things will have to be done to handle automobile traffic.

The decision has to be made by the end of this season to

determine whether automobile movement will continue.

The question of the federal government. It's very tempting

to discuss the federal government generally and some of our

frustrations and some of the disappointments, particularly in

terms of proposals in Vancouver, but maybe I will forgo the

opportunity at this time. The chlorine tank car question: we

have to rely on the federal transport and environment agencies

since it is their jurisdiction. I understand that there have

been tests taken by MacMillan Bloedel and the Canadian Research

Council which indicate that there is no danger from these tanks

in the location they have looked at. That is all the

information I have at this stage.

The question of an inquiry, as indicated in the throne

speech, has been reconsidered by the government. The conclusion

is that because of limited time and other factors a different

approach would probably be desirable. It would more than likely

be, as the Member suggests, to directly consider a royal

commission in the near future with respect to the industry.

On the question of Canadian Cellulose and the employee share

system, there were near-final meetings just last night on this

question with representatives of Canadian Cellulose. That is

proceeding very quickly. I think that a firm announcement can

be made in the next few weeks. I think the basics have all been

resolved at this stage. The position of the government is one

of endorsing the, principle of employee equity in situations

like this. I am pleased that the Conservatives endorse that

principle. It may be too radical for Her Majesty's Loyal

Opposition to yet accept but wearing away on the stone it just

might happen.

The 90 per cent question with respect to the public

ownership in Canadian Cellulose is not anything that is being

considered at this time. In fact, we would be cutting back our

ownership within the corporation by establishing the employee

equity system.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): The Minister undoubtedly

knows about the logging operation we have in the upper valley,

which perhaps is not unique in the province but which does

occupy a good percentage of the logging activity in our area.

It is the matter of salvage logging. The operation is highly

selective and it's one that depends on the decision of the

foresters as regards timber sales. In bygone years the timber

sales have been in allotments of 600 to 800 acres. More

recently these timber sales have been cut down to 100-acre

allotments with a maximum of two timber sales per operation. We

have something approaching 40 independents in our area

employing something like 120 men. The operation revolves around

the production of cedar products — shakes, shingles, et cetera.

The operators have been in contact with me and let me know

that they have potential sales of perhaps twice as much product

as they can presently put on the market because of lack of

supply.

My question to the Minister is whether or not he has had any

indication from his chief forester that there will perhaps be a

new look given to the allotment size because of timber sales

that are available.

The forester will also let you know, Mr. Minister, that the

operations up there have been efficient. There has been an

impingement on the amount of wood that they can take out

because of the 30 per cent grade regulation. They do have

highly sophisticated equipment together with highly portable

spar trees, et cetera. I'm wondering if the Minister is going

to give consideration to extra allotments of timber sales,

perhaps larger timber sales, so that these people can not only

keep their operations in operation but can also meet an area

where there still is a heavy demand for their particular

product. It's an area of cedar products. I would like to know

what the Minister has to say.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Certainly there is some review going on

at the moment. We are prepared to look at possible adjustments

in that area. At the request of the Hon. Member for Dewdney

(Mr. Rolston) we have reviewed some of these matters. That's

why some of the work is underway now. In addition, I think

there were some adjustments in stumpage. Again, I think we can

thank the Hon. Member for Dewdney, and I presume the Hon.

Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) has expressed some

concern as well. The Member for Dewdney

[ Page 2959 ]

keeps looking after both sides of the river.

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

bring up a few points about the problems being experienced by

the farmers in the Nicomekl-Serpentine area of Surrey.

The other day in the House I asked the Minister what was

happening in that area, if anything. The Minister indicated to

me at that time that he didn't feel there were ongoing studies

at the moment, or if there were he didn't know about them.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, that's the indication I got.

The Minister referred to the Fraser River flood control

programme which was turned down for that area last October —

turned down for reasons of....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Just on the point, Mr. Chairman, if the

Member agrees, I'd just like to clarify the statement, if it is

not clear.

MR. McCLELLAND: Okay.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: On the basis of the normal 200-year

flood design, this would not qualify for federal-provincial

sharing. What has since happened is that we're looking at

modified design that would be acceptable, probably — certainly

to the people in the valley — which would mean a lower capital

cost. That work isn't done yet, but at least that is underway

at the moment — to see if a modified programme, in fact, might

be applied to the Nicomekl-Serpentine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

That's good news, to some degree anyway. I'd just like to

comment, though, that the study that was done regarding the

federal-provincial sharing under the Fraser River flood control

programme was a pretty surface study. When they turned it down,

they turned it down purely for their own economic reasons. They

said that the $10 million cost was 10 times the benefit that

would be reached, or something like that.

I don't know whether the Minister is aware, but there was never any consideration

given of the potential benefit of future crop potential in that area. Nobody

in the area was consulted in that study. The farmers weren't consulted. In fact,

it was very embarrassing at the meeting that was held in Surrey when it turned

out the Agriculture department wasn't even consulted. They were quite upset

that nobody from the study had seen fit to come and see them and talk about

it because they could have given some pretty substantial reasons for the programme

going ahead.

I hope that programmes now being considered will not deal

only with drainage because it's a far more serious problem than

just drainage. I know that one of the Minister's staff has said

that the priority would seem to be a drainage problem first and

a flood control problem second. But that's not necessarily so,

especially with the population increases in the area. The flood

control problem is becoming a more and more serious problem

because, as I've mentioned in this House before, as the uplands

get stripped and black topped then the run-off becomes much more

of a problem. So it is a flood control problem as much as, in

fact maybe even more than, a drainage problem in the area.

Recently the Agriculture minister made a statement publicly

that the government is definitely committed to do something in

that area. Now I'd like to know what and when because there are

300 or 400 farmers involved in there who need that programme

for their livelihood. I've mentioned this in the House before,

Mr. Chairman, that it is the only area in western Canada that

is capable of producing produce of the kind and quality the

area does produce.

It has the potential, given the proper flood control and

drainage programme, to double and triple its production. This

means that the housewife in Vancouver, the consumer in

Vancouver, will have a steadier supply of locally grown produce

at cheaper prices. When the produce is available from that area

right now, the price drops noticeably in the Vancouver market.

I think that reason alone would be enough reason to make this a

No. 1 priority project. For years people have been saying that

something was going to be done in that area, yet nothing gets

done.

In October, at the meeting in Surrey which I mentioned, it

was said that the Land Commission would take a look at this

problem and perhaps be the vehicle or the agency by which some

kind of plan could be developed. Over the period of time since

October not much seems to have happened. Mr. Runka of the Land

Commission keeps saying that he expects further information

from someone and that a meeting with the Surrey diking people

will be held at a later date.

The diking problem is getting worse each year, and it's

primarily getting worse because of this development in the

uplands. The property is being more adversely affected as each

year goes by and it should have been vital that something

happened this year. But it's too late now because the diking

work would have had to have started this month if there was to

have been anything done. But certainly for the next year's

growing season something should be done

[ Page 2960 ]

in that area.

As late as the end of May, first of June, the Surrey diking

district, and others in Surrey, were in contact again with Mr.

Runka of the Land Commission.

Mr. Runka said we would hear something in the next couple of

weeks. That was April 21. Mr. Runka said:

"We hope to have further information available from the Environment

and Land Use Committee Secretariat on the Nicomekl-Serpentine basin in the next

couple of weeks. It is our hope that this will also help form a base for consideration

of the drainage planning for the watershed."

Again, Mr. Chairman, a reference only to drainage. I think

the farmers are capable, probably with a little help, of

handling the drainage. I don't think that is their main

concern. They really want to see this government involved as

well in diking and flood control, not only drainage.

So the questions that are being asked at the moment either

of the Land Commission, of the environment and land use

secretariat, or of the Minister or whoever is actively pursuing

this matter — and I would assume it has to be the Minister's

office — are: Does the government intend to take an active

part

in solving the problems of not only drainage but diking and

flood control in that important agricultural basin? When we

will have some news about an appraisal of those studies that

are apparently going on now and have been going on for so long?

Will any deliberations now take into account the cooperation

of the Department of Agriculture, of the farmers in the area

and of the Greater Vancouver Regional District?

Since Mr. Lane was the person who gave the commitment that

the Land Commission would get involved, I wonder.... I know

that this is outside the Minister's jurisdiction, but I wonder

if he could tell me whether Mr. Lane's leaving will have any

effect on the outcome of the decisions that are made.

I want to impress on the Minister, Mr. Chairman, that there

is a real urgency in this matter and it is getting worse every

year. The possibility is acute that if nothing is done that

land will revert to seawater and will go out of farm

production, depriving British Columbia of the finest

agriculturally productive area in western Canada, depriving us

of what can rightfully be called the salad bowl of western

Canada.

So, Mr. Chairman, I wish that the Minister would recognize

the urgency of this and give us some commitment that we will

see some relief in that area in the very near future.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't think much more can

be said. I don't have a firm date for those studies. I would expect probably

the next few months. That's simply a guess on my part at this stage. There has

already been some $2 million spent on the Serpentine-Nicomekl with respect to

flood control, right at the King George Highway. I appreciate that there are

these problems of upland owners and the fast runoff because of extensive urban

development in the uplands. There is nothing to prevent a levy on the upland

lands to share in terms of the programme on the lower lands. That takes place

in other municipalities in the province. Chilliwack, for example, charges the

whole municipality for diking and doesn't limit it to just one particular section,

since they seem to think — and I think legitimately — that everybody benefits

from the control.

The economic studies that were undertaken were undertaken by

the federal government. It was their analysis and their

analysis of the market for farm products that ended up in

concluding that on the former capital cost basis the project

couldn't be justified.

MR. McCLELLAND: But they never....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, go after your local Tory, former

Socred, or whatever he is, and....

MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, no, but you have to have some interest

in that, too.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: True, but there is a problem of

priorities that's pretty genuine. We have about $14 million in

the budget this year for that programme, the federal-provincial

programme, and the federal people have been tightening the

purse-strings with respect to that programme. We have been

prepared to move as fast as is technically feasible with

respect to that programme, but in fact the foot-dragging has

been taking place at the federal level in recent months as a

result of their Treasury Board directives and activities.

We are sympathetic to moving in this area. We have problems

with the federal government, even in terms of those that meet

all of their economic criteria, and the Serpentine-Nicomekl

comes a long way from meeting those criteria. So the major

areas on the main stem of the Fraser River are the ones that

are proceeding. That is probably reasonable. There is a

pull-back at the federal level with respect to this programme

and we are going to have more discussions with them in terms of

moving it along on the scale that we would like to see it move

along.

Once material is available on this basis.... The Hon.

Member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Hall) and the Member for Delta (Mr.

Liden) have also expressed concern, and the information will be

available to all of the MLAs and parties that are

interested.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, just a brief

[ Page 2961 ]

follow-up. Would the Minister confirm that the studies will

include not only drainage but some modified form of flood

control as well? About the comment about the uplands paying, I

agree that perhaps something should be done in that area, but

it doesn't solve the problem at the moment. The Chilliwack

thing doesn't really relate to this problem, because we are

talking not only of the whole municipality but more than one

municipality. It crosses the municipal boundaries if you take

in all of the development in those upland areas. So it's a

little more complicated than what might be happening in other

parts of the province at the moment.

Perhaps the most obvious question and one I should have

asked before it: is the Minister convinced and is the Minister

committed to keeping that area in farm production? If so, then

it's mandatory that something happen pretty quickly; if not,

the land will go out of farm production.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I don't think, Mr. Chairman, that there

is much doubt that the government is in favour of preserving

the agricultural role of that area. Certainly it's all within

the land reserve. I don't think Mr. Lane leaving as chairman

will affect any of the programmes. In fact, they have an

excellent technical staff and the rest of the commission is

fully familiar with the area, as I understand it.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I just have a few brief questions

to ask of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources,

mainly relating to particular concerns of my constituency.

The first involves the interdepartmental study that his

department is doing in the Nahmint Valley near Port Alberni.

We've had some excellent cooperation on the study from the

company involved — MacMillan Bloedel. They've stopped logging in

the area and they've provided some of their staff and some of

their facilities to do a complete resource analysis in that

valley. They've also been cooperating with various departments

of government — the Forest Service, fish and wildlife branch,

Department of Recreation and Conservation — to do a complete

resource analysis of the area before their logging. It's good

to see this kind of thing happening, as it never did happen

under the previous government.

For those Members who aren't familiar with the Nahmint

Valley of the Port Alberni area, it's an extremely beautiful

watershed. It's been relatively untouched over the past many,

many years. Many of the people in Alberni use it as a kind of

recreational Shangri-La where they can get away from the noise,

the smell and the activity in Port Alberni and escape to a

beautiful lake and a beautiful river system that has fish,

hiking potential and recreation potential that is

unbelievable.

I think this Minister has implemented many practices that

have met with the approval of people concerned about recreation

and concerned about the environment based on his guidelines

that were introduced on September 29, 1972. He has reduced

clearcut openings, he has distributed logging so that there is

less of an impact on watersheds, less of an impact...

AN HON. MEMBER: What's your question?

MR. SKELLY: I'm working up to the question, Mr. Member.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: ...less of an impact on the recreational and

the wildlife and fisheries values of these watersheds. He has

met with some opposition from companies as a result of this.

But I think in the case of the Nahmint Valley he has received a

lot of cooperation from the company in that area, mainly

because the people of Port Alberni value this area so much.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

As a result of the initiative of this MLA, we had a

moratorium imposed on the Nahmint Valley for two years. That

didn't happen under the previous government or under the

previous Member for Alberni (Mr. McDiarmid), who didn't realize

the importance of areas such as Nahmint or such as Nitinat. He

felt that the only way you could get in there was with a

chainsaw and an axe. As a result, he is practising medicine in

Oak Bay now, I understand. The government did impose that

moratorium. I appreciate the activity of the government in that

area because it is extremely valuable for recreation and it is

extremely valuable for fisheries. I am pleased to see a study

is being done.

However, that moratorium is about to expire this summer if

it hasn't expired already. I would like to know just what the

Minister is planning to do now that these studies have been put

together. Now that a lot of the information has been put

together and collated, is the Minister going to allow public

discussion in public hearings on the future of the Nahmint

Valley and the Nahmint drainage?

I recall a few months ago writing to the Minister asking him

to hire a landscape architect as a consultant in that valley as

kind of a precedent for British Columbia. The Minister will

recall our report on forestry and fisheries that was completed

back in October, 1973, when the committee was empowered to look

into the problems of streambank logging and streambank

management. We recommended that in watersheds such as the

Nahmint consulting landscape

[ Page 2962 ]

architects be hired to determine the shape and the alignment

of clearcut openings in order to reduce the impact of those

openings on the people who use that valley for recreation.

The Ontario government has published logging operation

guidelines that were drawn up by landscape architects. I

believe they are now in use in Ontario to make sure that the

alignment and the type of clearcut openings that are done in

Ontario don't have an adverse impact on people who use the

logging areas for recreation.

I wonder just what the Minister has done with regard to

retaining a landscape architect in that area. Also, as far as

the recommendations of that forestry and fisheries committee

report, what has the Minister done to see that landscape

architects are hired throughout the various forest management

regions of the province to make sure that the impact of logging

is minimized on people who use logging areas for recreation and

for fish and wildlife? I would like the Minister to answer that

question.

MR. CHABOT: I just happen to have the answer.

MR. SKELLY: I'm not sure that you do, Mr. Member. Otherwise

it would have come sometime during the past 20 years.

My second question has to do with the Ehattesaht Logging

Co-operative which has been established in the Barr Creek area

near Zeballos. Over the past several years the Ehattesaht

Indian band has attempted to obtain timber in the areas which

they traditionally consider Ehattesaht lands in the Barr

Creek–Nootka Sound–Kyuquot Sound area.

After many years of unsuccessful negotiation with the

provincial government, under Social Credit, when the new

government came into power they were able to get timber in that

area and they were able to set up a logging operation. The

purpose of this logging operation is to support the economic

and social development objectives of that band.

When they approached this government they presented a case

for the timber. The proceeds were supposed to go into economic

and social development. As a result, this Minister, who was

receptive to their requests, provided a timber sale which was

posted last year. The Ehattesaht Indian Band were the

successful bidders on that timber sale, and they have been

operating in that timber for almost a year now. They made their

first sale of logs in Vancouver, and they are at work on a

clearcut opening in the Barr Creek valley this year.

From all the reports that I received from the Department of

Indian Affairs and from the B.C. Forest Service, the work that

the Indian people are doing in the Barr Creek area is of

extremely high quality.

I would just like to read a letter from the director of the B.C. region. It

is addressed to him from Mr. D.R.W. Britt, District Forester, Department of

Indian Affairs, north and south Vancouver Island district. This is a

summary

of a report he has done on the Barr Creek logging operation.

"In

summary I would like to mention one additional point.

The physical aspects of this operation are impressive. But what

is even more impressive to me is the attitude of the Ehattesaht

workers. These men are putting up with living and working

conditions that other loggers would never accept. They live in

an old apartment in Zeballos without hot water; they make their

own meals and pack their own lunches. They travel from Zeballos

to Barr Creek daily in an old fish boat and a small speedboat.

Then they have to walk about a mile and a half into the

worksite. Union members would never show such cooperation. I

am hopeful that the representatives from ARDA who have visited

this operation can appreciate the effort these people are

making.

"The lack of financing has not only put these people under

a great deal more working pressure, it has substantially

reduced the efficiency of the operation. Unless the B.C. Forest

Service makes a special consideration, the co-op will lose a

portion of their annual allowable volume because they are at

least two months behind schedule."

I understand from my contacts within the federal government

that the special ARDA application for the Ehattesaht Logging

Co-operative has been approved by this province. It has been

approved by the federal Minister of the Department of Regional

Economic Expansion, and it has been approved by the federal

Treasury Board. But payment of funds is now being held up

pending agreement by the province to the extension of the

special ARDA agreement. I would like to say that, as far as I

know up to this point, no agreement for the extension of

special ARDA has been presented to this government for their

approval. No agreement has been presented, yet funds are being

held up by the federal government for this operation.

I would like to ask the Minister if he would be willing to

make representations to the federal government requesting

payment of the funds that were approved under the previous

special ARDA agreement that passed all the approval procedures

provincially and federally before the extension was

required.

I think it would be a shame if the federal government forced

a very successful example of Indian economic development into

bankruptcy in order to prove a political point against this

provincial government.

I'd also like to know if the Forest Service would

[ Page 2963 ]

be willing to permit some variation in the annual allowable

cut if the federal government delays funding for too long.

My third question has to do with the villages of Tahsis,

Zeballos. In both of those villages tree farm licence lands are

included right inside the village boundary. This has been a

hindrance in the past to development of those villages,

development for housing, for parks and recreation and for other

municipal purposes. It also limits the authority of the local

government over the operations of the companies that are

working within those tree farm licence lands. I would like to

know if the Minister is willing to examine the problems being

faced by those villages to determine whether tree farm licence

lands should be excluded from municipal boundaries and just

what he plans to do about those tree farm licence lands in the

near future.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the

Ehattesaht Indian band and the work they're doing in logging

operations on the west coast of the island, I don't think

there's any doubt that the federal report the Hon. Member

quoted from is so. This is another one of the kind of unsung,

unreported, important moves in terms of involving the Indian

people in the harvesting and development of resources in

British Columbia.

Most people are aware of Burns Lake. Most people, however,

aren't aware of the kind of pioneering work that's been done by

the Ehattesaht band. If it weren't for the actions of the

Member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), it wouldn't have happened;

it's as simple as that.

The Member's concerned. He went through all of the

difficulties with respect to the mixture and complications of

tenure in the region and continued to pursue on behalf of these

people an opportunity for them to take

part in their own region

and to create their own work with the use of public resources,

and that in fact has happened with extremely difficult

odds.

They've put up with work situations that most people in the

province simply wouldn't put up with at all, and it's to their

credit and to the Member's credit. In terms of the allowable

cut, there's no question that the Forest Service will maintain

the present level of allowable cut. The kind of difficulties

they've had are certainly understood.

MR. CHABOT: Xerox 10,000 and send them to your riding.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, you know, you can say that, but I find that

this kind of close work with the Indian people just hasn't been happening with

the Members from the official opposition. It's the work like the Member for

Alberni's (Mr. Skelly'

s) that is ending up in productive activities on the part

of the Indian people.

The last time I was in the Cariboo, for example, I met with

representatives of 15 Indian bands. It's a very long time since

the Member for the Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) met with those 15

Indian bands. So that's just the pattern that....

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, very good, very good.

I happen to think that results are important, and where

we're getting results is in Alberni, not in the central

Okanagan Valley. Any results we're getting in the central

Okanagan are the result of government activity, where they

never had an MLA that worked for them for 20 years and don't

seem to have one now. Now they're getting parks in the Okanagan

that they never, never saw in 20 years of Social Credit.

Interjections.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: At last, at last, they're getting action

from government in the Okanagan Valley in terms of preserving

their amenities at long, long last. At long, long last some

service in the Okanagan.

On the question of the Nahmint Valley, again the activities

of the Member for Alberni spurred on the various resource

departments to see to it that a more careful approach was taken

in the basin. That in fact is what has been done. There has

been considerable work with respect to the estuary, fish and

wildlife questions, forestry questions and the like. As a

result, we do now have a very good inventory base and data base

to work from. This material certainly will be made available to

the public, and we're certainly prepared to consider a public

meeting to discuss the programme in that basin.

The Member for Alberni, as chairman of the legislative

committee on environment and resources, in the past has urged

the hiring of landscape architects to work with the Forest

Service. We are prepared to accept the recommendation of the

Member for Alberni, and the Nahmint will be the first basin

that we use a landscape architect in.

With respect to the question of tree farm licences, inside

the villages it's an extremely difficult problem, as the Member

for Alberni states. Again this message has been brought home to

me by the Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) as well. The problems

in Port McNeill and Port Hardy similarly are very difficult.

The tree farm licences go right into the towns, and the towns

are squeezed in terms of reasonable development land. Were it

not for the incredibly one-sided agreements in the tree farm

licences of the former government, we wouldn't have

difficulties.

[ Page 2964 ]

But all we can take back out of the tree farm licences is

one-half of 1 per cent of the allowable cut with respect to the

licences, and that's for roads, for power rights-of-way, for

parks, for towns, for whatever public need there is.

The industry would argue that there should be compensation

for getting back our own public lands from outside of the tree

farm licence for such obvious things as roads, power line

rights-of-way, ecological reserves or town expansion. That

doesn't seem to me reasonable at all. That, I'm sure, would be

something that any inquiry would consider in the near future

with respect to the strengthening and giving more freedom to

these towns in northern Vancouver Island, and throughout the

province, that are frustrated because of these tenure problems

right within their boundaries. I appreciate the questions from

the Hon. Member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) and I hope there are

more in the same vein.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I am sure that the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources does appreciate

the questions from the Member for Alberni because it has long

been established, both in this House and in this province at

large, that that Member is nothing short of a mouthpiece for

this Minister. When this Minister wants to fly a point and get

a public reaction, it isn't done through his own mouth. He uses

that poor little Member for Port Alberni who doesn't have the

ability to recognize that he's being pulled on a string like a

puppet, a puppet to statism...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MRS. JORDAN: ...that the people of this province are

rejecting.

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources is incapable of looking the people of this province

in the eye....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Alberni on

a point of order.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Is it a point of order?

MR. SKELLY: It's a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman. As

opposed to the Member who has just spoken, my mouth is

connected to my brain, not to anybody else's.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not a point of privilege. I would ask the Hon. Member

to...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...frame her questions so that they deal with

the administrative responsibilities of the Minister.

MRS. JORDAN: I must express some sadness at the tragic

confession by the Member for Alberni in his last statement. I'm

afraid I must confess that we have had our suspicions, but now

they've been confirmed.

If you wish me to frame this in the form of a question, Mr.

Chairman, I hope you will give the Member for North Okanagan

the same latitude in this debate that you have given other

people. I'd like to ask the Minister when he's going to use

that poor, innocent Member for Alberni again. We know that it

was the Minister's pulling of the strings of the Member for

Alberni that made it very clear to the public of British

Columbia that Crown corporations will receive special

privileges in order to show a profit and in order to appear to

achieve success. We find it just a little amazing and a little

shocking that that Member isn't somewhat concerned about the

role he's having to play before the public of British Columbia,

because the public wants truth in government, they want

responsibility in government. They don't want to be part of

this Minister's programme of elbowing small people out of the

market area and elbowing small businesses into bankruptcy in

order that he can further his socialist dreams of complete

state control in this province.

We recognize that he has this obsession with pushing around

these little people and ripping off the average little

businessman with his own money. It's a matter of great

concern.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: What's your question?

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Public

Works has finally woken up and asked what the question is.

I'd like you to refer back to Hansard of May 12,

1975, when the Minister was answering a question which I had

previously put to him, and I'll repeat the context of my

concern and the question. It does regard Silver Star Park, not,

as the Minister thinks, Silver Star Mountain. Silver Star Park

in the North Okanagan–Shuswap area was a park of a Class C

nature, designated by the former administration many years ago

with the purpose that the local people should develop

recreational activities in the area with particular reference

to skiing.

This has been very successfully completed. The skiing at

Silver Star Mountain today is recognized as the happy child of

every skier. No matter how

[ Page 2965 ]

proficient they are, they still recognize that Silver Star

offers excellent family skiing, and is an area that most of

them like to try once in a while. It has gained wide reputation

as a family ski area because it combines ample opportunity for

the novice as well as considerable challenge for the more

experienced skier. It has been administered by a local parks

board up until about a year ago, and it hasn't been without

its problems.

But the problem that we face today is considerably more

difficult than those we faced in the past, and that is that up

until the interference by this Minister's designate, there has

been a long, ongoing discussion between the Department of

Recreation and Conservation, which everyone presumed did

administer and was responsible for the parks in this province,

and the North Okanagan Regional District.

There were one or two areas of contention, and one area of

contention was that there were forces that work within the

North Okanagan who wish to put extensive condominium

developments in the park, and this was opposed by the majority

of the citizens, and this now is agreed by the regional

district as being an undesirable addition to the park for

obvious reasons. Because of time, I won't go into them.

However, everyone was of the understanding, Mr. Chairman,

that the negotiations had reached virtual conclusion, with the

exception of drafting the formal agreement, that the lands

would be turned over to administration by the North Okanagan

Regional District, with the proviso there be no commercial

development in the park, with the exception of that directly

associated with skiing and that there would be an emphasis by

the regional district to expand the opportunities for other

activities in the park.

It has now come about, by rumour, from the Department of

Lands, that there is to be a levy placed against capital

investment in the park, nature unknown, of approximately 8 per

cent. I pose this question to the Minister, asking if, in fact,

it was a policy of the Lands department and if it would apply

to Silver Star Park. On May 12, 1975, he said: "Regarding

Silver Star Mountain, there has been no change in policy to

date."

I bring this up, Mr. Chairman, because I find the Minister's

answer most incomplete and inadequate for such a competent

Minister. I feel that the citizens of the area and of the

regional district have a right to know:

(1) Is there a policy evolving in the lands branch that is to be applicable

to parkland in British Columbia, that when these lands are turned over to

the regional districts for local administration, there will in fact be a charge?

(2) Is the revenue from that charge to be paid to the regional district or

to the provincial government, and, if to the provincial government, which

branch?

(3) Who is indicating and ordering that this levy should be made?

Is it to be a term of condition with particular reference to Silver Star,

of the turnover of these lands to the administration of the regional district

by the lands branch, and under what authority?

If the levy is to apply, on what basis is it to apply? Are

these the capital assets of the public company that is in there

now offering a ski service to the people of the area and the

province as a whole? Or is it to be levied against the regional

district for roads that have been built by mutual cooperation

in the past and other works that have been done in the area,

although they are relatively few?

I have no particular intent to defend the company, but I

don't want to see them falsely accused. They have, and the

citizens of the area will agree, provided a very valuable

public service in terms of recreational skiing in our area, and

the impetus of that company and the development of recreation

in the winter in our area has done a great deal to balance our

winter economy. Once again, this is one of the reasons why

there has been strong concern because of the location of the

park, just 14 miles from the downtown core, that the

recreational aspects après-ski should take place outside

the park boundaries.

If the Minister is levying this against the company, on what

basis is he doing this? Has he examined their books? Does he

consider them to be making an excessive profit? Is he aware

that the chances are that this increased levy will fall upon

the local skiers, and that Vernon has enjoyed, through Silver

Star Park and Silver Star Sports, most reasonably priced skiing

in terms of the cost of skiing in other parts of the province

and other parts of western Canada and the United States? I

assure you, Mr. Minister, that the families in that area will

not look kindly upon any increase in skiing costs for the

family to fatten the coffers of the socialist government.

I also wish to assure you that they feel that the skiing

operation has served their needs, but they also do not wish to

see, in the turning over of this class C park to the regional

district any increase in their taxes for major programmes in

the park.

I have a number of points I want to bring up. Would the

Minister like to answer this one, and then I'll continue with

my questions, with Mr. Chairman's permission? This is very

important to the people in the area, and there have been

conflicting statements from your department.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, I would think most of the points

could be covered under the numerous votes that follow. But with

respect to Silver Star, I certainly agree with the Hon. Member

that it is a very significant facility and that many of the

local people have contributed a great deal to seeing it

become

[ Page 2966 ]

what it is. There is a benefit to everyone. I've enjoyed it

myself, and can vouch for that.

The question of transfer of land, however, at the provincial

level is primarily the responsibility of the lands branch, so

that while the Department of Recreation and Conservation has

proceeded, I think, with the bulk of the work, the official

transfer of the land is the responsibility of the Lands

department. That's a matter that's under review.

As far as I am concerned as Minister there is no firm policy

with respect to a formula regarding the transfer. I would be

pleased to meet with the Member privately and with

representatives of the groups from the North Okanagan who are

directly involved should they request that. I think that might

be the more productive thing to do in this case.

MRS. JORDAN: I appreciate the Minister's comments. I must

gather from the Minister's statement that in fact the North

Okanagan Regional District and the parks branch had not come to

a point of agreement and it was merely a matter of formality in

drafting the agreement.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes. Legally it is the Lands

department's prerogative.

MRS. JORDAN: There will now have to be discussions involving

the lands branch officially. I appreciate the Minister's

assistance. I will arrange this. I must say quite frankly that

this is going to come as a shock to those in the regional

district who felt they have been negotiating in good faith. It

comes to a shock to me as an MLA when, having met with the

Minister of Recreation (Mr. Radford), I was led to believe that

this idea wasn't even entertained.

However, I will accept the Minister's invitation to make arrangements for a

meeting very soon. I would hope that they could come down next week because

there is a matter of urgency in this. There are works that must be carried on

in that park in order to just maintain present sanitary standards as well as

the skiing maintenance.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We might discuss the date. I will be

away from the House for a period but I would be glad to make it

as soon as possible.

MRS. JORDAN: I would also assume from the Minister's

statement that the department has been entertaining a policy

whereby there will be a levy against provincial lands such as

Silver Star Park, Class C provincial park, in one form or

another when it is turned over to the regional districts. That

is why I brought it up under the Minister's salary and not

under the specific vote.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think that remains to be seen and I

think that it could be covered under vote 128, which is where

the normal Lands charges are made.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm glad to return the floor for adjournment of

the debate but, Mr. Minister, if I discuss it under the vote I

would like your assurance here in Hansard that if I

touch on policy it won't be ruled out of order.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, as far as I am concerned.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress

and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1975, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada