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

Night Sitting

[ Page

3003 ]

CONTENTS

Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 107). Hon. Mr. Nimsick.

Introduction and first reading — 3003

Fair Fees Act (Bill 121). Mr. Curtis. Introduction and first reading —

Committee of Supply: Department of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources estimates.

On vote 126. Mr. Fraser — 3003

On a point of order. Mr. Chairman — 3025

Point of order Naming of Mr. McGeer — 3027

Division on motion to suspend Mr. McGeer from service of the House —

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I ask

leave of the House to permit debate in Committee of Supply for

this evening's sitting.

Leave granted.

Introduction of bills

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

Hon. Mr. Nimsick presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Petroleum and Natural Gas

Amendment Act, 1975.

Bill 107 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

FAIR FEES ACT

On a motion by Mr. Curtis, Bill 121, Fair Fees Act,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

House after today.

Orders of the day

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. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I don't think we should rush

these things. There's $144 million here, don't forget. I have a

few short questions for the Minister.

I would like to know the Forest Service's policy on cedar.

Where it is in sustained units, it is my understanding that

cedar is being burned on the orders of the Forest Service, I

believe there is a market for this and I believe there are

people who would go into sawmill setups. I don't think it's a

large item but the public demand is for the cedar product.

In my riding in the Cariboo east of Williams Lake there is quite a bit of cedar,

decadent and otherwise, and I understand that people are trying to find out

whether you can get this to cut. They just get a runaround from the Forest Service.

I was wondering if the Minister has had this brought to his attention. I would

like to hear what he intends to do about it — to let the quota holders continue

burning it, or would he encourage an industry to set up to cut this and have

something for the public demand for it?

Yes, I realize that the Minister has had some advice from

behind and some of the quota holders might be a little upset.

But I am thinking of the public demand for this product and I

think something could be devised if a little effort was put

into it so it could be segregated out, and the Crown could get

some revenue from it and the public of the Province of British

Columbia would get a product they want.

Another observation I have is that in the budget this year —

the budget of $3.2 billion — on the revenue side there is an

amount of $135 million to be derived from revenue from

stumpage. In view of the fact that the accountant of the Forest

Service is here and I know they are very up to date, I would

like to know what they received in the first month of the new

fiscal year, April, 1975. It is my opinion that of the budgeted

amount of $135 million they will only get about half this

amount. This should have shown up in the April

summary that was

taken off. I realize it is too soon to know what happened in

May, but in that one month of April maybe it would set the

course where we can have an idea whether it is going to be $135

million.

I am not suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that the stumpage be

raised because of economic conditions of the market and the

operators. What I am saying is that I think there is an

overestimate here on the revenue side. Maybe it should be

adjusted. The Minister of Finance will certainly be upset with

this Minister if he wakes up at the end of March, 1976, and

finds out that $70 million has been collected. Really, what I

am trying to do is keep the Minister out of trouble with the

Minister of Finance at this early stage in the game.

I want to go back again to the Indian problems. I watch

closely all the news media and public comment regarding Indian

land claims and such — they are going to do this, they are

going to do that. But they have already done it in the riding

of Cariboo, and it is a year old — they have blocked off forest

roads. It is on this Minister's desk and nothing has

happened.

The native Indians have blocked off a whole area in the

Cariboo, and will not permit logging in the west side of the

Narcosli forest district.

Again, for the benefit of Hansard , I refer to the

area from Nazko — spelled N-a-z-k-o — to Baezacko — and I am not

going to try to spell that. But that is the area of the

Narcosli forest district.

No logging has been able to take place since May of 1975

because they threatened the quota holders.

They took a lowbed with a D-8 on it to build roads, and the

natives stopped them. That little problem is that they have

been there for a year.

[ Page 3004 ]

I would like to know if what I hear is correct, that the

Minister is finally going to face the music and meet these

native people. My information is he has a meeting scheduled for

June 19. I think this certainly will be a breakthrough if he

will at least discuss this problem with them. I would also like

to know from the Minister if he is going to have a meeting and

suggest to them that they could have some of the quota timber

in this area, namely the Narcosli forest district. Is he going

to suggest that they take down their barriers and for that they

get a quota of timber that they can have for going into the

sawmill business and have a sawmill? Or is he looking at a tree

farm licence? Just what is taking place? I understand one of

the senior people of his department has been up there surveying

the scene, so I would like to know just what he is going to do

and when because it has gone on now for 12 months.

I am fully aware of what the Forest Service has recommended

on this. It is all on the Minister's desk, and no decisions

have been made. I think it is most unfortunate for the natives

as well as the quota holders.

The longer it is put off, we will only look at the day when

employment at the railhead will be cut. I have no idea by how

much, but it could be as much as 20 per cent unemployment

because of the lack of timber quota that can't be cut and

hauled to manufacturers. I think it is a total community

problem. I would like to hear from the Minister what he intends

to do about it and when.

I was happy to hear the Minister announce today that there

will be a royal commission to look into the forest industry. I

agree and our party agrees that it is time that we had a royal

commission to look into all past tenders and where this

industry is going in the future. I believe that the last time

this happened was 1957, by the late Chief Justice Sloan.

I have questions I have to ask on that. When will this be

set up, in the opinion of the Minister? Once it is set up, how

long does he feel it will be before they report? In other

words, is he contemplating setting this royal commission up in

1975 and hoping for a report back from them in 12 months or two

years? Just what guidelines has he in mind for the royal

commission?

With that I will sit down and hope I get a few answers.

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

The question of utilization of cedar is a matter that has concerned us in that

there hasn't been the utilization we would like to see. However, in your own

region, the Cariboo-Coast region, where you do have decadent cedar, especially

in the wet areas towards the Quesnel lakes, there has been a utilization problem.

The fact of the matter is, however, that cedar is not a quota item, and has

not been for some two years now. We have worked to encourage utilization in

other areas more successfully than your own.

There have been new projects developed — in Salmo and the

Nelson-Creston riding, for example — that are proceeding

reasonably satisfactorily. But in your own riding, the bulk of

the cedar is now being decked. When cedar is coming out of a

particular cutting area, it is being decked and is stored there

at roadside now. If there is going to be a plant developed,

this material might well in fact be used.

There is a small mill partially constructed near the Pinette

& Therrien operation in Williams Lake, but there have been

very serious financial difficulties. The intent was to have

that plant use cedar in the Williams Lake area. Until those

financial problems are resolved, I don't think that will be the

case.

The question of the Indians is complex and no-one that we

have ignored. When I was in Williams Lake a month and a half

ago or so I met with the 15 bands — the council of Indian bands

in the region. We met for a couple of hours. Their main

spokesman was Mr. Irving Harry, who made it very clear what

their major concerns were. At that time I agreed to a later

meeting in the Chilcotin with the bands. That will take place

in June on the 19th or in that general area.

I might also say that we have had some of our staff in the

region in the intervening period. Mr. Crerar of the

Environmental and Land Use Committee secretariat, who was

responsible for the successful work at Burns Lake, has been in

the region for most of the week and met with bands in locations

such as Redstone, Alkali Lake, Dog Creek and various parts of

the region. As a result of those meetings, I think we have a

better picture, other than the land claim statements and

comments, of specific areas of contention, some of which we

consider quite legitimate in terms of the concern of the

Indians. So the meetings to date have been really quite

productive and I think will mean that future meetings will be

worthwhile.

I am personally encouraged. My initial meeting with loggers and sawmill people

in Williams Lake earlier gave me the feeling that there might not be any possible

area of discussion with the Indian people, that their frustrations had possibly

led them to the point of no return, almost. But it's not the case. Out first

meeting was productive; the recent meetings, I think, have been productive;

future ones will be productive. The fact that we have projects such as the Burns

Lake project and the Port Simpson project, the Ehattesaht project, others underway

and others being negotiated, I think, is a bit of a beacon for these people.

I hope that the Indian people in the Cariboo will get to visit Burns Lake prior

to my meeting with them in the Chilcotin so that they have a better idea directly

from the Indian people at Burns Lake of just how it's going from their point

of view.

[ Page

3005 ]

So we're certainly not averse to trying to resolve some of

the legitimate areas of conflict.

We also made it clear in the last of weeks that we were not

prepared to tolerate harassment in specific areas such as

Alkali Lake. We've indicated that we do understand their

legitimate concerns, that we're prepared to work with them and

cooperate with them and that the meetings were set, but we

were not prepared to see harassment activities in that area at

this time. It would only hurt any goodwill or the possibility

of major cooperative programmes subsequently.

In the general sense I think that's the concern of

government — that the Indian people might, in fact, build up a

climate against themselves in this process. This government has

indicated that it's prepared to move, to cooperate, to change

things and to give them a chance with respect to the resources

that they share with the rest of the people of this province. I

think it's a real sign of strength on the part of the people at

Alkali Lake, for example, that they agreed that this was, in

fact, a reasonable course of action. We'd had people in the

field, we'd shown a spirit of cooperation and they saw that it

would probably hurt their cause more than anybody else's to

pursue an harassment course. The loggers would be affected in

that particular area pretty clearly. So that, in fact,

happened.

We have cooperation. I'm looking forward to the meetings

and the further steps in the process. It's extremely difficult

but it's very worthwhile. It's a new one for us; it's a new one

for all the people of the province. It's unfortunate that it

didn't happen earlier because the degree of frustration felt by

these people probably wouldn't be as deep if the process had

begun many years ago.

MR. FRASER: He didn't refer at all to my question on the

royal commission — when it might be appointed, the length of

its tenure and so on.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think those details are a matter for

cabinet approval. Cabinet has approved in principle proceeding

with respect to a royal commission on forestry matters,

primarily tenure. In view of the general support that seems to

be there on the other side of the House, I would hope that we

could proceed very quickly.

MR. FRASER: By "very quickly" do you mean it might get

started in 1975?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Absolutely.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman, I'd just like

to ask the Minister briefly something about the land leasing policy in the northern

parts of the province. I have a case here about which I have written to the

Minister some two months ago and on which I have received no reply. The Minister

has all the details. I don't have the permission of the particular person to

use their name and I don't want to embarrass the Member for the riding concerned

because I know he's been making the same kind of representations.

I'll just briefly outline the case. This particular

gentleman started in November, 1971, to try to get some kind of

more permanent tenure on the land he is occupying — but has no

long-term permission to use — in the northern part of this

province. He contacted the Member concerned in September, 1972,

and March, 1973; he filed a brief in February 1973; he

telephoned the, I think, then Deputy Minister in December,

1972. In March, he visited the offices of five or six of the

officials in the Minister's department. I'll just quote briefly

from a letter to the Minister, of which I have a copy. He

says:

"I have the necessary credentials and, more importantly, the

enthusiasm and desire to put what I've learned to use, not only

for my own benefit but for the benefit of my family and my

fellow countrymen. I am a member of the Canadian Institute of

Mining Engineers, B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines, Resource

People Canada, an affiliate of the Association of Exploration

Geochemists, as well as a member of the Society for Pollution

and Environmental Control. I am concerned for the welfare of my

country. I'm not interested in obtaining land for land

speculation. I am only asking for five acres of land so that I

may work in my field.

"I realize that, although the mining industry is the No. I

primary interest in Canada, the other industries have also a

great importance to the economy of our country. In no way do I

wish to obstruct the other industries."

And then he goes on to mention the particular forestry

companies which hold tenure in that area.

What I'm concerned about is why this man can't get an answer

from the Minister, why I can't get an answer from the Minister,

why the Member concerned can't get an answer from the Minister

on this particular question of some kind of extended land-lease

tenures in the northern part of our province, where there's

still some pioneering going on today. I don't want to make a

cause célèbre of this; I don't want to ask the Minister when

there is going to be some kind of policy that will allow this

kind of person to....

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, with respect to Germansen Landing,

it's within a provincial forest. We have taken areas out of

provincial forest where settlement seemed a more reasonable

use. We've done

[ Page 3006 ]

that on a considerable scale recently in areas like the

North Thompson, Barriere — locations such as that. At Germansen

Landing....

MR. FRASER: Germansen Landing is in the riding of

Omineca.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's one of the spots I haven't been to.

I've been to quite a few. I just didn't want to use that

rickety mining road that goes wandering up the Omineca country.

I'm sympathetic to the basic problem at Germansen Landing, and

I frankly don't know what the problem is in terms of the two

jurisdictions, Forest Service and lands branch, but we'll

follow that in more detail. There's a fair settlement there, I

know. I'm aware. I've looked at the photographs of the building

that has taken place. Many of them are find log structures, and

it appears to be quite an attractive location. In principle I

am not opposed, in this situation, to seeing to it that some

form of tenure is established.

MR. GIBSON: I thank the Minister for that kind of

undertaking. I very much ask him within the next two or three

months to come to a conclusion on this and legitimize the

pioneering efforts that are going on.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I'd like to go over two

or three small points with the Minister. The first goes back to

a situation I have been following through the question and

answer period, and that's regarding the Thompson lease of 160

acres in the Meyers Flat area. The Minister laughs and says,

"Oh," but I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that those people

are more than laughing and saying "Oh." They're crying.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I wish the Hon. Member

wouldn't speak into Hansard items that just aren't the

case. I'm tired of reading in the newspaper about sneering and

saying things I haven't said. Just for the sake of

Hansard , on this one occasion, I'd like to make it clear

that that is not the case.

MRS. JORDAN: I think if he stopped catering to his political

image and catered more to the people of British Columbia, there

wouldn't be the problems we're faced with today. One includes

the problem of the Thompson family, which relates directly to

the criteria this Minister is using for establishing upset

prices and lease prices on grazing land.

In the Thompson case, in the Meyers Flat area — just to review it briefly —

they had 160 acres under lease in this particular instance. They had had it

for many years. There had been, to my knowledge, no complaints by the grazing

division or the Agriculture department on the handling of this land. But also

there was a great amount of enthusiasm in these two departments since Mrs. Thompson

had taken over the operation of this ranch at the death of her husband. It was

a shock to her to find out that this lease was not going to be available to

her, nor the option to bid on it, and that the government had set an upset price

of $150,000-odd as sale on this 160 acres, or a lease price of $7,500-odd per

year lease, under the guise that this would be great land for alfalfa production.

An examination of the land revealed that some of it could be used for alfalfa,

but in fact it was a major rehabilitation problem.

The only water available would be through a well which is

not now in existence. There would be a massive drainage

programme required plus the rehabilitation of the land, which

suffers from extreme alkalinity since it's been subject to

flooding conditions and erosion for years. Plus there would be

fencing and all the other input that would be required by a

producer to put it into alfalfa production. My understanding

from very knowledgeable people who are aware of the economics

of agriculture is that at today's prices for hay there is no

way at those prices set by the lands branch that this unit

could be economically viable.

I appreciate the point that the Minister has not accepted

the two tenders, and has taken the land back for consideration

and reappraisal, but what we do want to know is: Who is going

to do the appraisal? Will there be consultation with the

grazing division? Will there be consultation with the

agricultural department? Will Mrs. Thompson have the

opportunity to have the first refusal on this land so that they

can maintain this viable production unit that they have built

up over the years?

This leads into the grazing policy of the Minister. I

realize that the McLean report is pending, and on that I would

just comment very briefly to be sure that those producers who

are not essentially in the dry lands area discussed in detail

by the McLean report have an opportunity to make their input. I

speak of the Bulkley Valley area, where the grazing conditions

and the grass conditions are very much different than those

which were directly under Dr. McLean's attention.

In so doing — and the Minister is shaking his head and I

appreciate this consideration — they not only need time to make

a presentation, but they also need assistance of expertise in

how to make this presentation. They're competing on pretty high

ground and they're concerned that they don't have the technical

knowledge at their fingertips to validate their presentation.

There's no question that a blanket policy for the province in

terms of permits or grazing leases or licences or whatever the

government chooses to enter into is not going to be realistic

because of the nature of the various grasslands around the

province

[ Page 3007 ]

and the differences in their handling.

So I would ask the Minister just on this point to assure

that those ranchers from the northern part of the province have

the time to make their input into the McLean committee, and

that some expertise be made available to them so that their

report can be substantially authentic insofar as technical

approach and that they may express it in the manner that they

need to in order to have a substantial hearing.

I would also ask that when the final decision is made by the

Minister he would take into consideration that a ranch unit is

dependent upon its grazing lands, particularly in British

Columbia, and that we produce a very small portion of the meat

utilized in British Columbia. The chances of becoming

self-sufficient in meat production are limited by a number of

factors, including the shortage of grazing lands, unless the

producers can be assured that no one is going to be

consistently hacking away at their grazing lands and that as

long as they meet responsible management of these lands they

are going to have the right to have some security of tenure in

the term of years as well as the opportunity to renew their

lease. In my view the only reason for cancellation of these

leases or permits, whatever system is adopted, should be for

failure of competent handling of that land.

We have on one hand an effort by the public and the Minister

of this government and many other people to develop agriculture

in British Columbia on an economically viable basis; and on the

other hand to date we have a department that is literally

hacking away at these grazing lands which are so vital. We've

already canvassed the need for multi-land use. Contrary to the

opinions of the Minister, I won't read them but I have a number

of letters on file and certainly have spent a good deal of time

with producers, ranchers in this province. They are well aware

and they are convinced that multi-land use can be accomplished.

But what has to be remembered is not only the economic factor

in terms of public understanding that we discussed yesterday,

but the fact that the procedure himself is solely responsible

for the financing and the operation of his own unit. It's his

money that's on the line and his production unit. He simply

must have a degree of security in his tenure. If he goes to the

bank for capital to engage in improvements on grazing lands he

simply cannot get the money on the basis of a one-year term. I

think a minimum of five years with an option to renew for 10

years should be considered, and frankly I personally favour a

much longer term.

So I would ask the Minister this along with the other questions regarding the

Meyers Flat area, because this is a key case. What the Minister does in this

case will indicate very strongly what the attitude of this government is going

to be in the future. We can accept the fact that perhaps there was an error

made in the department which I would assume the Minister

would stand responsible for, but we can't tolerate this type of

action longer, if agriculture in the form of cattle production

in this province is going to be able to weather the difficult

times that they're having now, and look forward to a degree of

security in the future.

I believe the Minister should make public the reports upon

which the upset price and the lease price for the Meyers Flat

160 acres of land was established. I would like to know in the

future what authority he will be relying upon to establish

these lease prices or upset prices.

I'd also like to just touch for a moment and ask the

Minister's commitment for a stronger policy in the reclamation

of agricultural lands which are lost by flooding. I'm not at

this time because my colleague for Langley (Mr. McClelland) has

spoken on the lower mainland area. I wish to address myself

briefly to the interior of the province where lands on the

Shuswap River, Adams River, any number of rivers in the central

interior and certainly the northern interior are being eroded

by flooding conditions which are increasing because of the

encroachment of man and various forms of development.

One certainly wouldn't expect the government to assume all

these costs, but I would like the Minister to undertake to make

a stronger policy in terms of financial assistance as well as

technical assistance to aid these producers. It seems

positively sinful, while we face a world food shortage in many

areas and the problems perhaps of overproduction in other

areas, and the efforts that are being made on one hand, and

then on the other hand for a balance in production, when we

talk of the precious land of British Columbia, that we should

be seeing literally thousands of acres eroded and lost to

flooding. It's a massive undertaking; no one expects it to

happen overnight. But with modern techniques I believe that we

could expedite this programme and that a commitment of money to

the water rights branch at this time would be helpful.

I'm not familiar with the exact budget that is established

for this year, but I understand it won't even take care of

prior commitments, and those requesting assistance this year

won't have an opportunity to have any assistance at all. I urge

the Minister to shuttle some of his money and increase the

input in this area.

I'd like to also mention a matter in relation to the

constituency I represent. I think it's a shame. It does involve

Cosens Bay and the Coldstream Ranch. There's nothing I'd rather

do than stand up and praise this Minister for carrying to

conclusion this purchase, but I feel very sad that the Minister

chose to tarnish what should be a very proud moment by

flaunting it in the political arena.

[ Page 3008 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: That was shocking.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes it is shocking, Mr. Minister. I think this

shows how completely insensitive the Minister is to the general

attitude of people outside his particular riding. The Minister

chose to announce this purchase at an NDP political meeting to

a very few people at a time when the valley itself is deeply

concerned....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Aldermen were there and all kinds of

people.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Minister, I suggest you talk to them

because they feel very upset. They feel upset that the Minister

has tarnished what should be, as I say, a jubilant time for

everyone concerned on this. Contrary to what the Minister's ego

keeps telling him, people have worked on this project for

years.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Some not quite hard enough.

MRS. JORDAN: Of course, the Minister's answer would be to

just confiscate the land; this is what he likes to do. But

those who worked on it before, Mr. Minister, felt that a sale

between a willing buyer and a willing seller was important.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It hurts, doesn't it?

MRS. JORDAN: No it doesn't hurt at all.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Sure it does. Come on now!

MRS. JORDAN: You talk to Mr. Bud Anderson, you talk to Mr.

Eldon Seymour, you talk to Miss Lydia Bishop, you talk to Mayor

Russ Postill, you talk to Alderman John Kosty, Mr. Minister,

and then you will find out what's disturbing the people up

there. You had the golden opportunity to emerge as a hero;

unfortunately you stumbled over your own ego.

For the record, Mr. Chairman, I am going to review a few details. Contrary

to what the Minister would have his close followers believe, the first person

to actively engage in the acquisition or the thought of the acquisition of Cosens

Bay for public use was not the Minister, was not the Member of the NDP; it was

not anyone he knows. It just happens to be a local guy who is a rancher, a farmer,

who has worked all his life, who took a look at that land years ago in the 1950s

— Mr. Bud Anderson — and felt that there should be an effort made to have this

land acquired by the public when the owners chose to sell it. It was he who

took the then MLA, Hugh Shantz, and Mr. Kiernan, who was the then Minister of

Agriculture, out to view the land. It was in those years, Mr. Minister, that

overtures were made by Mr. Bert Hoffmeister, who was then the agent-general

in London, to the Buchanan family, that it was the desire of the people of British

Columbia to have this land for public use when they chose to sell it. They chose

not to sell it; that was their right.

The land was being properly managed and it was being used

for agriculture. But it was conceded that this should be public

land and the government of the day was given the letter of

first refusal. It moved off and on through the years.

When I came into office, it wasn't my idea that this should

become a public park, but it was certainly my commitment to

continue all effort to see that when it was sold, it would go

to the people of British Columbia.

In the ensuing years Mr. Burt Hoffmeister has played a role.

Mayor Russ Postill, the mayor of Colstream, the municipality in

which the majority of this land lies, and the man who was

completely excluded from any of the Minister's thinking, worked

towards the acquisition of this land. It was Alderman John

Costi. It was a private citizen by the name of Eldon Seymour

who took a plane and a camera and devoted his time and effort

to doing a complete series of aerial photographs of this land,

which are today housed in the Department of Recreation of

Conservation, and which I'm sure the Minister used in some of

his presentations.

There were meetings set up between the Minister of

Recreation — Mr. Kiernan at the time — and the board of

directors, including a late director, Mr. Philip Sterling of

Vernon, who was dedicated to seeing that when this land was

finally sold it should, in fact, go into public hands. There

was a commitment given by him that this opportunity should be

achieved by the provincial government.

The Minister made it somewhat distressing to the local

people when he announced it, he took it upon himself to suggest

that he had made the overtures to the Second Century Fund.

I would like to record for this debate a number of letters,

which I won't go into in detail. One of the letters is from

Neil Realty in Vernon, dated March 9, 1972, which did an

overview and assessment of the value of that land on a

voluntary basis. I would like to put into the record a letter

from Mr. George Nealy, April 14, 1971, who was chairman of the

reactivation of the Cosens Bay committee. For the record I will

just read a portion of these minutes because it was at this

meeting that a number of community people were involved,

including: Mr. Bob Aarons, director of the parks branch; Mrs.

R.J. Woodly; Miss Lydia Bishop; Mr. Ross Whitney; Mr. Al

Desimone, fish and wildlife; Mr. Norman Spackman, naturalists'

club. There was Miss Lori King representing the students; there

were people from small businesses.

It was this group, Mr. Chairman, who put together

[ Page 3009 ]

a very impressive slide-presentation documentary which was

shown to service clubs and to Members of the government in

order to stimulate public interest in the purchase of this

land. At the same time, overtures were constantly being made to

the Buchanan family and the directors of the Coldstream Ranch

that this land should be purchased and made available for

public use. It was to the dismay of all those who were

interested to find out that, in fact, some of the directors

from British Columbia were not as enthusiastic as were other

directors and the public involved.

However, there was a meeting that took place in 1971 between

Mr. Kiernan and the late Phillip Sterling. At this time it was

made very clear by the then Minister of Recreation and

Conservation that this land was to be for public use, but the

government would not enter into any confiscation programme,

they wished to settle on an arbitrated price from a willing

seller to a willing buyer.

I would like to read into the record a letter from me to the

Hon. Jean Chretien, dated June 22, 1971, in which the MLA for

North Okanagan, with the support of the then federal Member,

Mr. Doug Stewart, requested the assistance of the federal

government and any interest they wished to show in acquisition

of the park and also the incorporating of the Grizzly Mountain

area as a major contribution by the federal government in this

development.

There is a letter from Mr. Chretien to the Hon. Patricia J.

Jordan, Minister without Portfolio, Province of British

Columbia, of July 16, 1971, in which, in essence, he offered

the assistance of his staff and his support in trying to assist

us in the acquisition of this land.

There is a letter to Major-General B.M. Hoffmeister, as of

July 13, 1971, from the North Okanagan MLA, Patricia J. Jordan,

which says:

"During a conversation with the Hon. Jack Davis, Minister of

Fisheries and Forestry, the Minister advised you would be

chairman of the new Second Century Fund for British Columbia.

Both Mr. Davis and I felt the purchase of Cosens Bay on

Kalamaka Lake, when it came up for sale, would be of interest

to you and your assistance would be much appreciated."

And so

on. I won't go into all the details. The correspondence is

available to anyone.

I feel that Mr. Hoffmeister's visit and interest in this

area should be congratulated, and I have little doubt his

influence had a great deal to do with redirecting the Minister

from some of the programmes that he suggested for Cosens Bay

after his election as Minister.

I would also like to put in the record the Minister's own report when he was

hired by the Coldstream council for a very handsome fee to do a planning scheme

for the Coldstream Valley. At that time when he sat in opposition as the champion

of the preservation of land for the people, he recommended that Cosens Bay be

purchased by the provincial government in cooperation with the federal government

for the people of British Columbia. We applauded this report and we appreciated

his support. But, oh my, how the tiger changed his stripes when he became Minister.

All of a sudden he didn't feel that it should be purchased by the provincial

government and the other senior government. He felt that the local people should

cough up the dough. Mr. Minister, that's where you and I had a falling out because

as far as the MLA for North Okanagan....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's the only time.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, it was the only time, and I look forward

to a long and harmonious planning relationship with the people

of this area and you in the wise use of this land for the

public of British Columbia.

However, Mr. Minister, now that we have overcome your

efforts to make the local people make a financial contribution

to this area and the land has been purchased, I congratulate

the Minister for purchasing it, and I hope from now on he has

learned a lesson and that he will open his attitude to the

people of this area. Frankly, the council in which this land

lay and the people who worked very hard initially on hoping to

achieve this land can't understand why this Minister wouldn't

take them into his confidence and why he would entrust this to

a few select individuals who happened to carry the same

political card that he did. I would suggest to you, Mr.

Minister, that a continuation of this attitude will destroy the

goodwill that should develop through the purchase of this

land.

I would like a commitment from the Minister tonight that he

will put it out of the political arena. I think he stood up

this afternoon and pleaded with the Member for Cariboo (Mr.

Fraser) not to enter into politics on one particular discussion

and to accept it at its face value and work with him, and I now

ask the Minister to drop the political facade, get on with the

proper use of this land and involve the Minister of Recreation

and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford).

It is quite interesting to the people of our area that the

news release that came out from the Minister at that political

meeting.... Oh, yes, I must say this. He said so boldly what a

wonderful government he represented and what a wonderful

Minister he was and how the MLA for the area had never done

anything about parks in the area in six years as a Minister of

the Crown and that there were no park lands in the North

Okanagan. Mr. Minister, I don't want to discuss it too much,

but for your information

[ Page 3010 ]

I would just like you to know that in 1971 the Crown

provincial, the Government of British Columbia, the then Social

Credit administration, with the assistance of many local people

in the Lumby-Mabel Lake area, and with some effort on the part

of the MLA for North Okanagan, acquired one of the most

beautiful park sites in British Columbia, and that's known as

the Mabel Lake park. That was the Siglet Shields property, a

beautiful piece of waterfront covered with marvelous pine

trees.

They made a commitment to the people of this area that there

would be a five-year development plan, which died in its tracks

when the NDP took over. On this point I would like to ask the

Minister, in view of the fact that he's controlling the

Department of Recreation and Conservation, to proceed with the

commitment made by the former administration.

It was the former MLA who had a map reserved and a freeze

put on the Mabel Lake area in order that the provincial

government could consolidate the Crown holdings, that there

would not be alienation of those shorelines from people outside

British Columbia and who initiated the study, which I hope will

eventually result in the declaration of the north end of Mabel

Lake as a wildfowl sanctuary. And there was the MLA who

encouraged the former administration to buy an extension to

Ellison Lake Park, to release two areas of the Okanagan

forestry reserve for parkland, that aided in the development of

three ecological areas within the district, including one in

Shuswap, and one to be used by our schools. It was the same

Member who encouraged and took

part in the development of

Manning community park, Oyama community park and Justice Court,

which I'm sure the Minister wouldn't have the courage to stand

up and say he saw and admired. The Swan Lake wildfowl preserve.

Mr. Minister, lots of people have worked before you got here,

and lots will work after you leave. But the important thing is

that these lands are designated for people and that they are

not confiscated...

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Confiscated?

MRS. JORDAN: ...but bought in good faith and utilized for

the public benefit.

Just before stopping on Cosens Bay, I would like an

assurance from the Minister that he isn't going to utilize

Cosens Bay park area as part of a sewage disposal programme for

the city of Vernon, as he advised might well happen, and also

that in the development of this area there will be no housing,

there will be no intrusion by organized recreational facilities

and that it will essentially be kept as an area for people and

for leisure recreation.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think in view of the response of some

of our Members, no comment may be necessary.

MR. WALLACE: That was one of the biggies.

MRS. JORDAN: You wouldn't know, living in Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Meow, meow, meow, meow. Laughter.)

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It just makes me think of Macbeth, you

know. Sort of "Out, out, damned spot" or whatever it is.

MRS. JORDAN: No, it's "Out, out, damned NDP."

Interjections.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I accept that in the spirit in which

it's given.

You know, this seems to be an annual kind of get-together

which the Hon. Member for North Okanagan and myself share.

Interjections.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I almost hesitate to repeat it but I

think it's necessary in view of all of the weighty evidence

that was given to Hansard a few minutes ago.

MRS. JORDAN: I've got a lot more if you'd like it.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I've yet to write a letter to myself, so

I have nothing to contribute in that vein. I must say that if

the government of the day, with a Minister from the North

Okanagan and a Premier from the South Okanagan, really cared

about Cosens Bay, they would have seen to it that it was

acquired and preserved as a park in perpetuity. If they had

done so, then we might well have been talking about a purchase

price that was, what? — a quarter of what we ended up paying as

a government.

We ended up paying pretty well $2 million for the Cosens Bay land. It's worth

it, but that was the price agreed upon between the government and the sellers.

The Member is so tied up in her own kind of narrow ideology that she finds it

necessary to talk about confiscation. This was a one-year negotiating process

— a year of negotiation. We took it that seriously. We saw it as that important,

in terms of the greenbelt fund acquisition, that we were prepared to carry on

negotiation for a full year. Now if there'd been that kind of attitude by that

former Minister, when she had so few real responsibilities as a cabinet Minister

Without Portfolio — if she'd only put in 10 per cent

[ Page 3011 ]

of her time during her

tenure as a Minister — I'm sure she could have seen to it that the land was

obtained, and probably the price would have been 25 per cent of what this government

finally agreed to pay — that is, the negotiated price agreed to by the seller

and the buyer. That's the system that we accept in this society at this time.

But, you know, the Member says she wrote Jean Chretien and

said that, really, this is a worthwhile spot, and she talked to

Jack Davis and said the same thing. But obviously, when she

talked to the old moneybags, W.A.C., she just got nothing but

deaf ears. I don't know if she ever got the opportunity to talk

to him. I haven't heard of many people that did, in terms of

obtaining money for important things, in terms of preserving

the landscape, even in terms of preserving the landscape in his

own beautiful Okanagan Valley.

Since we've become government, we have ignored politics, my

dear, and have seen fit to it that expenditures took place in

the Okanagan on a scale like they've never taken place before

in terms of saving key waterfront, prime recreation land. While

you can talk about Mabel Lake — it's attractive indeed — it

doesn't come anywhere near the value and quality for the broad

public of Cosens Bay or Kalamalka Lake.

MRS. JORDAN: Who said it did?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Why, I just had that feeling from your

statement, when you were trying to list your own achievements.

But now if you agree that it doesn't come anywhere near the NDP

government's efforts in preserving parkland in the Okanagan, I

accept your comments graciously.

Not only have we preserved at Cosens Bay some 2,500 acres of

magnificent land in the North Okanagan, but just in the last

week, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer)

announced a joint sharing programme (good Lord!) in the City of

Kelowna on Mission Creek. The little old man from Ethel Street

never gave that kind of money to the City of Kelowna during his

20 years as MLA for the riding.

MRS. JORDAN: He didn't draw $50,000 a year!

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: He didn't think Mission Creek was

important enough to preserve, but this government did. In

addition we established Okanagan Park, the great Okanagan Park

in the central Okanagan, again in Kelowna. In addition we

acquired Rattlesnake Island, off the point at Okanagan

Mountain.

MRS. JORDAN ; You didn't have to.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We added that to the Okanagan park

facility. Now the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon.

Mr. Radford) is looking very carefully, along with the

Environment and Land Use Committee, at the Cathedral Lakes.

Clearly we have taken the matter of the need for recreation

space in the Okanagan extremely seriously. But it isn't just a

matter of writing letters to ourselves; it's hard work. You

actually have to deal with these hard-nosed businessmen and you

have to work with them to the point where you get an agreement,

and that's pure, old-fashioned hard work. That's the way you

achieve these things. It's as simple as that.

I'll let the former Minister in on the road to success. It's

the kind of old speech WAC would have given, but it's as valid

today as it was for him 50 years ago: good old hard work is the

way to do it. Good old hard work is why we have Cosens Bay as a

park. Good old hard work is why we have Mission Creek as a

park. Good old hard work is why we have Okanagan Mountain as a

park. Good old hard work is why we're looking very carefully at

the opportunities at Cathedral Lakes.

You know, the interesting thing about the files that the

Hon. Member reviews is that we looked at the files and I had a

bit of trouble in my office because when we became government I

found they were all empty. The former Minister decided they

were all just personal material and all the files went with

him; a great big truck came and took it all away.

MRS. JORDAN: Are you saying that the Cosens Lake file is not

in your department?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No.

MRS. JORDAN: Or the Department of Recreation and

Conservation? Then tell the truth.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm telling the truth. I know it's hard

to believe, but I am telling the truth, The Minister of Lands

and Forests took all his files with him; the Minister of

Recreation and Conservation (and for a short period I did hold

that portfolio) left his files here. That's the difference. One

Minister left the files; the other took them all away.

The files, however, that the Minister of Recreation and

Conservation left with us gave no indication of a confirmation

of a first refusal from the British interests that held the

Coldstream land, and they gave no indication of a serious,

conscientious, continuous effort to obtain those lands for the

public. There's no evidence of that kind of activity. There is

no evidence of the good old-fashioned hard work that I was

talking about, because if there had been that would have been a

park long ago. So I can understand it

[ Page 3012 ]

hurting a little.

MRS. JORDAN: It doesn't hurt me.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, I don't know why we would have had

the lengthy speech that we had if it didn't hurt a little. I'll

tell you, if I had been a Minister Without Portfolio in the

former government with not a heck of a lot to do other than

crocheting and knitting, I would have spent quite a bit of time

and conscientious effort to see to it that that park was

preserved during my tenure of office. I guess the proof of the

pudding is in the eating — it just didn't happen. It happened

under this government, and that's something all of us should be

proud of.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, now that we've heard the

Minister's typical dissertation on his great accomplishments

and achievements...and I might add that it certainly doesn't

sound very good for the PNE in Vancouver because quite

obviously the Minister is going to utilize his backhanded and

type of tactics to get the PNE as a park for his own

constituency. That's where we differ.

Mr. Minister, let it be clearly understood that if you had

carried out at that time what you claim should have been

carried out, then you would have had no alternative to

expropriate that land from the Coldstream Ranch — and make no

mistake about it! That land was not for sale. That land was

part of a viable ranch unit — cattle ranching. That land was

being well managed in the nature of grazing land, and it was

very clear — the public know it in the Okanagan and it's only

the Minister who clouds the issue — that that land was not for

sale.

The government of the past did not believe in breaking up

viable ranch units as quite obviously this Minister does. They

did not believe in expropriating land from ranchers unless it

was an absolute essential matter of public good need.

Mr. Minister, your statements tonight certainly augur poorly

for the ranchers of this province because you have made it very

clear, and you know as well as I know, that the Cosens Bay area

only came up for sale shortly before the Minister's assumption

of office...

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh!

MRS. JORDAN: ...and that he did, indeed, follow through

after he got over this idea of trying to make the local people

pay for it.

But let's not distort the facts. What augurs badly for the

future of the ranchers is that the Myers Flat incident and Mrs.

Thomas obviously are not exceptions in this province, and that

if this Minister has his way, quite obviously he is going to

confiscate land from viable ranching units in this

province.

I want to pledge here and now that this party will fight

tooth and nail to see that the ranchers of this province have

the right to manage lands in a proper agricultural manner and

that they have the right to first refusal of those lands in

order to maintain viable ranchers.

Just one last comment while the Minister is busy patting

himself on the back. He can certainly take another bow from me

if he will do a recreational review of the Grizzly Hills

provincial forest area with a view to bringing it into concert

with the Cosens Bay area. I would ask him why, when he was

praising himself, he didn't make clear that he excluded the

Deep Lake area from this land acquisition.

I would like to go on record again as asking this Minister:

(1) why they did not purchase that area, which obviously has to

be included as part of this park area; and (2) to seek his

assistance in seeing that this is acquired in the future as

part of the Cosens Bay park.

Then I would like to have his answers to some of the other

questions on grazing I posed to him.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I would just like to

mention one thing to the Minister. It is something I gave him a

note about this afternoon. I have not been given the authority

by the individual concerned to mention his name in the House,

and I will not do so. But it deals with his mineral claims in

the area of Stein River.

The individual concerned has been in touch with the Minister

of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), who very

kindly saw him, and was later referred to the Minister of

Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford), who very kindly

saw him, and now he is being referred to you.

I would just greatly appreciate it if you would kindly

inform me tonight if you would please see this individual and

try to assist him out of this impasse. He is in a situation of

not being able to produce these claims, although it would

appear, according to the information that I have received, that

it is possible for him to do that under the provisions of the

mineral laws of this province. He is also not able to sell his

property. He is essentially economically stalemated. He is

stalemated from a planning point of view.

I remember once before an exercise that went through the

Attorney-General, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources, and the Minister of Labour, dealing with amendments

to a very archaic statute, the Woodsmen's Lien for Wages Act.

It was constantly referred from one Minister to another for

seven years, and is still without resolution. We still have an

archaic....

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Well, no, as a matter of fact, you

[ Page 3013 ]

fall heir to that too because we still haven't had it

rectified. The Woodsmen's Lien for Wages Act is still bouncing

around between Minister and Minister.

But would the Hon. Minister, apart from the Woodsmen's Lien

for Wages Act, please give an assurance to me tonight that I

can tell this individual that he can see you? He has been

treated somewhat as a ping pong ball through various levels of

the civil service, according to what my information is.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, this is specifically

involving the Stein River drainage. A moratorium was placed on

Stein River drainage because of the concern of many groups with

respect to its natural qualities. Various departments were to

review the potential of the basin. The Environment and Land Use

Secretariat, in turn, was to pull the material together and

advise the committee.

At this stage the committee, in fact, has reviewed this

individual's request and concluded that the kind of roads

needed in that drainage basin would, in fact, appear to be

extremely destructive and would have a considerable undesirable

impact on the basin. So the conclusion of the committee, after

review, is that the road proposal, which I think is the No. 1

problem, at this stage does not appear desirable. The committee

has not endorsed the idea.

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

On the prospect of meeting with the individual, through — I

certainly would be willing to meet with him and discuss the

matter. But it is one of these matters that falls between

several departments. There is the Recreation and Conservation

jurisdiction in terms of their values; there is the Lands

branch jurisdiction because of management of such lands: the

Forest Service, and of course the Mines department. But the

conclusion of the cabinet committee, at this stage at any rate,

is that the development of a road system in the basin would not

be justified.

The Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) asked again

regarding the Haynes Flats area. I see she's left. We are

prepared to make evaluation material public. We are reviewing

the whole matter, however, A private appraisal and a land

branch appraisal will both be made public. This is presently

under the jurisdiction of the water resources service because

it's within the South Okanagan lands project, which is under

the jurisdiction of the water resources branch. We are

seriously considering a shifting of land management, however,

in this area over to the lands branch, since these are matters

in which the lands branch generally has greater expertise.

I think the Member for North Okanagan also asked regarding the McLean report

and the Bulkley Valley being considered as a different geographical area. I

think we see that as such. Once we establish a firm contract

with the proposed adviser to the grazing division, I'm sure

that groups that are not used to preparing written briefs, as

she indicated, would feel at ease simply discussing the matter

with our advisers. So we would certainly want to see our

advisers available to individuals such as those she mentioned

so that he could have that kind of input.

MR. GARDOM: I'd like to thank the Minister for his response,

but could I mention this to the Hon. Minister? It's my

understanding that this individual acquired these claims prior

to this freeze, which is an order-in-council freeze, and the

net result, particularly in what you've stated tonight, means

that he's become economically hamstrung. Under those

circumstances — you say he can't put in roads — this means he

cannot mine. He has his investment in there; you've essentially

pulled down the blind on him. You've changed the ground rules

under these circumstances. Would you be prepared to see that he

could receive some kind of fair compensation? What you have

essentially done is expropriated his operation.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: The Hon. Minister says "no." His operation was

supposed to be a mining operation. If he cannot mine and

utilize those claims and bring them to production, which I

gather he's got to do under the existing mining laws of this

province, not only have you expropriated his operation but he's

in penalty if he doesn't produce. It's a very awkward and

anomalous situation.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I certainly can't speak for the Minister

of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) but in a situation like this I

can't help but feel that with the steps by other government

departments in terms of affecting this basin, his performance.... I'm sure that the Minister would give it some

consideration in view of the changes.

In addition, there are other means of access to the area.

There is a road and another drainage basin behind the basin

itself. So in fact he could get access by another route. That

situation can be looked after.

MR. GARDOM: If that's possible, it would indeed be

appreciated that you could see him. As I say, he's received a

very kind and thoughtful hearing from the Minister of Mines.

I'm not too sure how far he went with the Minister of

Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford). But it has

ended up in your lap, according to your two Ministers, so the

opportunities for solution, Mr. Minister, rest with you. I

should have at least the undertaking that the three of you are

going to try to help this man out.

[ Page 3014 ]

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman,

concerning the stock option plan for the shareholders of

Can-Cel: the Minister announced the purchase of 272,400 by the

government during January and February. The announcement was

after some speculation that it was for an employees'

share-option purchase plan. Later on a press release statement

on March 24, the company spokesman for Can-Cel said that they

had had discussions in the fall but hadn't participated in this

decision, but it's understood that the government would be

willing to sell the shares.

I just want to know from the Minister if this stock option

plan has taken place, if the 272,400 shares have been

transferred to B.C. Cellulose, if they have been transferred to

Can-Cel for a stock option plan, if the plan has taken place....

Interjection.

MR. BENNETT: Did we? Oh, I wasn't here. Has that already

been covered?

AN HON. MEMBER: I think it has been.

MR. BENNETT: I'm sorry, that's fine. I'll get it out of the

Blues.

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

have the Minister's comments on the route of the power line

from Site 1 down to the....

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: No.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Are they going to get power?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, down to Kennedy. This route is going to go

through a completely virgin area. Although there seems to be

some justification for it from the consultations, I am

concerned that we are not following the corridor which was

established some years ago to handle power lines, the railway,

the oil pipeline, and the gas pipeline. Now we seem to be

making a deviation from this corridor which was established,

and we are going through a completely new area. There has been

a lot of objection in the area about this particular route. I

am just wondering if the Minister is aware of it. Has he given

any consideration to it? Hydro seems to be in favour of it.

I think that we are going to open up a completely new area by putting this

high-voltage transmission line through there, an area that probably should be

left in its natural state. It's no good for agriculture; it's a wildlife habitat.

As soon as you put that new corridor through there with the transmission line,

it makes it accessible to snowmobiles and four-wheel drive vehicles, and I think

you are going to ruin an area that is presently a winter land for moose. I think

you are going to ruin part of that area. You seem to be greatly concerned about

the environment in British Columbia, yet because of a few extra dollars for

this power line, why are we moving in this direction?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, the process that is now required

with respect to power lines involves various agencies again,

and that's changed. It also involves public information

meetings in the area, so this is still, as I understand it, at

a preliminary stage in terms of any final decision. We want the

input from the various departments and from Hydro. We want the

local input and then the matter is reviewed by the Environment

and Land Use Secretariat. If it is still a major area of

conflict, it's reviewed by the Environment and Land Use

Committee. But it hasn't really got up to those levels yet, so

it means that it is at a preliminary state, as I understand

it.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're assuring me that the decision hasn't

been made yet, and that there will be further consultations,

regardless of the fact that environment consultant, Thurber

Consultants Ltd., advise that the Moberley route could be used

in an environmentally responsible way and recommended this

alternative. Hydro seems to be in favour of this

alternative.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It might well be. You know, these things

are always trade-offs and it may well be the most reasonable,

considering the various trade-offs that we have to face. But I

am saying that it hasn't really got to the level where a final

decision has been made.

MR. FRASER: I just have a few more questions for the

Minister.

The Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) doesn't know how to spell

Baezaeko, and for the benefit of Hansard it is spelled

B-a-z-e-k-o. The Member is not here now, of course, but he was

very concerned that I didn't know how to spell it. I admitted

that, and have spelled it now.

Regarding that area, the north Chilko unit, that has been

allocated to Plateau Sawmills, I am not clear. I asked earlier

today about the road south from Vanderhoof in to Kluskus, and

he said that 13 miles had been built and 17 miles are to be

built in 1975. I really wanted the dollars and cents cost for

the 13 miles, and an estimate for the 17 miles. That's one

question. I believe the very excellent accountant for the

Forest Service is here, so no doubt he has those figures and I

would appreciate them.

I just want to say this about the North Chilko

[ Page 3015 ]

working circle that was allocated to the government's

sawmill, Plateau; it wasn't any small item, this quota, this 13

million cubic foot per annum cut that was involved. That is an

enormous amount of timber which, in my opinion, never should

have been allocated to the north; it should have been allocated

to the cast. Inside of about two years it will very definitely

affect the economy of the total Cariboo forest operation.

In view of that I would like to know what plans the Minister

and the Forest Service have for replacing that quota they have

stolen from the Cariboo operators and given to the government

Plateau Mill at Vanderhoof. It's a direct subsidy to the

Plateau Sawmill operation, and it never should have been

allocated in the first place. The road is certainly a subsidy

to that operation and there is no reason at all for it. No

wonder Plateau shows a large profit — they pay no income tax,

charge their road systems to the public purse instead of paying

for them out of their operations. Boy, nobody could miss with a

situation like that.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Yeah, you're a one-shot guy, and you can't even

make use of the lumber that this Minister we're debating

manufactures through his side of it. You don't even know how to

put a house together. You haven't built any houses yet. We've

had lots of Casa Lomas and that, but we haven't had very many

houses built.

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

please?

MR. FRASER: Thank you. Bring that Minister of Housing (Hon.

Mr. Nicolson) to order because he's completely out of order in

so many ways I hate to mention.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: One more thing. I think maybe I'm out of order

on this, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, the logging tax is

administered, I believe, by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Barrett), but I wonder if, again, there's any discussion by the

Minister of Lands regarding the logging tax and how it affects

the industry. I just have a short quotation to make here about

this:

"The way the regulations of this Act are being enforced, a partnership, wherein the partners are

active workers, is not allowed any deductions from income in

calculating profits for wages earned by the working

partners.

"For example, we are a small operation — two partners working

alone without any other employees — logging from stump to dump on our own timber.

Last year our gross earnings, on 2,100 units of wood delivered to Canadian Cellulose

Co., was $54,000. Expenses, other than wages taken, amounted to $26,000, leaving

a profit, according to the assessor of the Logging Tax Act, of $28,000, taxable

at 15 per cent. You notice that this allows nothing for the cost of labour to

produce these revenues. Had we not worked ourselves, but hired outside persons

to do this work, then we would not have had this profit.

"If we were incorporated as a private company, our

reasonable wages would be deductible as an expense in

determining profits before taxes. Why should this not also be

so in a proprietorship or a partnership? It's grossly

unfair."

I realize it's administered by the Minister of Finance, but

has there been any discussion going on with the Minister of

Finance by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources?

During question period a month or so ago I asked a question

about logs from the Hydro right-of-way clearing job between

Telkwa and Terrace. The last information I had they're all

decked, and there was some kafuffle about they couldn't get

access for them out to market, so a decision was being made at

that time to probably burn the logs. I think the Minister's had

enough time — were those logs burned, or were they sold, as

they should have been, and hauled off that right-of-way?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: With respect to the road south of

Vanderhoof, current estimates are $700,000 for the system road

— that is, for construction this year. That's the only data we

have available right here.

I think it should be made clear that the province really has

two choices, and it's six of one and half a dozen of the other,

in terms of which is done, in terms of the ultimate benefit and

in terms of the public purse in this resource. The public could

build all of the major systems roads in that province, for

example, and simply proceed and do that. Then the logging

companies could use those roads, and they wouldn't get funds

back because they wouldn't have constructed the roads.

One could, I think, readily make an argument for that kind

of approach, province-wide. I think there are very strong

arguments for moving in that direction. We presently have the

other system now. The reason I can see the case for it is we

have various resource agencies interested in protecting and

preserving their own resources. That's commendable, but each of

them carries with it a certain cost. You might well have one

branch of government saying the roads should be built this way

because we want to

[ Page 3016 ]

protect this particular value. It could be fisheries, or

another habitat or something else, but it would be far

superior, it seems to me, to have the various agencies looking

at the funding available and then saying, with this funding,

how can we optimize our return on all of our resources, instead

of simply being able to say — as sometimes happens now — "Let's

insist on that road going that way to protect this particular

value, and we don't really care how much the cost is, within a

fairly broad range." It seems to me we're not getting the most

for our money, in terms of preserving all the resource values

in that kind of circumstance.

So I hope, in another budget year, at least one forest

district or resource management district might in fact be

funded for system road construction at least, in the forest

industrial sector, so that the fish and wildlife people, the

Forest Service, the recreation people and other interest groups

could jointly determine the best way of allocating these funds

to maximize, or optimize, their own returns on their resource

values.

For a technician or a professional person, I think it could

be a very exciting, worthwhile exercise. At the moment, we are

really not getting everything we can out of our staff and our

talent and our money.

So with that kind of background, I don't really think it

matters very much whether the Crown builds that road right now,

whether Plateau Mills builds it, or whether any other company

builds it. In the end, it is the public that pays; it is as

simple as that. In the end, it is the public that pays. If the

Crown pays for this road now, it means that we will get higher

stumpage when the trees come out. It is six of one and

half-a-dozen of the other. I make no apologies for taking this

approach with respect to the Kluskus. I would like to see it

applied on a broader scale in other parts of the province as

well. On the Telkwa one, I had asked for the information some

time ago and I am sorry I just don't have it. But I did make

the request.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just a....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think that's your riding, Mr. Member.

The First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): That was a very nice

try up front there but I want to thank the Chairman for being

able to recognize backbenchers in the House.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday I questioned the Minister about some park property

that citizens in Vancouver have been battling for for some 13 years. It was

with respect to Jericho Beach lands and the agreement of the federal government

to turn these lands over for park purposes to the people of Vancouver. In question

were two lots, 4565 and 5098, Group 1, New Westminster District, situated south

of Jericho Beach.

These are two provincial government lots on which are

located a number of hangars formerly belonging to the federal

government, and key waterfront lots for the development of a

park for the use of everyone in the lower mainland. It is the

choice beach waterfront property in that area. At least one

newspaper — and I refer to the afternoon press — completely

missed the point, Mr. Chairman, that this land had been taken

over by the federal government and was returned to the

provincial government with the expectation that that property

would be turned over the park purposes. The mayor of Vancouver

wrote to the provincial government on March 30, 1973,

requesting that the provincial government fulfil the

obligations given by the former Social Credit administration to

the effect that that land would be turned over to the City of

Vancouver at nominal rental for park purposes.

Mr. Chairman, at the time the City of Vancouver was given

notification, there must have been correspondence between the

federal government and the provincial Department of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources. What I am requesting the Minister

to do now is to table that correspondence. Would the Minister

make public what negotiations took place between the federal

government that built the hangars on that property and the

provincial government in Which federal rights were relinquished

to the Province of British Columbia?

I just think that a point has been missed there by the

afternoon press in realizing what the issue actually was. It

could certainly be clarified if the Minister would table the

missing correspondence.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Name names. You mean the Sun ?

MR. McGEER: Well, I am not going to talk about the time of

day, but I thought that the morning press got the point and the

afternoon press completely missed the point.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The morning press quoted you and the

afternoon press quoted me.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Minister, you are engaging in blackmail. You

made that very clear with your vicious attack on the west side

of the city...

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

[ Page 3017 ]

MR. McGEER: ...a vicious attack, Mr. Chairman, on the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), who owns waterfront

property right adjacent to that Jericho Beach....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: It's waterfront property in the only

privately-owned

section of waterfront property in the City of

Vancouver. The Attorney-General is hanging on to property that

should be turned over to that Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources for park services. He is one of the villains

living on the west side of the city, holding up waterfront

people from the people on the east side of Vancouver — the

Attorney-General.

SOME HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. McGEER: Oh yes, and the First Member for Vancouver-Buff

and (Ms. Brown), he attacked her. She lives in an elegant area

in Belmont overlooking Jericho Park.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: And the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr.

Levi), he is a resident of the west side; he lives in Point

Grey, too. And the former leader of the NDP, Mr. Justice Thomas

Berger, he is another great resident of Vancouver–Point Grey

working against the people of east Vancouver.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We might win that riding yet.

MR. McGEER: The Attorney-General, the Minister of Human

Resources, the First Member for Vancouver-Burrard, the former

leader of the NDP — they're all the people who have stood

against Vancouver East and the development of all these

facilities that the Minister stood for yesterday in

blackmailing the City of Vancouver.

I don't know whether he wanted a beach created there in the

middle of Empire Stadium; I don't know whether he wanted that

hockey rink moved out to Arbutus Park or something like that,

but I do know, Mr. Chairman, that that Minister is sitting on

correspondence from the federal government where there was a

clear indication — a commitment entered into — by the former

Social Credit administration to give that beachfront to the

people of Vancouver. Who's denying it? Why, it's the Member for

Vancouver East (Hon. R.A. Williams). Who is he punishing? He's

punishing the Attorney-General, the Minister of Human

Resources, the First Member for Vancouver-Burrard, the former

leader of the NDP — those are the people that Minister is

punishing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: It's disgraceful, I tell you, when you turn

against your own. It's disgraceful when you turn against your

own.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): You know all about

that, Pat.

MR. McGEER: I only ask that that Minister table the

correspondence and tell us what that dirty old federal

government did when it turned the property back to the

provincial government — those mean old people. And the mayor of

the City of Vancouver who had his crying towel out.... Can you

imagine that? Sniveling over a park for the people of

Vancouver East! I tell you, that mayor ought to come to his

senses. All we ask is that the Minister table the

correspondence.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Place it on the order paper.

MR. McGEER: Place it on the order paper!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, what a facetious remark.

MR. McGEER: Do you know what I put on the order paper, Mr.

Minister? A question about slash burning. I put it in in

October, 1972; in the spring of 1973; in the fall of 1973; in

the spring of 1974; in the fall of 1974. Do you know what slash

burning is all about? It's about pollution. That Minister was

against pollution, but when he's asked a question on the order

paper about pollution, he ignores it.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: He's one of the few Ministers who never answers

questions on the order paper. The only thing he ever wanted was

that the former Minister answer his questions. But he's

different. Everybody else is supposed to answer questions but

him; everybody else is supposed to answer mail but him;

everybody else is supposed to table contracts but him. He's

different. He's unique. He's the Member for Vancouver East and

the lord and master of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

Mr. Chairman, he doesn't always even enforce his own orders.

I'd like to raise another question, if I may, about that august

Minister. I don't want to go into all the details of an issue

that has been raised previously in the House about a kind of....

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Hear, hear!

MR. McGEER: Who said "hear, hear"? (Laughter.)

[ Page 3018 ]

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: You've got friends all around you, Pat.

MR. McGEER: That's very reassuring and I'm not going to

impose on friendship and goodwill. But the....

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: "Don't stretch my luck," says the Member

for Oak Bay, Mr. Member, you were the one who raised this issue

and didn't really follow it through. This was with respect to

an operation at Celista on....

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's that?

MR. McGEER: It's up there somewhere. (Laughter.) It's beyond

Hope. (Laughter.)

MR. FRASER: The Liberals don't know anything about Hope.

MR. McGEER: Oh no, we're independents. Those days are over.

(Laughter.) Naturally it's as an independent Member that I am

raising these matters north and east of Hope. (Laughter.) This

involves the....

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: No, our image is different now; we work for

everybody now. This involves a very lovely area of British

Columbia....

MR. WALLACE: Can't remember where it is, though.

MR. McGEER: No, no, I've got it right here. I've got a

picture of it just in case I forget. (Laughter.) It's Celista

....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: How do you spell that?

MR. McGEER: Just a minute now, I can find it. (Laughter.)

You don't think I've been around Shuswap Lake; I've been over

every square inch of it, Mr. Minister.

There's a property called the Wilson property there....

AN HON. MEMBER: You were looking for the Liberals then.

MR. McGEER: I couldn't find any. I hunted everywhere — up

and down the lake. (Laughter.)

Anyway, there may be independents and I'll perhaps go back

hunting for them.

But, Mr. Minister, regardless of whether they are NDP,

Social Credit, Conservative, Liberal or, best of all,

independent, there is a problem on that lake involving the

Wilson property. What's so reprehensible about the problem

there is that property owners quite legitimately took a motel

owner to court because in their view he was installing a septic

tank in an area which was unsafe from a health point of view.

It was a court case that has been discussed in the Legislature

here, where the local Health official claimed that it was a

safe operation but the former Health official in that same

area, as well as the Health official from the adjoining area,

both testified to the fact that it was unsafe.

In the middle of that court case the provincial government

brought in order-in-council 278 on January 23 in effect

rendering the court case null and void. I don't think the

Minister of Health could have realized what he was doing;

otherwise he would not have put that order forward.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member. I'm waiting for you to relate

these remarks to the Minister's estimates.

MR. McGEER: Yes, and if you will just be patient, I am

coming to that. I merely wanted to lay the background a bit for

you so that you would understand the full implication of my

next point. I've just arrived there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your courtesy.

MR. McGEER: I'm moving right along with dispatch. Not

everybody does that, Mr. Chairman. The Premier, when he gets up

to make a speech, brings in everything under the sun. He gives

a wonderful performance, but he doesn't stick to the point. I

endeavour to do that except when I am distracted by some of the

backbenchers or the Chairman.

Now with respect to you, Sir, I would like to read a letter

written by Robert Williams, Minister.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That's a collector's item.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: No, actually it's just "R." This is signed R.

Williams, but there is a carbon copy to the Hon. Dave Barrett,

Premier, and the Hon. Dennis Cocke (Minister of Health). This

is to a Mrs. A. Craig:

"I refer to your letter of September 17 regarding the Celista

Motel case and the misfortunes of Mr. and Mrs. Burton."

The Minister will be

familiar with this letter.

[ Page 3019 ]

"The only jurisdiction of my department in this matter would

appear to be the unauthorized placement of fill on Crown

foreshore adjacent to motel property, and it is my

understanding the instructions have been given by the local

official of the Lands Service requiring the removal of this

fill.

"Apart from this, the jurisdiction involved appears to be

largely one of the Department of Health, and I understand that

the department is in the process of amending its sewage

disposal regulations to prevent a recurrence of this situation.

The other matters referred to in your letter appear to require

police investigation, and no doubt that is being pursued.

"In the circumstances, I can only express my sympathy for

the misfortunes which have occurred to the Burtons."

Now, Mr. Chairman, the reason for my reading the letter is

to point out that what the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke)

was doing was not amending the sewage disposal regulations to

prevent the recurrence of this situation, but to legitimize it.

Mr. Chairman, what the Minister of Health did was to pass

order-in-council 278 which said it was okay, and in effect

pulled the rug out from under the judge who was about to rule

against what was going on.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Interjections.

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

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Nonsense! — and you

know it. Why don't you speak on my estimates? Why his?

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

relate his remarks more directly to vote 126.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You are not blaming me, are you?

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, what I've got here, and what

I want to send over to the Minister is Picture 1.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I've seen those pictures.

MR. McGEER: Picture shows a dump truck....

HON. MR. COCKE: And you're driving it.

MR. McGEER: What it is doing is putting fill into Crown foreshore. This

dump truck — and here is a picture of it — is doing exactly the opposite of

what the Minister said in his letter of October 10. The Minister's letter says,

"remove the fill," and picture 1 shows the fill being put in.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Can you believe it, Mr. Chairman? Here's the

Minister's letter dated October 10, 1974, saying to remove the

fill, and here's a picture of a dump truck putting the fill

in.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That's not a provincial truck, is it?

MR. McGEER: Well, I don't know, but it's got a lot of dirt

in it and it is going into Crown foreshore.

Now, Mr. Chairman, my next picture.... The Minister of

Health was vanishing across the floor a minute ago, and I

wasn't going to say anything about the Minister of Health until

he interrupted, but the Minister of Health said: "You are

wrong, and you know it." I have picture 2, Mr. Chairman, which

shows a septic tank being put into this property.

I want you to observe this picture when I send it up to you,

Mr. Chairman, and then I'd like you to pass it on to the

Minister, because what this picture shows is where the septic

tank has been placed.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: No, no, you missed the point. Right in this

picture the septic tank is on dry land. Okay?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: If you say so, Pat.

MR. McGEER: Picture 3. It's not a question of saying so. I'm

describing a picture. The Minister can see them.

HON. MR. COCKE: What were you doing two weeks ago? Where

were you?

MR. McGEER: Picture 3.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Your university training has gone to

your head.

MR. McGEER: Picture 3, Mr. Chairman. No, no, no. We're just

going to send the evidence.

You know, that's an interesting thing, Mr. Chairman. The

Minister implied that it needs university training to look at

these pictures. They're pretty self-evident. Picture 3 is a

picture of the same area taken the year before, which shows it

all under water. In other words, what we've got here is a

picture of the area under water taken a couple of

[ Page 3020 ]

years ago, the picture of the area that was under water now

having a septic tank which kind of refutes what the Minister

said — that it was all perfectly safe. This is what the court

case was all about.

Finally, there's the letter from the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources saying that the septic tank was

quite clearly placed in an unsafe position. These pictures

prove that. They broke another law placing fill on government

foreshore. The Minister writes a letter on October 10 saying to

cease and desist; and here's the dump truck putting the fill

in.

Now I don't think you need a university degree to figure

this out. I think a child of two could figure it out.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That's why I can't understand it taking

this long.

MR. McGEER ; Well, Mr. Minister, I'm bringing it to your attention now.

You wrote the letter on October 10, 1974. My question is: what the devil is

going on in your department?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I don't believe the Hon. Member

for Oak Bay has spoken for some time in this debate.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I'm raising

the case of a man at Ladysmith whose problem was already raised

by the present Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon.

Mr. Strachan) some time ago. I won't go into all the details,

but very briefly: this man bought property back in 1952 and he

was aware of the fact that there was an oyster lease on the

foreshore related to his property. The Minister's nodding; he

probably knows the case I'm referring to.

This man is deeply disturbed and he's gone through a great

deal of trouble over the fact that the lease was renewed

without consulting the property owners in the

neighbourhood.

Without going into all the details, the man subsequently got involved in litigation

because be became exercised over what he felt was unfair treatment of his rights.

The fact of the matter is that there's been a great deal of trouble on the property

with the collection of oyster shells and problems with rat infestation and so

on and so forth. But the key to the problem is that we have on file a letter

from the former Minister, Mr. Ray Williston, admitting that when the lease was

renewed in 1957 for 21 years, the manner in which the lease was renewed was

illegal. In fact, the property owners should have been considered, and I gather

that customary practice would be that if the nearby property owners had objected,

then the lease would not have been renewed.

Now I'm not disputing the rights or wrongs of the legality

of that position. But we do have on file a letter from the

former Minister stating that.... If the Minister likes, the

letter was September 24, 1964, file number 0133693. The

situation now is that this gentleman, after many years of

taking legal advice himself and consulting with Members of

government, the former government and with the present Minister

of Transport and Communications who tried to get some action,

now feels that not only has he gone through all these trials

but the property that he owns and the house that he built on

one of the lots has been greatly depreciated. He feels that

surely in the name of fair play he is entitled either to some

compensation or at least that when the lease comes for renewal

in 1978 — still three years away — on this occasion certainly

the consent of the property owners in the district should

surely be obtained.

From reading a large amount of the correspondence on file,

personally I think that this man certainly hasn't had a fair

deal. Mistakes may have been made. I think the man concerned

might have over-reacted and some of what he said antagonized

other people, but he was acting under stress and because he

felt that he had been treated unjustly. I think that should be

put aside in looking objectively at this situation in the hope

that, perhaps, even at this late stage — he bought the property

in 1952 — the government might consider some means of

compensating this man.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Normally, say, for example, with

log-booming areas or areas such as that, there would be a

requirement to check with the riparian owner and get their

approval. I take it that in fact in this instance there were

leases at the time he acquired the land or developed it. In

addition, oyster leases generally tend to be not tied to the

riparian or the edge where the water meets the land,

whereas

log-booming leases frequently do. Oyster leases tend to be

somewhat further out from the actual high-water mark, so I

think the technicians would probably argue that there is that

kind of basic difference, so his riparian rights are not

directly affected — that is, the right to the bank is

maintained, the oyster leases out from the bank where the land

meets the water.

At any rate, I do think there — is a case for a consultation.

I think probably the best hope at a stage like this would be

for us to get the details from the Hon. Member, and at least

give the assurance that the matter will be put on file so that

at the next renewal stage it would be taken up with the upland

owner.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very

[ Page 3021 ]

much the recognition tonight. I have a few questions which I

want to ask.

The Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) reminded me again

that I haven't received any answers, any positive reaction or

positive action on the part of the Minister regarding the

destruction of a historical Indian name in my riding. I am not

about to give the entire speech that I have given so eloquently

in past sessions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Chabot, here we go! (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: Even my members say: "Here we go!"

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You did give it eloquently.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, thank you very much, but I am not about to

repeat it.

MR. WALLACE: Thank goodness for that.

MR. CHABOT: Well, we have heard from the lone Conservative

in British Columbia — the only member in good standing of the

Conservative Party in this province.

MR. WALLACE: No, we got a new member today, the president of

the Esquimalt group.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, are we going to

tolerate these kind of objections so close to the chairmanship

of this House?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would like to request that

the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) only interject from

his own seat.

MR. CHABOT: From his seat and from no one else's seat or

standing next to the Chairman.

MR. McGEER: We request that he not interject at all.

MR. CHABOT: Right.

Anyway, just very recently I wrote a letter to the Minister — it wasn't that

eloquent; it was to the point though. It suggested that one of my constituents

suggested that the name be restored on that historical lake up in my riding,

and which has been destroyed by that government. I sent the letter on. I acknowledged

the letter from my former constituent, and told her I certainly would raise

her objection to the destruction of a historical Indian name in this province

to the Minister, and that I am sure that he would see that sanity prevailed

and that the name Kinbasket be restored.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You're in the wrong location for that

kind of assurance.

MR. CHABOT: The old chief was a great chief and he was very

helpful to those early white explorers who came to this

province — explorers such as David Thompson. He was honoured by

David Thompson, that great geographer and explorer in British

Columbia. He was honoured by the naming this body of water,

Kinbasket Lake.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You said you weren't going to repeat

that speech.

MR. CHABOT: Well, I'm not really. I was just giving a

preamble, just a few words about it.

But I hope that the Minister has had a chance to reconsider

the untimely and unfortunate decision that he has made by

renaming that lake McNaughton Lake. The name McNaughton doesn't

lend itself to the Columbia River treaty because everyone knows

that McNaughton stood alone...

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's really your fault.

MR. CHABOT: ...against the treaty as it was signed between

United States and Canada.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: If you hadn't supported the treaty it

wouldn't have happened. It's your McNaughton Lake.

MR. CHABOT: Do you want me to speak about the Columbia River

treaty the rest of the night? I will. But I want to say that

General McNaughton stood alone against the Columbia River

treaty as it was signed.

I don't know whether the Minister feels he owes a debt of

gratitude to McDougall who had searched the offices of B.C.

Hydro for months to try to find some evidence of hanky-panky

between the provincial government and B.C. Hydro relative to

the Columbia River treaty. Unfortunately, there wasn't too much

evidence there. He found a highly confidential document which

was typed on a few years later, mind you. But, you know, even

though McDougall came out from Dalhousie University, he had

great difficulty in finding anything of any substance to help

the Minister in his mission — this mission impossible — to

prove that there was something wrong with the kind of

relationship that took place, the kind of action that took

place between the provincial government and Hydro, relative to

the cost of the Columbia River treaty.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to leave that subject there. I hope

that the Minister will take the advice of

[ Page 3022 ]

all the information that has been conveyed to him relative

to this name, Kinbasket. He has never yet received one single

letter suggesting that body of water be called McNaughton Lake,

but I am sure that he received considerable correspondence

suggesting that that old historical name, Kinbasket, be

restored.

Now on to another subject, Mr. Chairman. On March 25 —

talking about the Minister and his not answering correspondence

- I wrote to the Minister. Certainly I received an

acknowledgement, but that is some considerable period of time

ago. I used to be very critical of the Minister of Education

(Hon. Mrs. Dailly) and her willingness to reply to

correspondence. I find that the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources is a substantially greater violator in the lack

of answering correspondence. Mind you, I have seen other

governments operate as well. Gillespie in the federal

government is about as slow in answering his correspondence as

the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources in this

province is.

The question that I pose is one dealing with the problem we

are experiencing in one of the fishing areas in my constituency

where land was offered to the Crown provincial and was....

Just one moment, Mr. Chairman. I'm being distracted by

the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) out of his seat

reading the newspaper. I was wondering if that is tolerated in

the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member is

correct that it is not considered proper to read newspapers in

the House. Would the Hon. Member continue, please?

MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much.

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

Chair, please.

MR. CHABOT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My concern was the fact

that private land on Whiteswan Lake, a very prominent fishing

lake in my constituency, had been offered to the Department of

Recreation and Conservation and they fumbled and burnbled along

and nothing took place until the land fell into the hands of

private ownership.

We do have an area which is held in the name of the Forest

Service on Whiteswan Lake, an area in the vicinity of 30 acres.

I am wondering whether the Minister would be willing to make a

commitment that this land would be turned over to the

Department of Recreation and Conservation, parks branch, for

the establishment of a campsite on Whiteswan Lake. I think it

is important that something of this nature take place.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You want another park?

MR. CHABOT: No, I am not asking for a park. Listen, I have

enough parks. The Minister doesn't want me to repeat how many

parks you have in my riding. Would you believe, Mr. Minister,

that within the community in which I reside, a little community

in the East Kootenay, the community of Invermere, there are

people pressuring me? I live on an acre and a half of land

within that community. There are people who want that back half

of my land turned into a park! (Laughter.) So you can imagine

why I have a bit of a hang-up about parks. Nevertheless, I am a

great supporter of parks as long as my private land is not made

into a park.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You can turn your place into a beer

bottle depot or something.

MR. CHABOT: But I want to speak very briefly again — and

time doesn't permit me to be as lengthy as I would like to be —

about

article 13.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): If you

turn it over to us, we will name it Kinbasket Park.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Your house would become wasteland.

MR. CHABOT:

Article 13 of the Columbia River treaty is a

great consternation and a concern to the people I represent. I

am going to briefly outline to the Minister what

article 13 of

the treaty states.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I am aware of it.

MR. CHABOT: It has to do with the possible diversion of a

certain volume of water from the Kootenay River into the

Columbian River at Canal Flats at the height of land in the

Columbia River Valley. That was part of the treaty in which for

maximizing of power on Mica and subsequent downstream dams the

B.C. government in its wisdom suggested that there was a need

for the inclusion of this particular right within the

framework of the treaty.

On the basis of non-diversion, of course, in 1984 or in

subsequent years, Canada as a country is in a position to gain

from the United States financial remuneration for non-diversion

of the Kootenay River into the Columbia River.

Why there is concern at the moment in my riding is the fact

that there have been preliminary examinations of the potential

of diversion. I have a copy of the preliminary examination of

the movement of 1.5 million acre-feet of water from the

Kootenay into the Columbia, which is the equivalent of 70 per

cent of the normal flow of the Kootenay River into the

Columbia. I am sure the Minister

[ Page 3023 ]

realizes that a diversion of this nature would have

detrimental effects on the potential of power generation on his

existing dams on the Kootenay River. It would create a very

serious problem in power generation on the Kootenay.

Not only would it create power problems on the Kootenay, but

it would also — create a very serious pollution problem as well,

because one has to realize that there are industries dumping

their waste. The effluent is flowing into the Kootenay River

with a 70 per cent removal of water flow. When you think of

pulp mills, and you think of the residue of lead and zinc — the

largest lead and zinc mine in the world — flowing into the

Kootenay River, you can imagine the kind of desolation, the

kind of pollution that would be created by a diversion of the

Kootenay River.

Not only would there be a serious pollution problem created

on the Kootenay River; there'd be a serious problem of high

water in the area which I represent. You know, the Minister

believes that my riding should be all parks — at least, the dry

area within my constituency. Now they're considering the

potential or the possibility of diverting part of the Kootenay

River into the Columbia River so that what isn't dry and in

parkland is water. There's nothing left in my riding.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You'd almost think it was a conspiracy,

wouldn't you?

MR. CHABOT: I wouldn't think for a moment that you'd lay

awake at night worrying about the kind of things, ways and

means, of getting rid of the Member for Columbia River. I'm

sure no one would want to do that because I believe that a

diversion of the Kootenay River would be extremely detrimental.

I can't visualize any real beneficial effects it would have. It

would be seriously detrimental to the area.

There would be a necessity, I firmly believe, of either

lifting the existing roadbed of the Canadian Pacific Railway

through that area, or the relocation of that railway. And I'm

sure the Minister realizes that relocating a railroad for some

75 or 80 miles would run into the millions of dollars. Not only

would it be a matter of relocating the railroad, which is

responsible for the movement of the Kaiser coal, the Coleman

coal and all the other products manufactured in the

southeastern part of the province, but the diversion would also

affect the existing Highway 95 that runs through the area.

There are bridges that would have to be replaced. The highway

would have to be elevated.

We also are blessed with a substantial tourist summer home

concept along Lake Windermere. We have 350 summer homes that

pay taxes — substantial taxes. They don't get the benefit of

the homeowner's grant. And it's beneficial to the commercial

aspect of the community we have in the area.

Now also environmentally it would be extremely destructive

because the Columbia Valley has always been regarded as a great

nesting area, you know, for geese and ducks and so forth. You

can imagine the environmental impact.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It would stabilize the water in the

lakes.

MR. CHABOT: It would stabilize, and it would destroy the

nesting area which presently exists in the area. In my opinion,

it would have great social, economic and ecological destruction

within the Columbia Valley which I represent. I have to admit

that a diversion would generate additional power for Mica and

its downstream dams, but the kind of cost that would be

involved.... I'm not going to relate it to the cost that the

Minister visualizes on the Pend-d'Oreille, or on Site 1 below

the Peace, because those costs of power generation are a

minimum of three and a half times what we're looking forward to

on the Mica.

You can imagine the kind of costs that would be generated

and the additional power that's going to be generated on the

dams that exist in Canada by the relocation of a railway, the

elevation of a highway, the removal of summer homes — 350

summer homes along the railway — plus the pollution that would

be caused along the Kootenay, plus the destruction of the

habitat of the waterfowl within the riding.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: What was the question?

MR. CHABOT: Now the question is: is this study the shades of

the McNaughton plan? You know, the McNaughton plan was the Dore

Dam down near Bull River and the Luxor Dam, which would put the

whole area under water. That would have generated additional

power, certainly, but at what cost? There was no justification

when one looked at the cost for the additional power that would

have been generated on Mica.

Now the question is: does the Minister seriously believe

that there is a need, in view of the kind of disruption,

ecological impact, social impact that will take place by a

possible diversion of the Kootenay River...? Does the

Minister seriously believe that there is justification for the

diversion of the Kootenay River into the Columbia River?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, I don't think I could really

comment at this time. I do, however, believe that detailed

studies are needed in terms of weighing the costs and benefits

of this option under the Columbia River treaty. So I appreciate

the Members comments and his concerns, and I will reflect upon

those when we consider other aspects as well.

[ Page 3024 ]

MR. CHABOT: Oh, I thought there would be something far more

elaborate because we are going into a costly series of

examinations. The preliminary survey, which I have here, was

done by a whistle-stop through the riding. They had lunch at

Fairmont Hot Springs, ELUC and Hydro. What else did they do?

Dinner at night at Fairmont Hot Springs. They had lunch in

Wardner and they had dinner and a night in Cranbrook. They

returned to the Cranbrook airport on May 9 and flew back to

Vancouver.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It was a real boost to the local

economy. (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: They weren't in the area very long, but they

came up with some pretty elaborate figures. On the basis of

their preliminary surveys, without going into the whole social,

economic and environmental impact, the Minister must have in

his own mind some idea of whether he is undertaking this study

for the purpose of strengthening his hand to negotiate with the

Yankees, or whether he seriously has an intention of causing

the kind of destruction which will take place by the diversion

of the Kootenay River — a 1.5 million acre-feet of water from

the Kootenay River, 70 per cent of its normal flow into the

Columbia River. Certainly you must have a position in your

mind.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes.

MR. CHABOT: What is it?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It is that it is a very serious matter,

and it deserves the utmost consideration by the best minds

available. While I appreciate the contribution of the Hon.

Member, we do feel additional work is necessary.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, 1984 is on the horizon, as

province are concerned. I'm wondering if the Minister could

give me some kind of deadline as to when the anxiety which

exists within my riding will be allayed in the....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: When the Premier determines the election

date, I believe.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, I'm not worried about an election. You can

call that tomorrow, my friend. I'm not worried about an

election. You'd better believe it, because I'll tell you, that

old, tired, arrogant Minister for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) is finished, absolutely finished. He's long gone, and

so are those silent, Girl Guide....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member relate to

the vote, please?

MR.CHABOT: ... guys who won't speak their minds, like the

Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) who has only introduced

Girl Guides in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: That's the only contribution he's ever made.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon, Member speak to the vote?

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you against Girl Guides? Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: No, I've eaten their cookies many times. I'm

even being attacked here.

Could the Minister give us some kind of idea as to when the

examination of the potential diversion will be finalized. You

can't expect to keep thousands of people in a state of anxiety

for years on a critical issue such as this — whether they are

going to be flooded out or not, whether they can add to their

existing homes or not. This is a serious matter. There is

concern in my constituency about whether the water will flow

through the heart of the community of Canal Flats, or whether

it will flow to the west of the community of Canal Flats. These

questions are being asked. The Minister can laugh all he wants,

but these questions are being asked in my constituency.

I was there last weekend. I know I've been asked many times

why I wasn't on the Princess Marguerite, but, unfortunately, I

had to be in my constituency, and these kind of questions were

put to me. Despite he fact they don't agree with the

government, despite the fact they are opposed to the

government, despite the fact that they want to destroy the

government; they've asked me to come down here and ask the

government whether there is a possibility that these

examinations will come to an end and we will get.... They

asked me many times: "When can we get rid of this

government?"

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: But in the meantime....

MR. CHABOT: But the key question here under your estimates,

Mr. Minister, is: when do you expect to finalize your

examination for potential diversion of a massive amount of the

flow of the Kootenay River into the Columbia?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: There is a great deal of study needed,

Mr. Chairman, and I'm afraid I don't have that information with

me. But if the matter is raised in question period in a day or

so. I'll make every effort to have some kind of information

with me with respect to deadlines for studies that are

[ Page 3025 ]

currently underway.

MR. McGEER: I would ask the Minister if he would table the

correspondence with respect to Jericho, pointing out the

misinterpretation by the afternoon press. I think I perhaps

confused the Minister about the afternoon press. There is a

mainland afternoon press, and a very superior island afternoon

press. I wouldn't 't want to cast reflections on sunny

Vancouver Island, nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, I think it is

really important to correct the misimpression created by the

Minister with respect to agreements made by the federal

government and the provincial government, I know that would be

clarified if the Minister would be forthright enough to table

the correspondence. He hasn't indicated that he will.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Certainly there is some background with

respect to the original ownership of the land, which would be

useful for all parties. I tend to look positively on that

aspect. It is a matter I would like to review with my staff,

however.

MR. McGEER: The Minister really didn't say that he was going

to table that correspondence. I would like to get a commitment

from him. There is no reason to keep secrets. There is no

reason to hide behind the departmental officials. We've had

nonsense so many times in the House of a Minister saying he

can't do this or he can't do that because he of the civil

service. He is elected to take the responsibility, he has been

careless in the statements he has made, and he has left a wrong

impression. In order to correct that impression, he needs to

table the correspondence. I don't want the Minister hiding

behind the civil service. I want him to be honest. He has been

blackmailing the city. Let him take the responsibility and

table that correspondence.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 126 pass?

Vote 126 approved.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman....

HON. MRS. DAILLY: It's passed.

MR. McGEER: It hasn't passed. I....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I recognize the Minister of

Education.

MR. McGEER: What do you mean, Mr. Chairman? I am on my feet.

That vote hasn't been passed. If she wants to adjourn the

House, that's fine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There was no one on his feet at the time

that the Chair put the vote. The vote was passed.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, you are blind. I was on my feet. I

gave the Minister a few seconds to rise and indicate he would

table the correspondence....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think we could clear it up.

Do we have leave to return to vote 126?

Leave granted.

On vote 126.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

on vote 126.

MR. McGEER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

When we left our discussion, I had asked the Minister not to

hide behind the skirts of the civil service because I think

that is unfair to the civil service. It is because I think that

is unfair to the civil service. It is the Minister who has

created the problem, not the civil service. If the civil

service has created the problem, then the Minister still takes

responsibility for it. It is a non-answer, Mr., Chairman, and

it is cowardly to suggest that a Minister cannot take

responsibility...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: ...because he has to discuss it with his

officials.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: It is the Minister who makes the decisions in

this House, it is the Minister who takes responsibility, it is

the government that takes responsibility, and it is not the

civil service.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated for a moment,

please?

I just was interjecting in order to ask the Hon. Member to

withdraw the imputation of cowardice against another Hon.

Member in this House. I think it is unparliamentary. Would the

Hon. Member withdraw the term, please.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. McGEER: Well, will the Minister table the

correspondence?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I am asking the Hon. Member to

withdraw an unparliamentary term

[ Page 3026 ]

under the rules of the House. Would the Hon. Member?

MR. McGEER: Can you produce the parliamentary reference that

"cowardly" is unparliamentary? I've called people that lots of

times.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member is

familiar with the standing order which requests that offensive

terms....

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Did she say I was ill-mannered?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. McGEER: Pardon me, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The standing order states that the offensive

term should not be used in the House. I think it is a matter of

the definition of the word "offensive." Obviously, it must mean

that what is offending to other Hon. Members is offensive to

some Hon. Members. Therefore I ask the Hon. Member to withdraw

the term.

MR. McGEER: How about "lack of courage"? (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: I just asked the Hon. Member to obey the....

MR. McGEER: "Gutlessness"?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: "Spineless"?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member withdraw the term at the

instruction of the Chair?

MR. McGEER: "Weak-kneed"? (Laughter.)

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

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to insist on

"cowardly."

MR. CHAIRMAN: I order the Hon. Member to withdraw the term

"cowardly."

MR. McGEER: I would be glad to, to tell the truth, Mr.

Chairman. I withdraw that. I've thought of all kinds of better

ones — "weak-kneed," "spineless....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I order the Hon. Member to withdraw it

unconditionally without comment. Just indicate to the Chair

that you withdraw and the words.

MR. McGEER: I absolutely withdraw "cowardly." I say that the

Minister is spineless and he is weak-kneed...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: ...and he is hiding behind the skirts....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I repeat one further time that the Hon. Member

is clearly abusing the authority of the Chair.

MR. McGEER: I am not abusing. I withdrew.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It is the custom in parliament,

when the Chair gives an instruction that the term is offensive,

that he should withdraw it without any hesitation as a

gentleman of the House.

MR. McGEER: I did. I withdrew.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I ask the Hon. Member to withdraw without any

further comment.

MR. McGEER: I did. I withdrew with no further comment and

then I continued my speech.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But the Hon. Member then proceeded to use

other offensive words in its place.

MR. McGEER: I didn't think they were. I thought they were.... In fact some people would say they were flattering.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): He is too

ignorant to know, Mr. Chairman.

MR. McGEER: Oh, shame! Was I ignorant, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I accept the withdrawal of the Hon. Member's

use of the word "cowardly," but I would ask him to also

withdraw the other terms, such as "spineless," that he

used. These are clearly offensive against another Hon. Member.

Now would the Hon. Member do this?

MR. McGEER: What term would you suggest? I am willing to use

whatever term is appropriate.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 3027 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, while in Committee of Supply, the

Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey used the term

"cowardly." I stated that this was an offensive term under the

standing orders and asked him to withdraw. He indicated that he

would withdraw but then he replaced it with equally offensive

terms which I also asked him to withdraw. He has refused.

MR. SPEAKER: What were the other terms that he refused to

withdraw?

MR. McGEER: Weak-kneed. I think he was, Mr. Speaker — and

spineless. I am willing to use any parliamentary term that

describes the Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Spineless?

MR. McGEER: And I am quite prepared to take your direction

on this.

MR. SPEAKER: I think that you know that it is upon the

presiding officer, under standing orders, to decide whether an

expression is unparliamentary. It is for him to retain the

dignity and the decorum of the House. He should not have to

insist more than once upon the withdrawal of an unparliamentary

expression, and I'm not going to insist more than once that you

completely withdraw any of the statements that were determined

to be offensive and unparliamentary. Would you kindly do so,

unconditionally?

MR. McGEER: Now, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Without any equivocation, without any

explanation, simply withdraw them, please.

MR. McGEER: I want to have clear in my mind.... There are

certain....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I ask the Hon. Member, without

any further statements, to withdraw unconditionally the

epithets he applied to another Hon. Member of the House.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared

to use parliamentary language, but it needs to be defined. If you want to tell

me which words are unparliamentary....

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Hon. Member is being

impudent to the whole House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: It is the duty of the Chair to ask a Member to

withdraw. I'm sorry, I must name the Hon. Member, and I do.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Patrick Lucey McGeer, I name

you.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

Interruption.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I

move that the Member named be suspended from the service of the

House until Thursday.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Macdonald

Dailly

Strachan

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Lockstead

Gabelmann

Skelly

Nunweiler

Nicolson

Lauk

Radford

Young

King

Cocke

Williams, R.A.

Lorimer

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Steves

Lewis

Webster

Kel