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, APRIL 22, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1567 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Presenting petitions

Request for continuation of summer student-employment

programme. Mr. Schroeder — 1567

Jordan — 1567

Mortgage Brokers Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 48). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction

and first reading — 1567

Oral Questions

Consumer Services' monitoring of government purchases. Mr. Phillips

— 1567

Application of Human Rights Code to government summer job programmes. Mr. D.A.

Anderson — 1568

Port Coquitlam juvenile curfew. Mr. Wallace — 1568

Leased Esquimalt office space. Mr. Bennett — 1569

Federal fiscal constraints on education. Mr. Rolston — 1570

ICBC annual report. Mr. Gardom — 1570

Routing of government aircraft. Hon. Mr. Strachan answers — 1570

Complaints from Prince George Consumer Services office. Mr. Curtis —

Point of order

Schedule for Committee of Supply. Mr. Smith — 1571

Mr. Speaker — 1571

Mr. Smith — 1571

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1571

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1572

Mr. Speaker — 1572

Mr. Smith — 1572

Mr. Speaker — 1572

Mr. Wallace — 1572

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1573

Mr. Bennett — 1573

Mr. Gardom — 1573

Mr. Speaker — 1573

Mr. Chabot — 1573

Mr. Gardom — 1574

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

On a point of order.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1574

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 1574

Mr. Chairman — 1574

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1575

On vote 126.

Mr. Fraser — 1575

Hon. R.A. Williams — 1579

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1581

Hon. R.A. Williams — 1583

Mr. Chabot — 1584

Hon. R.A. Williams — 1585

Mr. Chabot — 1586

Hon. R.A. Williams — 1586

Mr. Wallace — 1587

Hon. R.A. Williams — 1590

Mr. Wallace — 1592

Hon. R.A. Williams — 1593

Mr. Dent — 1593

Mr. Gardom — 1593

Mr. Bennett — 1594

Ms. Sanford — 1595

Mr. McGeer — 1596

Hon. R.A. Williams — 1599

Mr. Rolston — 1599

Mr. Chabot — 1600

Hon. R.A. Williams — 1602

Mr. Bennett — 1603

Mr. Fraser — 1603

Mr. Bennett — 1603

Mr. Fraser — 1604

Division on motion that the committee rise and report

progress 1605

Committee of Supply: Department of Highways estimates.

On vote 93.

Mr. Fraser — 1606

Mr. McGeer — 1609

Mr. Wallace — 1612

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1614

Mr. Bennett — 1617

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1618

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1619

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1612

Mr. Chabot — 1621

Mrs. Jordan — 1624

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1627

Mr. Gibson — 1627

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1628

Mr. Phillips — 1629

TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I would like the House to welcome

a delegation of students from Cariboo Hill School — it's a

continuation of a visit from yesterday — which is in the

magnificent constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I would like to welcome a group

of students from Centennial High School in the District of

Coquitlam.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I have the

honour to present a group of constituents from Vancouver South

who are seated in the Members' gallery today to see democracy

in progress.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker,

today we have a large number of students from Eric Hamber

Secondary School. Their teachers hope that the opposition will

behave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. BARRETT: We have as a guest on the floor of the

House the only opposition leader in the Province of Alberta who

was successful in holding a seat in that province's recent

election, Mr. Grant Notley, leader of the New Democratic Party

in Alberta and also, in effect, the Leader of the Opposition in

that province.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I, with a

great deal of feeling, welcome Grant Notley to the

Legislature?

Presenting petitions.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave of the House to read a petition.

"To the Honourable Legislature of the Province of British

Columbia, the Legislature assembled: the petition of the undersigned, Andy Shadrack

of the City of Nelson, humbly showeth that I respectfully and earnestly object

and protest against the curtailment of the students' summer employment programmes

and therefore present to your honourable assembly a petition on behalf of the

residents of the Nelson area of British Columbia; wherefore your petitioner

humbly prays that your Honourable House may be pleased to recommend that the

summer student-employment programme not be cut for the summer of 1975, and as

in duty bound your petitioner will ever pray."

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I wish leave of the House

to present a petition. The petition is as follows:

"To the Honourable Legislature of the Province of British

Columbia, in Legislature assembled. The petition of the

undersigned, S. Locking of the City of Winfield, British

Columbia, humbly showeth that I respectfully and earnestly

object and protest against the disregard for the terms and

conditions established under the Public Utilities Act with

respect to services rendered by Winfield Utilities Ltd. on

property known as Hillcrest Properties Ltd., Winfield, British

Columbia.

"Wherefore your petitioner humbly prays that your

Honourable House may be pleased to recommend that the water rights

branch of the Province of British Columbia ensures that the terms and

conditions set under the Public Utilities Act with respect to Hillcrest

Properties Ltd. at Winfield, British Columbia, be observed on behalf of

the petitioners.

"And, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever

pray."

Dated April 22, 1975, S. Locking, as signed by Patricia

Jordan.

Introduction of bills.

MORTGAGE BROKERS AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Macdonald, Bill 48, Mortgage Brokers

Amendment Act, 1975, 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.

Oral questions.

CONSUMER SERVICES' MONITORING

OF GOVERNMENT PURCHASES

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

to direct my question today to the Hon. Minister of Consumer

Services. Does the Department of Consumer Services monitor and

investigate purchases by other departments of the government to

ensure that the biggest consumer of all, which is the

government of the province, receives value for dollars

spent?

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): No, Mr. Speaker, we

do not.

[ Page

1568 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the Hon. Member if this is within

the field set out in the statutes. If it isn't, it is beyond

the responsibility of this Minister.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the

Department of Consumer Services, or the Minister personally,

received any complaints within the last month from any

government departments regarding high prices paid for

furniture?

HON. MS. YOUNG: Not to my knowledge, but I'll take the

question as notice.

MR. PHILLIPS: Would you take a supplementary question as

notice, Madam Minister?

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, this does not come within the

terms of my department or the legislation I administer. I think

these questions are out of order if they're directed to me.

MR. PHILLIPS: Would the Minister investigate a complaint I

have had regarding the high price paid for stacking chairs for

their office in Prince George — 18 stacking chairs purchased at

a price of $92 per piece for a total of $1,656 for your office

in Prince George? Would you investigate that purchase from a

Danish importer? Would you also advise me at the same time if

any Canadian furniture manufacturer was given an opportunity to

bid on these stacking chairs?

MR. SPEAKER: I think that's a question for public accounts.

I'm afraid it's out of order, really.

APPLICATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS CODE TO GOVERNMENT SUMMER JOB PROGRAMME

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Minister of Labour:

will the Minister assure the House that the Human Rights Code

provisions respecting no discrimination with respect to

employment will apply to the summer employment programme of the

provincial government?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I don't

think it's within my responsibility to assure that the law

applies equitably throughout this province. I think that when

the Legislature passes a law, that law is applicable to

everyone within the community. Naturally, they are obliged to

live by it. I do not enforce law; we simply hold legislative

responsibility. But I would hope that if any Member of the

Legislature can provide an incident of violations of the Human

Rights Code or any other statute, they would come forward with

that kind of information and lay a complaint with the human

rights branch.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the

Minister then explain why the employment programme

section of

the Minister's department applied to the Human Rights

Commission to suspend the provision in

section 8 of the Human

Rights Code, which deals with equal opportunity to employment

as it applies to employment discrimination, so as to enable the

1975 summer employment programme to give preferences?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, if the Member will read the

Human Rights Code closely, he will find that there is provision

in the code to provide preference or affirmative action

programmes which will allow for the acceleration of opportunity

for certain groups who have been historically disadvantaged in

society, such as women's groups, native Indian groups and so

on. There is no amendment or no waiving of the legislation

necessary to accomplish that purpose.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, do I take the Minister's

statement as being that to rectify historic disadvantage,

section 8 of the Act, dealing with equal opportunity for

employment, will not apply?

HON. MR. KING: I'm suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that the

legislation is quite clear. There's no amendment required to

provide the flexibility to the human rights branch to allow for

affirmative action or for acceleration of opportunity for

minority groups.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could I then ask the Minister to take as

notice a question, as clearly he is unaware that his employment

programme

section has applied to the Human Rights Commission?

Could I ask him to look into this matter, come back and report

either by letter to me or to the House?

HON. MR. KING: I'm not aware of any application, but I

certainly will check into it.

PORT COQUITLAM JUVENILE CURFEW

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Port Coquitlam

council decision to impose an 11 p.m. curfew on juveniles, does

the Attorney-General consider that it is constitutional, or

does it not interfere with the basic right of the freedom of

the individual?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): The first part of

your question should be addressed to a lawyer (laughter), but

there is a

section in the Municipal Act, I think it's 869,

which may — and I can't make a legal decision on this right at

the instant here, maybe another Minister can — allow this kind

of a bylaw to be passed. But again, there may be larger

[ Page

1569 ]

constitutional, civil libertarian principles involved where

the courts would intervene, even if it is properly framed under

that section. I think the law, even if valid legally, is not

sensible. I think this is a matter of parental responsibility

to make the.... You know, the police play a game of cops and

robbers with youngsters on the street. I think it's a mistake.

I think they have more important crime problems in that

community and in other communities in B.C.

MR. WALLACE: I tend to agree with the Minister that perhaps

it's not a wise decision and perhaps unenforceable. I'd like to

know if the Attorney-General will be having any communication

with Port Coquitlam council so that some situation might be

avoided, and whether in fact he would intervene if a penalty

were to be applied either against a juvenile or the juvenile's

parents in the light of such uncertain constitutionality of the

bylaw.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, it's premature to decide whether

or not there will be a court challenge of the bylaw if the

council continues with it. That might initiate locally, and at

that stage we might be called upon to intervene.

MR. WALLACE: Will you be talking to council? Will you be

contacting them?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Ordinarily we don't. If it is within the

municipal ambit of authority and it's lawful, I don't phone

them up and ask what they have done — if it's allowable under

the Municipal Act. But we'll look at it in terms of its

constitutionality, and I'm sure the Minister of Municipal

Affairs will be interested in it also.

MR. WALLACE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The very

nature of the legislation is somewhat provocative and it may,

in fact, lead to some kind of confrontation such as the

Minister alluded to in his first answer. Will the Minister not

say that he will try to take preventive action by contacting

council?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think that there are remedies

at law. This is a solution to a legal proposition, which is not

permitted under question period.

LEASED ESQUIMALT OFFICE SPACE

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

the Minister of Public Works: could the Minister confirm that

his department has leased 15,000 square feet of office space

for 10 years in the 900 block Ellery Street in Esquimalt?

Interjection.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Yes, they're

coming closer to home, in Esquimalt. I would like to take this

as notice. (Laughter.) I know of no recent lease. Mr. Speaker,

I think you'll understand why I say I would like to take this

as notice, because the question that was asked on April 15

related to a vacant parking lot adjacent to a Kentucky-fried

stand. (Laughter.)

MR. BENNETT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I would point out to the Hon. Leader of the

Opposition that he has asked a question and the Hon. Minister

has taken it as notice. It's hard to place a supplementary on

that.

MR. BENNETT: I have a supplementary which he can take as

notice, because we've been questioning a series of public

buildings. While he's taking it as notice on this building,

could he check further that this building was leased effective

July 1, 1974, and was still not occupied as of April 21?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Is this a take-out order?

MR. BENNETT: There has been a waste of apparently $35,000

for unused office space.

I would like to ask a supplementary because we've been

trying to find out how the Minister leases his office space. I

was looking to see in the career opportunities of the

Government of British Columbia whether we were trying to fill

the space as fast as it was leased, but I find two of the

categories that are looking for people are for property

negotiators for the Department of Public Works in which the job

is to seek further leased premises for the government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member is consuming the

question period with speeches.

MR. BENNETT: I'd like to ask the Minister whether this

advertisement is for new property negotiators because of the

mistakes of the negotiators in leasing space over a year in

advance, or whether he is making further attempts to lease more

space at great public expense before they have departments to

fill it.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, if I could follow the great

harangue, I'd certainly be pleased to take it as notice. I'll

certainly check it in the Hansard Blues.

MR. BENNETT: The public has the blues; it's their money you

are wasting.

[ Page 1570 ]

FEDERAL FISCAL

CONSTRAINTS ON EDUCATION

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): A question to the Minister of

Education. What constraints have the federal government put

under their share under the fiscal arrangements Act for higher

education. Is B.C. especially constrained? If so, what are you

doing about it?

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member like to answer?

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Yes, I just happen to have

that answer here. (Laughter.)

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

constraint placed upon us in the post-secondary fiscal Act is a

15 per cent ceiling. I think we are all aware that costs in

British Columbia and other jurisdictions have increased

considerably above 15 per cent for post-secondary financing. We

are making representations to the federal government because we

are deeply concerned with the fact that originally they were

supposed to be picking up 50 per cent and, now that they have

set this limitation, it is going well below 50 per cent of

cost-sharing.

ICBC ANNUAL REPORT

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): To the Minister of

Transport and Communications. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the

Minister if the annual report of the Insurance Corp. of British

Columbia is completed.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Members be silent

so that we can go on with question period?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I was

still working on it this morning, but I fully expect it will be on deck before

my estimates are up for discussion. I am hoping I will have it ready for Friday,

as a matter of fact.

MR. GARDOM: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

A supplementary to the Hon. Minister. Has the Minister now

received the true and proper payroll breakdowns of the

insurance corporation? You filed a memorandum before which was

quite incomplete.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I told you that I understood the

question. I have the further completion of that coming.

MR. GARDOM: Will this be filed before your estimates, too,

Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I hope so. I checked on it last

Friday when I was in Vancouver.

ROUTING OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yesterday I answered a question with

regard to who is responsible for aircraft. I said the

dispatcher and the Deputy Minister were. It usually goes to the

Associate Deputy Minister first and then to the Deputy

Minister. On occasion I am asked for a decision, and it

requires my permission before any government aircraft can leave

the province.

COMPLAINTS FROM PRINCE GEORGE

CONSUMER SERVICES OFFICE

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

the Minister of Consumer Services. I wonder if the Minister

could inform the House if she has received any complaints

whatever with respect to the operation of her department's

Prince George office. By operation I mean the handling of

complaints or inquiries which come to the office.

HON. MS. YOUNG: No, I don't believe I have. I don't recall

having received any, but that does not mean that there might

not have been. What my practice is is to immediately

investigate the complaint.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Isn't that question too general, really?

You could do that with every Minister and it would mean nothing

unless you had some basis for it.

MR. CURTIS: The question has considerable meaning.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, if you have a basis for it, I will accept

the question.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the supplementary to the same

Minister is to determine if there has been any indication

through the Prince George office that that office is not

prepared to handle or otherwise deal with complaints concerning

ICBC.

HON. MS. YOUNG: I have had no complaints that way. If I do

receive a complaint of that nature — in other words, a

complaint about one of my staff people or the function of my

office — I immediately look into it. I have not received any

complaint of that nature.

[ Page 1571 ]

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a

point of order. My point of order has to do with the procedure

on the floor of this House. Yesterday, and at times in the last

few days, we have heard the Hon. House Leader indicate and try

to create an impression that the Whips have a responsibility

for determining the procedure on the floor of this House and

the length of time that will be taken in debate on estimates. I

would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is nothing

really further from the truth. The Whips have a responsibility

to try to correlate what will happen in the House, but the

House itself will determine how long an individual Minister's

estimates will stay on the floor of this House. That has

nothing to do with any agreement between Whips.

I would like to remind the House that the government

introduced closure when they decided to limit debate to 135

hours. The government decided to introduce selective closure

when they determined by memorandum how the order of speakers

and how the order of Ministers would come before this House. It

is a procedure that has made a mockery out of the parliamentary

process in this House. We have been asked to limit debate on

important portfolios...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SMITH: ...to less than three hours. That is making a

mockery out of the parliamentary process, and it is a

deliberate attempt to frustrate the honest endeavours of the

opposition to solicit answers to important questions which the

Ministers must be responsible for answering to the Members of

this House.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I wonder if the Hon. Member

would be seated.

On a point of privilege or on a point of order, I first must

determine whether it's a point of order or a point of

privilege. It doesn't appear to be a point of order because the

House is not cognizant of what is happening in committee and

what estimates are dealt with in committee. Consequently, the

only way that it could be brought to the House is on report

from the Chairman of the Committee, as determined by the

committee in its own deliberations.

Secondly, the other aspect that presents a problem in the

House is that the rules that are adhered to.... We discussed

this last night; I don't know if the Hon. Member was in the

House then. When we were discussing this very point, I pointed

out that the House and the Speaker had no power to alter the

order of business with respect to what occurs in committee

because...

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! ...when the estimates are

called it's the prerogative of the Ministers concerned which

estimates they call or what vote is before the committee.

Consequently, they can deal with that particular vote any day

because, as I said yesterday, the initiative rests in the

Crown, and always has in the history of parliament. If you want

further details on the authorities for that, I'd be glad to

furnish them.

The point is that I've looked at it very carefully because I

understand the complaint. I'm concerned about it too, as we all

are. We can't do anything in the House on the matter unless

there's a motion or some initiative in the House upon which a

debate can be formed. There is no motion or order of business

before the House on which a debate could take place. Therefore,

you are exceeding the bounds of your objection in you start a

debate on whether it is a good thing or a bad thing or the

merits of the case. That's not a matter for the House to debate

at this stage without an order of business before it.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, it's the House Leader who

continually refers to the fact that the Whips will determine

it. It's not the Whips who will determine it; it will be

determined on the floor of this House. It's making a mockery of

the process in this House when we don't even know from one hour

to the next what estimates will be called. We have no guarantee

that the department that is called this afternoon will be

debated for more than three and a half hours maximum before

it's pulled out and another Minister's estimates will be

brought on this evening. I say that that is an abuse of the

Members of this House and our rights as Members of this

Legislature.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, as the other Member has had

an opportunity to bring this up, I would like the opportunity

to make a comment. I would like to make it quite clear, on a

point of order, that I as House Leader have given a letter to

the other House leaders, and I would like to repeat what is in

the letter. "I wish to point out that any suggestion from the

opposition party on reasonable notice as to which departments

they wish to be called and in what order will be satisfactory

to the government."

Mr. Speaker, the government Whips are meeting this

afternoon. I pointed out to the Member who just spoke....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

[ Page

1572 ]

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I pointed out to the Members....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! I think the House listened to the

complaint. The answer should be listened to as well.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, to the opposition Whip who

just spoke: I pointed out to him on the phone this morning that

the government Whip would be available, coming in at 11:30 this

morning. I understand a meeting has been set for 2:30.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to proceed with the order of the

day.

MR. SPEAKER: I really must say that it isn't a point of

order, as you can see, because what happens in the committee is

not known to the House. Therefore you can't very well complain

on that point.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I think, with respect, that you must recognize,

surely, that it isn't a point of order.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Only where my advice is sought. I cannot do

anything about the rules as they exist. When a point of order

is raised I have to first determine if it is a point of

order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, could I ask you then

to take what I am about to say back to your chambers and

consider it while the House is in committee? The fact is that

you are adopting a very legalistic approach, not at all the

constructive, expansionary approach of some of your past

decisions.

You as Speaker are the ultimate protector of the rights of

this Legislature. You are elected to that office to protect the

British parliamentary system which this parliament operates

under. And to adopt a narrow, legalistic approach so unbecoming

and so unlike you, as you have done, instead of a constructive

approach whereby you realize what is going on and what damage

is being done to the traditional rights of this Legislature

strikes me as strange indeed. I would only recommend, Mr.

Speaker, that you go back and give it thought in the quiet of

your study, gazing at the Tiffany lamps and those fine

paintings...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Order!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...and come to a decision as to what your true role

should be in this dispute. Clearly, if you rely entirely upon the government

House Leader and these facetious letters that we receive in response to detailed

proposals for change, we're going to get nowhere and these committee estimates

certainly won't be dealt with in a proper and expeditious manner. But if you

adopt a more open and constructive approach, I feel that it might be possible

for you to resolve the difficulties that this House finds itself in.

MR. SPEAKER: I would be very happy to act as a mediator

between the contesting parties, except for one thing. I, as

well as you, am bound by the rules, and the rules were adopted

by this House at the last session as to the amount of time in

estimates. The time was set at 135 hours and 45 sittings.

Consequently I cannot make up rules. I can make suggestions. I

would be glad to make any suggestions to any Members of the

House in the quiet of my room.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will you look at the rules?

MR. SPEAKER: I'd be glad to look at the rules or look at

anything, but whether the House will adopt it instanter is

another matter. I think this sort of thing has to be looked at

by a committee, and it must be looked at with some extensive

care and deliberation — not just an overnight thing.

MR. SMITH: With respect, I suggest to you that it is your

responsibility to look into the matter when, within the scope

of the 135 hours we have allocated in our rules of procedure

within this House and our own standing orders, the government

uses those rules to further put upon the Members of this House

a procedure of selective closure which frustrates the Members

of this House in their honest attempt to solicit answers from

cabinet Ministers about their departments; then I think it is

your responsibility.

MR. SPEAKER: I have already pointed out to the Hon. Members

that all a list or

schedule can do is be a courtesy to the

House, or to the Committee of the Whole House, as to what is

proposed to be done in future. It cannot be binding on the

House. What happens each day is in the hands of the Committee

of the Whole House and of the House Leader — what is proposed

for debate in estimates. The only way out that I can see for

this House is for a motion to be debated on notice.

I think I should hear from another party. The Hon. Member

for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, you did mention that you are

available to give advice when there is

[ Page 1573 ]

some dispute within the rules — and I am only discussing

within the rules that have been passed. Yesterday we had an

example of Members trying to participate in the debate and

touch upon matters which more specifically might be touched

upon under other votes of the same Minister. This served to

restrict even further the capacity we have, within our

half-hour speech, to cover some very important subjects within

the Minister's purview but which more specifically, if we ever

got back to the separate votes, would be discussed under these

specific votes.

I wonder if you could give the House guidance enough that at

least the Chairman will not rule us out of order when we are

simply trying to acknowledge the fact that this may be the only

time, under the rules, that we will be allowed to debate Lands,

Forests and Water Resources.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, this can break the

impasse. It is my understanding that the Whips are meeting this

afternoon. The government is prepared to receive, out of the

Whips' meeting, any written request the opposition wishes to

make as to what Minister they want, and for how long. That is

all we ask: tell us what Minister you want and for how long,

and that will be done. It is up to them, Mr. Speaker, through

you. But I say this to the opposition....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How can you listen with your ears with

your mouth open, Mr. Member? I'm trying to explain to you, Mr.

Speaker, that it is up to the opposition to tell us exactly

what Minister they want, and that Minister will be called

within the time frame.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, there is a tradition of taking the

Ministers in order and dealing with the Minister until his

estimates have been voted upon, or any non-confidence motions

have been dealt with. It was the government and the House

Leader and the Premier who changed this traditional procedure

in their inability to accept the debate and the questions of

the opposition. They started to move from portfolio to

portfolio to portfolio without any conclusion of a vote being

called.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Who do you want?

MR. BENNETT: It was the Premier and the House Leader who

changed the traditional procedure, not the opposition. The

Premier is creating a smokescreen...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Who do you want now?

MR. BENNETT: . ..to cover up his own rules of closure that

were introduced last year, refined this year — and they are

being further refined now.

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if we could contain this matter. I've

got the idea, the sense of what the complaint is.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, the

Premier made a suggestion this afternoon, but he failed to

recognize what the major problem is. The major problem is the

fact...

HON. MR. BARRETT: You can't get it together over there.

MR. GARDOM: ...that there is a shortage of hours. That's

the gut problem. We find that government business has increased

40 per cent over last year, and this rule was set last year,

Mr. Speaker. In order to properly attempt to overcome the

impasse, would the House Leader today be prepared to accept a

motion, without notice, to suspend the 135-hour rule? That is

what the opposition wants, and nothing more than that. Without

the suspension of that 135-hour rule, Mr. Speaker, we will not

be returning to parliamentary democracy in the Province of

British Columbia. It is that simple.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I gather that there's not unanimous

agreement on the point. I have listened to all the argument

because, although I can't do anything about it, it has given

the Whips an opportunity to hear the raised points of view.

They are having a meeting now. I understood there was a meeting

of the Whips. At any rate, they have all heard the arguments

and perhaps they will be of some use.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I didn't say I'd been invited; I said the Whips

have heard the arguments.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. CHABOT: Just a brief comment, Mr. Speaker, You suggest

in your statement that the government has the initiative of

calling the estimates

[ Page 1574 ]

they desire. I agree with you in that respect, and it's not

very often I agree with you, Mr. Speaker.

But I do want to say that it's long-standing, historical

parliamentary courtesy for governments to inform the opposition

of the next estimates to come on stream. It wasn't until such

time as the Whip of the official opposition contacted the House

Leader that we were informed at 11:30 this morning of what

estimate would be debated today. It's a complete breakdown of

common parliamentary courtesy in this House.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: That's beside the point of the kind of

emasculation and crushing that we see by the government. We

find the Premier has to say: "We'll allow the Members to call

the Ministries they please within the 135 hours." And to that,

Mr. Speaker, I say: throw out the 135 hours and let's restore

democracy in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: A brief comment, please. We must get on with

the proceedings.

MR. GARDOM: It's extremely brief, Mr. Speaker. I was

attempting to make this point when I was interrupted a moment

ago. I would formally ask for unanimous leave that the rules be

suspended and that a motion be accepted from this side of the

House that the limitation of 135 hours come to an end.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. It's not unanimous leave. Shall leave be

granted?

Leave not granted.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: When you ask for leave, if there are any noes

that ends the matter, as you know.

MR. GARDOM: I didn't hear any. The ayes were so loud over

here that I couldn't hear any.

MR. SPEAKER: Unfortunately, in some cases, it only takes one

no to do it. (Laughter.)

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

LANDS, FORESTS AND WATER RESOURCES

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, on a point of

procedure, yesterday you attempted to rule that it would not be

possible to discuss all the components of the Minister's

department under the Ministerial vote itself. At that time, we

were attempting to give a general overview of the Minister of

Municipal Affairs' (Hon. Mr. Lorimer'

s) department, the

overview in terms of vote totals and departmental totals.

Mr. Chairman, I would like a ruling before we begin today,

indicating that the traditional practice of permitting comment

upon the overall vote of the Minister's department be accepted

under the specific vote of the Minister's office itself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order, the Chair would rule....

The Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) on the point of order.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): There

is a procedure which any competent MLA must have perceived or should know about....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I am trying to help the opposition.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Why don't you help

ICBC?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If you don't want to listen, all right.

So long as the individual does not refer to a specific vote by

number — referring to what happens in a particular area, the

amount of money expended, that sort of thing — I can see no

objection to that. But if you keeping saying, "And in vote so

and so, this happens, and in vote so and so that happens; this

is that and so on," then it's clearly contrary to the

rule.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the point of order, the

Chair, commenting on the point that was raised by the Second

Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson), will exercise good

judgment in determining whether the comments are in order. But

just for guidance, the comments should be related to the vote

directly. If the matter is covered by another

[ Page 1575 ]

vote, then it should be brought up at that time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, you have apparently

overlooked the fact that we cannot deal with the totality of

the Minister's department unless there is flexibility.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You have indicated just now that it has

to be related to specific votes. What you are suggesting is

that we can deal with the parts but we cannot deal with the

whole. We will never have an opportunity of dealing with the

whole department as such, even though we can deal with specific

components.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): It's up to you.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, it's not up to us at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Attorney-General is shouting: "It's

up to you." It is not, Mr. Chairman, because there is no way

under your ruling of yesterday that I was able to discuss the

overall Department of Municipal Affairs in the 20 minutes that

I spent on that particular department.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think I understand the Hon.

Member's point. The Chair must follow the rules of the House.

We are bound to follow the rules of the House; otherwise we

will have an anarchy. The same is true for every other Member.

I think it's just a matter of using good sense in terms of

maintaining the proper rules of order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, in addition to rules we

have traditions, and these traditions, of course, modify your

application of the rules. Tradition has been that under the

Minister's vote we can discuss the overall departmental

estimates, and I would like to know whether that tradition is

being preserved, because if it's not preserved...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...it will be a substantial departure

from all past practices, including every practice that I know

of in any other Legislature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I've taken the matter under advisement

and, certainly, some latitude is allowed. It's a case of

raising a point of order at the time if you are dissatisfied

with the ruling of the Chair.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I did yesterday and got nowhere.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): We're dealing with the Department

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, and specifically the

Minister. A lot of money is involved — $140 million to be

exact — that is, the total of the three departments. I think

the other and more important

part is the fact that he is the

Minister of Forests, and the forest industry in British

Columbia is responsible for generating over 50 per cent of our

economy, so it is a very key portfolio.

I want to tell you that three and a half hours — as a matter

of fact that has been whittled down today to three hours — is

not very long to discuss not only $140 million but also over 50

per cent of the economy of this province.

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

Who's fault is that?

MR. FRASER: It's a shame, and that government over there

should hang their heads in shame.

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

speak to the vote, please.

MR. FRASER: I'm just getting warmed up to get to the vote,

Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: It's straight closure and that's all! And

everybody in British Columbia knows it now.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: We'll now get into the capabilities, or

otherwise, of this Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources.

He has had this office for approximately two years and eight

months. I think we should examine today: has he been a success

or has he been a failure?

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): A

success.

MR. FRASER: Well, you just wait and we'll analyse that. I

think we first of all should look at his job responsibilities

as Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, examine the

policies of the Lands, Forests and Water Resources department

and look at the results of these policies. This Minister is

also, of course, a director of B.C. Hydro, which is another

very important responsibility this Minister holds.

He is really responsible for the economic health of

[ Page 1576 ]

the forest industry which, as I said earlier, accounts for

over 50 per cent of the economy of British Columbia. He is

responsible for the jobs that industry provides and the

businesses that depend on that industry. He is also responsible

for replacing the renewable resources of the land, and

administering operations directed thereto. This job can be

summed up as: stewardship of the resources from lands, forests

and water; the stewardship of the industrial strength of the

resource-based industries and the jobs industry provides;

stewardship of the public revenue that enables government to

provide services to the people.

The job is more than the stewardship of resources. Directly

and indirectly he is responsible for the quality of life and

the environment for living in British Columbia.

For more than 60 years the resource portfolio has been

operated under policies determined by judicial studies. They

were open; they were obtaining input from citizens, business

leaders and professional resource experts. The policies

recommended have been accepted by government and administered

by dedicated civil servants with proven professional

qualifications. As a result, British Columbia's stewardship of

its resources has been, until now, regarded as the model for

all of Canada, and admired as an example of effective public

administration.

Since September, 1972, there has not been stewardship and

the qualified professional civil servants have not been allowed

to apply their expertise. There has been tinkering and meddling

in the ideological swampland of creeping socialism. In the

Minister's own words, he intends such an economic omelette that

the next government will have difficulty unscrambling that

omelette. Stewardship is forgotten. The vote of this Minister

should not be passed.

Mr. Chairman, my colleagues are going to discuss this

Minister's failure as an administrator. As a matter of fact, I

hesitate to call this Minister a failure because, like many

unusual men of history, however misguided, he is successfully

imposing his ideas, however bad, however sinister, on the

Premier of this province, on his NDP and on society generally.

Like other motivated experts, this Minister wrote his manifesto

and published it at the 1971 NDP convention. If there ever was

a document that disqualifies a man for stewardship of the

public resources, it is this document.

Listen to his views about land, Mr. Chairman. "Land in its

broadest sense should be viewed as a common asset held

collectively by all the people of the province. Land is the

least-taxed wealth in North America today." These two sentences

express the NDP policy: first in the Land Act...which is that

a citizen cannot own land; he must be a tenant of the state,

denied right to own land in his own province.

While I'm on that I'd like the Minister to make a note that

in the fall session of the Legislature he announced that the

Lands department was going to create, I believe, 5,000 lots.

I'd like to know how they're doing in creating these lots. I'd

repeat the same question that I asked then: are they going to

be leased or are they going to be put up for purchase? If

they're going to be leased, are they going to be put up at

auction? If they're going to be purchased, I assume they will

be put up to auction. I haven't seen anywhere where it's been

spelled out how these lots will be disposed of — in other

words, by the lease route or the purchase route. A lot of

people would like to know. I would also like to know if he

thinks any one of these 5,000 lots will be available to British

Columbians during 1975. In my opinion, I don't think they will

be.

First we have the Land Act; second, the comments of this

Minister about the taxation of land and his party's policy on

the taxation of land. The NDP promised land tax reform, but

this Minister says. "No, raise the tax and owners will be glad

to give it back to the state." This is why this government will

not take the burden of school tax or any other type of tax off

the land.

The importance of this Minister in the important portfolio

he has with this government.... I would like to point out, Mr.

Chairman, how it affects other portfolios, specifically the

Mining portfolio. In 1971 this Minister wrote: "We should

establish an equity position by right in every mine in British

Columbia." In this sentence he is not talking about purchasing

a share. He's saying: "Take it by right. Take it by the stroke

of a pen."

He goes on in his 1971 manifesto to advocate "high royalties

and punitive taxes on mineral reserves held for future

production." Mr. Chairman, he is the author of the infamous

mining legislation that we know now as Bill 31. The nice

little roly-poly fellow who is the highly inarticulate Minister

of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) has no time to provide stewardship

to B.C.'s second industry, mining.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It is the custom to refer to

Members by their highest title in the House.

MR. FRASER: Well, I did refer to him by his highest title,

Mr. Chairman: the Minister of Mines.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This has been done with the

purpose that the most complimentary words can be used to

describe each Hon. Member.

MR. FRASER: The Minister of Mines is still trying to

remember what Bob Williams told him to do. He hasn't time to

administer the portfolio.

The manifesto that Mr. Williams wrote outlines the

[ Page 1577 ]

disaster to be put onto the forest industry. The plan

involves driving capital out. "We in B.C. have followed a

course that is capital-intensive," — in other words,

investment — "and in the process we have lost control of our

own destiny and, ironically, increased unemployment." Mr.

Chairman, this is ideological balderdash.

He then goes on to suggest that by taking machinery out of

the forest we would add hundreds of thousands of people to the

labour force. Here is the innovative mind of social planning at

work. It says: drive out capital, bring back the PVM, the

bullhook; tell people to do foot slogging, bone-chilling hard

labour, enjoy their work in the service of the state, and never

mind if the workers in the capital-free state of British

Columbia do not produce goods saleable in the world

markets.

We wouldn't be competitive if we went back to this mode of

production of the forest products, Mr. Chairman.

After disposing of capital, this Minister's 1971 manifesto

outlines the true ambition of his power-hungry mind to meddle

and tinker.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: I sure am not. I've got copious notes, because

this man controls the government and there is....

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

please?

MR. FRASER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

He talks about the northwest sector of the province as a

unique opportunity for development under totally new

guidelines. Yes, his first act was to plunge into the northwest

and after two years and eight months — and you would know about

this, Mr. Chairman — we are told we have the success story of

the century.

Sure, Can-Cel made a big profit, but what pulp company did

not receive a windfall from a sudden, unexpected rise in the

world price of pulp?

But the experiment in the northwest sector has caused

unemployment — more out-of-work contractors, more bankruptcies

by small businesses, more idle capacity in chip mills and

sawmills than in any part of this province. Can-Cel admittedly

made a profit, but I'd like to ask you, Mr. Chairman, don't you

think they made it at the expense of small firms like Rim

Resources?

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. FRASER: You will recall the fiasco Rim Resources were in, and I

think are still in. Arrowhead Twin Valley contractors is another one I can recall

that I think went bankrupt or almost bankrupt.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): Poor management.

MR. FRASER: These contractors' products they were

manufacturing all ended up at Can-Cel. I wonder if Can-Cel paid

the fair market price for the logs and chips from these

sources, or did they force them to sell to them at below the

market prices and consequently cause the failures they

experienced last fall.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Who is going to win the hockey game,

Alex?

MR. FRASER: Who is going to win the hockey game? Vancouver

will win handily tonight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. FRASER: This Minister has more hang-ups, more hates, more

conflicts of interest than any public official in the history

of this province. Since 1972 we have not had stewardship of the

resources. We have had ideological tinkering and meddling by a

Minister who is totally incapable of comprehending his

responsibilities. Even when his professional staff tells him

what should be done, he fiddles, delays and procrastinates. I

will give you specific instances, Mr. Chairman.

In less than two years his incompetence has made a big

contribution to bringing healthy and competitive industry to

economic decline.

Since September, 1972, when this man took office, not one

new British Columbia secondary industry has been established,

except in Alberta — out of the reach of this Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was a political move.

MR. FRASER: That is right. Machinery businesses

manufacturing supplies for the forest industry are forced to

move to Alberta and back all their products into the B.C.

market.

Since this Minister came to power not one expansion of

primary industry has been undertaken, except what the Crown has

done — adventures in which the initiating money is taken from

the public treasury. He has caused a new industry, which should

properly locate in this province, to go elsewhere. He should be

known as the biggest exporter of jobs this province has even

known.

This Minister, Mr. Chairman, who has virtual control of the

provincial economy, and a record of administrative incompetence

verging on disaster, is put before the Legislature for three

hours — three and a half hours, or three hours and fifteen

minutes. Every act, every dollar he spends should be

[ Page 1578 ]

investigated under the most intense scrutiny. This is not

parliamentary democracy; it's a cover-up and an affront to the

people of British Columbia.

I would like to discuss for a minute this Minister as an

administrator and mention some of the people that are spotted

throughout his department as watchdogs on the professional

civil servants.

We have a Mr. Boudelier, who is a town planner, a former

partner of the Minister. I believe he's an executive assistant

in the Minister's office. We have a Mr. Hedley, who is an

executive assistant in the Minister's office, an NDP worker in

the Minister's own riding of Vancouver East. We have Mr.

Pearson, Associate Deputy Minister of Lands, ex-town planner.

We have Mrs. Mary Rossen, Mr. Williams' partner, who still runs

his town planner office and is employed under the director of

the Institute of Economic Policy Analysis to watchdog Mason

Gaffney's activities. Mr. Pearson is also on the Environment

and Land Use Committee to watchdog Alistair Crerar, the

director.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Do you deny that you've got all those hacks

around you?

MR. FRASER: Oh, there are more executive assistants here;

don't interfere until I get them all out. Mr. Chairman, keep

that Minister calmed down.

There's Mr. Rick Careless, former executive member of the

Sierra Club, employed on the land use secretariat. I believe

he's an American. Then we have Mason Gaffney, who is also an

American, mystery man, confident and disciple of Williams; he

heads the Institute of Economic Policy Analysis, and, Mr.

Chairman, he was recently appointed to the tax committee to

bring in a whole new structure of property taxation in this

province. I predict that it will be brought in and it will be

site taxation. There are only two other places in the world

that have site taxation, but I'll bet you that British Columbia

will be the third.

As a result of these watchdogs, and the Minister's

incompetence as an administrator, the Forest Service has been

shattered and made incapable of exercising effective resource

management. The Minister does not communicate with the

professional department heads in the forestry. He has placed

secretaries who are ideologically acceptable through all levels

of the Forest Service to watchdog the department heads and

report who they talk to among industry officials. The Minister

has undercut the Forest Service responsibilities for managing

the land bearing the forest crops by building a bureaucratic

screen around his office.

Administrative assistants such as Mr. Hedley, who have no professional qualifications,

have been given licence to proofread reports of civil servants and order amendments

that express ideological objectives. The Forest Service, with its 65-year history

of non-political attention to the science of forestry, has been shattered by

insistence that it become a political arm of the Minister's power structure.

This is not stewardship, Mr. Chairman, of the publicly owned lands; it is ideological

tinkering.

Under this Minister's administration, the legitimate

environment goals of his own professional forest managers have

been obstructed and corrupted until not only is nothing

accomplished, but the forest industry is being slowly paralyzed

by unnecessary cost burdens of over $200 million per year, to

the detriment of public revenues. Such is the level of

administrative incompetence that for the first time in history

the expenditures of the forestry department, including the

hidden, undeclared debt for stumpage, exceed the revenue that

will be taken in. After this startling fact, the $200 million

burden on industry caused by clumsy, improperly administered

environment policy, Mr. Chairman, you and the people of British

Columbia are about to experience the greatest economic disaster

of this century. And it took this Minister only two and a half

years to achieve this.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: How do you figure $200 million?

MR. FRASER: I'd like to ask the Minister a few questions now

on specifics. The first one is on the construction of logging

roads in the interior. In 1973 and 1974, forest operators built

thousands of miles of roads for access to public lands. These

operators were given written contracts saying that the money

would be repaid to them. They are now advised that payments

will be delayed upwards of 10 years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FRASER: Examples are reported of hundreds of thousands

of dollars and, in some cases, more than $1 million expended by

operators to build public roads. These operators are required

to build many miles of road in 1975 and 1976 but do not have

the money to do so because this government has not paid its

bills. Mr. Chairman, the banks won't advance on the

receivables.

Will the Minister tell this House how many millions of

dollars are tied up in the ledger accounts and the

stumpage-offset accounts owing to operators on the official

records of the Forest Service? Is it $140 million or $100

million?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No.

MR. FRASER: How much? Will he tell this House

[ Page 1579 ]

the...?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): The Minister doesn't

know.

MR. FRASER: Will the Minister tell this House that provision

is being made to return this money to the operators so their

working capital can be restored, thereby enabling them to

construct roads required of them in their current timber sale

contracts? How much unemployment will be caused by failure to

return this working capital to the operators?

There are 12,000 IWA members out of work at the present

time; there will probably be more due to the pulp market

happenings. There are millions of acres of public land which

are not reforested because they are taken over by

non-productive weeds.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): In the deep snow.

MR. FRASER: There are miles of fishery streams that can be

cleared of obstruction. What specific programmes will the

Minister initiate to put these out-of-work citizens back to

work for the benefit of the public land? Surely a programme

like this would be responsible stewardship.

In the light of the serious oversupply of chips causing

sawmills to curtail production and employment, what is the

rationale for the Forest Service to create chips? Where are

they to be sold? When? At what price? What does it cost to make

these chips? What happens three months from now when the pile

catches fire — and, boy, there are huge ones — from spontaneous

combustion?

I'd also like to know from this Minister when he's going to

make a decision.... I said earlier I'd give specific instances

where he has held up expansion of existing logging in the area

west of Nazko. He's had a report on his desk. Sure, it's

involved with Indian land claims, but I wonder. It affects the

base industry in the Town of Quesnel. That timber is just dying

to go in there. This Minister has had a report delayed for one

year, and still no answer. Is he waiting so he can divert this

timber to Plateau Mills, the government sawmill at Vanderhoof?

I suggest that is the motive he has.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Green light.

MR. PHILLIPS: More closure.

MR. FRASER: More closure coming, eh? Okay.

Can-Cel is known to be unable to sell its full production level and is currently

moving pulp into storage in Europe and the USA to escape the mid-year closure

that might happen. Will the Minister inform the House on the situation at Can-Cel?

What percentage of pulp production is unsold? What shutdown of production does

Can-Cel expect after the mid-year?

Just a quick closing remark on the chip problem that this

Minister has told about in November in this House. At the time

the chip prices were announced, payment by the pulp industries

to sawmills were: the coast sawmills, upwards of $55 per

bone-dry unit; the interior, upwards of $45 per unit for chips

from logs and $30 to $35 for chips produced as a byproduct of

lumber. The exception was Can-Cel, which named a level of under

$20 per unit.

When the Minister applied his $35 per unit price, most

sawmill operators received less because pulp mills soon reduced

their payments to that level. Many mills doubled their output

of saleable chips. Concurrent with that, the pulp mills that

have whole-log wood rooms began increasing their production

from logs because the out-of-pocket cost was less than the $35

as ordered. The pulp market declined and pulp mill usage of

chips skidded. Within a few months an enormous surplus chip

supply, far beyond the capability of consumers to utilize and store, developed. Pulp mills began curtailing purchases and

have now placed sawmills on quotas of 60 per cent of 1974

deliveries, which, in some cases, is only one-quarter of the

current 1975 rate of delivery. This is a serious problem in the

sawmills.

In view of all this, and in the light of serious oversupply

of chips, particularly in the interior, what plan has the

Minister to ease the burden on the sawmill industry?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The time is now up.

MR. FRASER: Thank you. I just want to close with these

remarks, that there is a serious chip surplus. The Minister has

been in the interior; I know he knows about it, and I'm sure he

can answer it. And if he says it is export, I can't agree

because there aren't any cars to haul them out.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to hear the words of the official opposition.

I suppose we might just deal in series with some of the points made.

The Member for Cariboo complained about the lack of

technical advice that this department receives. I suppose it is

necessary to remind the Hon. Member that we have had a forest

task force over a year and which involved outstanding people —

Dr. Peter Pearse from the University of British Columbia, the

chief forester of the province, and Mr. Bachman, forest

vice-president of Canadian Cellulose — all with long

backgrounds in the industry in British Columbia and in the

academic world. We've also established a

[ Page 1580 ]

secretariat for the Environment and Land Use Committee that

is probably unparalleled in this nation in terms of quality and

work undertaken in the last couple of years.

So in terms of technical advice, there can be no comparison

with the seat-of-the-pants operation we had for 20 years and

which saw environmental mismanagement on an incredible scale in

the heyday of Social Credit. There are no apologies in that

territory. We brought in some of the best people in the world.

We're proud of them. They are going to continue to do their

work and they are an asset to the people of British Columbia

now and in the future.

You can talk about ideological problems, Mr. Member — I'm

not too sure what your pronunciation is, but ideological is

mine. Your problem is that you have ideological hang-ups. If

government ownership does better than private ownership — even

absentee New York ownership — then your ideology all gets

thrown into a cocked hat. That's the problem you've got.

Can-Cel has been a great success story and you really can't

accept it. It's got to be something else; it can't be good

management. It can't be the fact that we've got management at

home in British Columbia instead of New York. That might not be

a factor. It's always got to be some other thing...

MR. PHILLIPS: Where are the directors from?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: ...tinkering with the books, or

something like that. These kinds of phony innuendoes on a

constant basis, all because you know you voted against the

acquiring of Canadian Cellulose, the best deal this province

has ever made, and you still find it hard to live with it.

You talk about the lack of investment money. We're doing it

in a different way and we're involving native people on a scale

that's never been spent before in this province — something

that may mean something to the people of Nazko who have been

repressed and alone, left in the woods for too long, and not

being a full part of our society on equal terms. I'm happy to

say that I met with those people when I was in Williams Lake

just a few days ago, and it's quite a while since the Member

for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) met with the Nazko people, I find. So

the whole business of working in that community and trying to

lift it up and bring it along with the rest of our society in

this province is a challenge we've got because of the lack of

work and concern in 20 years of your administration.

New money? Of course there's new money. Out of Canadian

Cellulose alone, $51 million profit — not going to New York —

to be invested in capital projects in British Columbia for the

benefit of British Columbians, to spin out more money and more

jobs for the people of British Columbia rather than be a plaything and to shift to banana republics and Latin

American dictatorships, like so many of the multinationals on

this planet would do otherwise.

MR. PHILLIPS: How much is clear profit?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: At last it's money at home for British

Columbians which will provide them with work in British

Columbia. Making sure that small operators get a better break —

that's what we're doing. So we have operations expanding in the

medium sector; that's what's happening, not the old

multinational game that you guys were willing to live with

throughout your years. Doman's is expanding in Cowichan Bay on

Vancouver Island. We've got Pacific Inland and small operations

in Smithers expanding. We've got Plateau Mills expanding now —

doubling their programme more or less — in Vanderhoof. We've

got Ainsworth, an historic family in the Cariboo, bringing

their first major industry into Clinton, which was desperate

for industry and never had it before. And we'll have more

announcements next week in this general area.

So, you know, it's pretty hard to swallow. You can talk

about us treating the industry hard. We recognize the difficult

market period. We have, more than any province in Canada,

recognized the lumber difficulties. The Hon. Member chose to

forget that the lumber industry problem of the world primarily

rests with the lack of house construction in the United States.

No reference to that at all. They're building half the houses

they ever did in the United States in recent years. No

reference to that. Why, it has to be an ideological thing. It

must be those guys over there — never looking beyond the

chamber itself.

I'm glad the Member raised the question of Alberta. We had

the real leader of the opposition from Alberta here a minute

ago.

What does the industry association say in Alberta? They say

that the difference in treatment of the industry amounts, in

total, to about $19 a thousand. That is, in effect, the

Province of British Columbia helping this private sector and

the small public entities that we have on this kind of scale —

$19 a thousand. They say that they were paying $6 stumpage when

B.C. was paying around $2. In fact, stumpage is now $1.10, as

you know, in the interior of British Columbia. "B.C. is paying

nothing," says the head of the industrial association in

Alberta. "We are paying our road costs," — say it's $2 —

"British Columbia gets theirs back."

"The difference between our chip prices in Alberta, and when

Mr. Williams intervenes," says the president, "is around

$8 a thousand. That puts us about $19 out on competition with

the same timber in the same industry. Because of these factors

the operators in British Columbia will be able to survive

longer." That's what the head of the Alberta

[ Page 1581 ]

industrial association said just a couple of months ago.

The reason there has not been the unemployment in British

Columbia on the scale that would normally be the case in this

kind of lumber market is because this government was willing to

intervene; because we brought in the Timber Products

Stabilization Act and saw to it that better chip prices

prevailed. That carried those independent small operators in

the interior through a very tough winter.

You should compare that with Alberta now, Mr. Member for

Cariboo (Mr. Fraser). Half of the large sawmills in Alberta are

closed at the moment. One-half of all the large sawmills in

Alberta are now closed. That's because of their

Socred-conservative view of the world, because they say they

shouldn't intervene, that the big pulp mills should have it

their way right down the line. We say no. And we're willing to

carry it a step further.

Sure, we're ready to have discriminatory policies in terms

of stumpage charges — again to right the imbalance of the

independent small sector of the industry, and see to it that

they get a better shake than they've had in the past. There's

no question that the independent sector of the industry would

have been in terrible straits if we didn't have the kind of

government we have that is prepared to intervene on their

behalf and deal with the giants in the industry which they

cannot control.

Now you can talk about "sinister" all you like, Mr. Member,

but I just happened to spend last Friday evening in Burns Lake.

I happened to attend, along with the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) and the Minister of northern affairs

(Hon. Mr. Nunweiler), a graduation ceremony of some 80 people

graduating under the umbrella of the College of New Caledonia

from a logging school at Andrews Bay on Ootsa Lake. Their

training was by loggers — people experienced in the field — not

teachers. I happen to favour that kind of system in this kind

of situation.

They spent months of training in logging and preparing for

work in sawmills. There were some 80 people. I would guess

about 80 per cent of those people were native people,

non-status people, and the number of dropouts was almost nil —

minimal.

That's part of a new programme involving the Burns Lake

Native Development Corp. — a native corporation that we funded.

Now they have their own development agency, community agency

and equity in the new sawmill complex.

I tell you, it was a proud moment indeed for me to be there

watching some 80 people accepting their diplomas at a major

civic function in Burns Lake.

Now you can call it ideological if you like — and we're talking about ideas;

that's the route for ideologies — but the idea that local people, Indian people,

who didn't have a look-in before, people for whom the doors have always been

closed, now have equity participation in the major industry in their town, in

their region. They are proud of it. I'm proud of it. The local mayor, who doesn't

share my political persuasion, is proud of it.

I have to compare that with the way you guys did things only

a few years ago: compare that with what the last Minister of

Lands and Forests did.

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: At Houston, exactly, where they relied

totally on the multinational brains — the people who could come

from afar with all the answers and not involve the community,

simply drop some kind of housing answer, some kind of lack of

know-how or indigenous experience that turned out to be a major

catastrophe and a major failure of some $50 million in dollars,

and God knows how much in human dreams.

So I can't help but compare the town of Burns Lake and the

town of Houston only a few miles away. And if that's sinister

ideology, I'll buy it any time, Mr. Member.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman,

I would like to address a few remarks and a few questions to

the Minister, dealing with some other subjects than have been

touched upon by the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser). However, I

suppose to some extent we may approach the matter from the same

position.

The Minister has spoken about the problems that face the

forest industry in British Columbia, and has suggested, as

others have, that the problems which the forest industry is

currently experiencing can be traced to the significant drop in

housing starts in the United States of America. It is true that

that is what happened in the States. During the fall in lumber

markets last year I was distressed to recognize how slowly the

Government in British Columbia was able to respond to that

situation. At a time when the industry was obviously hurting,

the government was then not even prepared to act, let alone

consider what action might be taken.

It seems to me that an industry which produces, in round

figures, about 50 cents out of every dollar that is injected

into our economy is entitled to some better care from the

government and from the Ministry which has the responsibility

in that field. I think, in spite of all the experts the

Minister has been able to hire, that it is a proper criticism

of the government that somehow or other it does not see into

the future and concern itself with the dangers that lie ahead

for the industry. It seems to me that the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources, together with the Minister of

Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk), should have a programme

underway

[ Page 1582 ]

at all times to assess and forecast, for an industry as

important as the forest industry, the pitfalls or the

advantages that may lie ahead so that the industry, with the

assistance of government, and government can adjust their

programmes to meet the situations as they occur and not as an

afterthought.

Now we can't correct what happened last fall — the serious

loss to the industry and the serious loss to the government —

as a result of the actions they've had to take by the drop of

stumpage rates and so on, a major drop in income from the

government, one which the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Barrett) must look at with a great deal of concern.

But what of the future, Mr. Chairman? The indications are

that the housing starts in the United States are not going to

take a sudden, unexpected rise. Yes, housing starts are down to

about half. Let me ask the Minister when that situation will

right itself. If it does not right itself next year, and there

are some clear indications that that may just be the case, then

could the Minister please indicate to the committee what

situation will confront the forest industry at that time, and

how it will affect government and government revenues at that

time? If, as has been suggested by some, the international pulp

market — which has contributed to the financial success of

Can-Cel and, as the Minister has suggested, to some kind of a

success at Ocean Falls — what will be the consequence of that

to the total forest industry in British Columbia?

It's not good enough for the Minister to tell us what has

been happening and how his government has responded to a

situation, to respond to the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) in

the manner that he has, speaking in glowing terms of what is

being done for the native people at Burns Lake. It's not good

enough. Those very same people at Burns Lake will be affected

by the consequences of continued poor lumber markets in the

world. What is the Minister planning for just such a situation?

To what extent will the revenues of the Province of British

Columbia from all sources be called upon in order to prime the

pump, to subsidize these ventures? What will the Minister do

when the market situation continuing bad makes it impossible

for these medium-level operators to continue to function even

at the level at which they are functioning today?

I think that we have to look into the future a bit, because

we are talking about the Minister's estimates and his

department for the next year. We are concerned about his

performance for the next year. If the Minister is not looking

ahead, and if his department is not looking ahead, then he is

not discharging the full administrative responsibility which is

his in the major portfolio of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources.

Now I would like to turn to another matter which falls within the Minister's

area of responsibility. I don't suppose there is a Minister of this government

who has such wide-ranging responsibility. In his own department he has lands,

he has forests and he has water resources. He has the land use secretariat.

He is a major force in the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet, and

from that position he is able to influence the policies, administrative and

otherwise, of every department of government. I would like to ask him about

the functioning of the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet. I'll put

it in the context of two issues which I think are important to the people of

the Province of British Columbia.

First of all, in the use of land for agricultural purposes,

we have the B.C. Land Commission, which is playing a major role

under the legislation passed by this government. But recently

stories appeared in the press concerning the acquisition of

significant acreages of agricultural land in the Columbia

Valley, near Cultus Lake — in the Cultus Lake–Vedder area. The

Minister knows whereof I speak.

I have a letter from a young woman who lives in that area

and who expresses the gravest concern about what will happen to

Columbia Valley. I fully appreciate that the land acquisition

is being undertaken by the national government, apparently for

an expansion of the army base facilities in the Chilliwack

area. But it seems to me that if the Environment and Land Use

Committee of the Government of British Columbia is to fully

discharge a responsibility to the people of British Columbia,

they should be on top of a situation such as this, if not in

advance, because they have not been warned of the intended

action by the national government, at least when it comes to

their attention. I would have thought that the provincial

government, speaking through this Minister, or through the

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), would have made

immediate representations to the national government to

dissuade them from acquiring for a purpose as useless as army

base expansion agricultural land in British Columbia.

Heaven knows, Mr. Chairman, the debates in this House from

Members on all sides have spoken with grave concern about the

shortage of arable land available to us in British Columbia. To

contemplate that farmland, land which is currently being used

for the raising of crops and animals, for assisting in the

supply of much-needed foodstuffs in British Columbia, to

suggest that we can even contemplate the utilization of land of

that kind for army base purposes is almost beyond

comprehension. And yet, there doesn't appear to have been from

this government, this Minister or any of the Ministers that

strong protest to the national government which will have the

consequences which will satisfy the people who live in that

valley and others who express similar concern.

[ Page 1583 ]

Now it may be that the Minister has reacted to this

particular problem. If he has, then he is to be congratulated.

But it seems to me that the Environment and Land Use Committee

of cabinet, which concerns itself so much with the utilization

of land in British Columbia by British Columbians, should be

every bit as strong in its protestations when there is an abuse

of land by the national government.

Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, the Minister and the government

should say to the federal government: "Take your hands off that

land; if you want to expand your army base, go someplace where

you are not going to be concerned with the arable quality of

land which you are using." The Minister should be in a position

to suggest where such areas might be found.

Again, and in connection with this special select committee

of cabinet and indeed with the responsibilities that this

Minister has directed through his department for pollution

control, I want to raise a matter which I raised with the

Minister in question period a week or so ago. That is the loss

of tank cars of chlorine which are currently resting in the

bottom of the straits near Powell River.

The early indications were that if those tank cars of

chlorine were to rupture now or some time in the future, the

chemicals in those tank cars would be released and come to the

surface and result in the dispersal of poisonous gas which

would drift with the wind and the tide to God knows where, Mr.

Chairman. There is some indication that the search for the

recapture of those tank cars has been abandoned. The Minister

said in question period when I raised this matter that it was a

federal responsibility.

Again, there is this same problem. It may be a federal

responsibility, Mr. Chairman, but it is not the federal

government which is going to suffer from the poisonous gases if

they escape; it is the people who happen to live in that

particular area.

I'm glad the Minister is getting some advice from the MLA

from that area. I would have thought that the Minister wouldn't

have to get advice from the MLA in this particular area. I

would have thought that the Minister and his vast department

would have been on top of this particular problem and be

approaching the national government saying: "If it is your

responsibility, Mr. Minister of Transport, or the national

government's, keep on working till you find those tank cars and

get them up." Well, if the Minister is going to tell us that he

did, then my hat's off to him. But he certainly did it in a

very quiet way. And to what consequences? Is the search still

going on? Are those tank cars being raised? How quickly will

that be recognized? When will the people who live in that

particular area have their minds put at rest with regard to

what must be a continuing danger for so long as those tank cars

remain where they are?

Mr. Chairman, I only have one other matter to raise with the

Minister at this time; there are other Members of the

committee who will wish to question him, I'm sure. I want to

raise with him, however, a matter which is of growing concern

to me. It arises out of the Minister's directorship in British

Columbia Hydro. The Minister and this government have promised

that there will be an inquiry into the matter of the Columbia

River treaty projects. We have waited week after week after

week for the government to give some announcement with regard

to that inquiry and when it will commence.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're backing off.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, a Member is suggesting that the

government's backing off. If that's to be the case, I think the

government should come forward and tell us that that is their

intention — that it's to be delayed.

Of even greater concern, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that

there has been disseminated in this province a publication

which I raised in this House, which suggests that the Minister

lied to this House — hear me out, now — with the hope of

misleading the House and the public. From my assessment of such

a statement, it's defamatory and libellous. I wonder how a

Minister who is a senior member of this cabinet and a director

of B.C. Hydro, can allow a publication to be in existence and

to go unchallenged when he has been libelled in both

capacities.

Aside altogether from the effect this may have upon the

Minister's own position, on a subject which is of the gravest

concern to the people of the Province of British Columbia, the

government has said that we are facing overrun costs in the

Columbia River treaty projects of some $800 million and that

these overrun costs are thereby using significant amounts of

the revenues available to government, which should be diverted

to other purposes. Yet nothing happens. There is no inquiry; we

have a Minister who sits idly by while he is being libelled.

On the same issue, I think that it is appropriate for this

Minister at this time to advise the committee what the

situation is with regard to the inquiry and to what extent he

is prepared to sit idly by and allow this libel to remain

outstanding against him.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, regarding the Columbia

Valley south of Cultus Lake, I am always pleased to see great

conversions. I am in this instance, since I recall the wild

statements of the Member for West Vancouver with respect to the

Land Commission Act, his participation in the wild meetings in

Delta....

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I made no wild statement....

[ Page 1584 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member may correct the

record after the Hon. Minister has spoken.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: So it's a delight to see this new

concern with respect to the preservation of agricultural land

in British Columbia. The very people who voted against the

statute are now the ones who have sensed that public opinion

has passed them by and they're trying to catch up. The fact

that the Member is concerned about the Columbia Valley is a new

delight.

The Hon. Member is a lawyer. The question of national

defence and the powers of the DND are considerable; I'm sure

that he appreciates that. I think that the Hon. Member might

well have written the federal Minister in this regard — I

assume he has — and expressed his concern regarding the Columbia

Valley.

The question of the Columbia Valley is one that I have not

yet had any direct representation from the Member for the area

(Mr. Chabot). In addition, I haven't heard from the

municipalities involved. I really want that kind of background

before I make any further comments at this stage.

The Pollution Control Board and the chlorine tanks. The

studies that are being carried out, I understand, are the

federal studies by both the Environment Canada department and

Transport. Liaison is at a staff level between the two

governments. It's my understanding that Seaspan say that they

have located the tank cars. The federal Department of Transport

is evaluating that information. As the Hon. Member probably is

aware, we did request the federal Minister of the Environment,

Madame Sauvé, to pursue the federal activities in this area and

that request was jointly from the Member for Mackenzie (Mr.

Lockstead) and myself.

Regarding British Columbia Hydro, an inquiry will take

place, as I indicated in question period earlier. The

participants and terms of reference are still to be determined

by cabinet. I think that covers the main points, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Just a couple of brief

questions to the Minister. When the Minister of Housing's (Hon.

Mr. Nicolson'

s) estimates were up very briefly here, I asked

him a question regarding a housing development at Roscoe Bay,

which is close to Ocean Falls. Now I'm wondering whether the

Minister will tell me whether there is a proposed housing

development for Roscoe Bay to look after the expected expansion

of the Ocean Falls operation.

We know that the Ocean Falls operation is examining alternatives at this time.

We know that there has been a study commissioned by the Minister called a Bella

Coola regional study. Now will the Minister tell us the purpose for the Bella

Coola study? Was it a front, really, to bring in additional log supplies for

the aspirations and the projected growth at Ocean Falls?

I believe that it's not common knowledge, but it's my

understanding that the government is looking at alternatives at

Ocean Falls. The projected expenditures there at this time are

in the neighbourhood of $118 million for the establishment of a

new pulp mill because of the present mill being obsolete. Also,

it's my understanding that the government wants to establish a

sawmill complex at Ocean Falls as well, with the housing for

the workers to be at Roscoe Bay.

Now will the Minister tell me whether the Bella Coola study

was a way and a means to secure a supply of timber for these

projected operations at Ocean Falls? If so, which companies

will suffer because of the direction of this raw material from

existing allocated timber volumes? Will the establishment of

the new pulp mill at Ocean Falls and its sawmill complex result

in the abandonment of the old community at Ocean Falls?

Now I'd like to ask the Minister a few words regarding chip

prices. It's quite obvious, and I'm sure the Minister is aware

there is a glut of chips on the market. There's been a very

serious cutback by pulp mills on supply of chips by small

operators and intermediate sawmills as well.

The Minister must be aware, I'm sure, that the cutback has

been as high as 65 per cent in certain regions of the province.

In fact, one sawmill operator told me just a few days ago that

his operation was burning $25,000 worth of chips per month,

because of the fact that pulp mills are now utilizing round

wood, because of the cheapness of round wood. It's far cheaper

than using the $35 chips that were previously supplied by the

small operators. This is apparent throughout the province.

The Minister brought in legislation which was supposed to

help the chip price and the small sawmill operators to survive

in the province. We find now that they've been seriously cut

back and I'm wondering what the Minister proposes to do

regarding the usage of round wood, which should be primarily

directed towards the saw log economy, rather than to be pushed

through a chipper to the detriment of the small sawmills in

this province. This causes a problem because most mills don't

have the proper facilities to dispose of their chips. They

either have to burn the refuse — in many instances the burners

are too small and it's necessary to create landfill with what

is basically a useful product because of the glut of the

market.

It is quite obvious that there is no export market in the

United States because the pulp mills in that part of the world

have cut back quite dramatically in

[ Page

1585 ]

their production. It is obvious as well that the Japanese

are not interested in casual chip supply. The Japanese

certainly would be interested in a long-term supply of chips,

maybe on a 5- to 10-year basis, but not on a casual basis. I

would like to ask some questions of the Minister regarding this

chip situation. In light of the serious supply of chips,

particularly in the interior, what plan has the Minister to

ease the burden on the sawmill industry in what is now a

hard-pressed pulp industry where cutbacks have been made even

by Can-Cel? Will the Minister order the price of chips to be

reduced on the expectation that a price lower than the cost of

making whole logs will motivate the pulp mills to stop putting

logs through the wood rooms? Will the Pollution Control Board

be ordered to relax its control on sawmill burners to permit

sawmills to burn chips in the current emergency?

We know what's happening with Kootenay Forest Products in

their landfill. There was no difficulty for Kootenay Forest

Products getting a permit from the Pollution Control Board,

even though I know of other small sawmills that have

experienced difficulty in creating landfills. It was no problem

for Kootenay Forest Products.

Will the Minister, because of the glut of chips on the

market, issue export permits for a longer period of time, such

as 5 to 10 years, to allow the surplus which now appears to be

a long-term problem to be sold in the export markets?

Is the Minister going to be frank with the people regarding

his legislation on chip price? He suggested originally that it

was to help the small operators. The Minister is allowing round

wood to be utilized for chips to the detriment of the small

operators in this province. I am wondering what the Minister

has to say in that respect.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: With respect to Roscoe Bay, it is in the

next inlet north of the inlet on which Ocean Falls is located.

It is an area with considerably less rainfall than Ocean Falls — almost half of the rainfall of Ocean Falls, although there is

not detailed data in that regard. At any rate, it is

considerably better. It offers an opportunity of access for the

people of Ocean Falls who have been confined to a relatively

small area for most of this century. Just in terms of

recreation alone, Roscoe Bay will give them access to the inlet

system, to Bella Bella, and easier access to the main travel

routes on the inner passage on the coast as well as all of the

inlets north of there. It offers a future potential in terms of

housing. Yes, that's certainly one of the potentials of Roscoe

Bay. It offers a future communications and transportation

length that Ocean Falls has been desperately in need of.

Again, they never had this through those decades and decades in the hands of

a foreign owner. The proposal for building a road through the two lakes, Mosk

Lake and Imp Lake, to Roscoe Bay was on the boards of Crown Zellerbach for about

20 years and was never done. People in this isolated area really should have

had the opportunity to get around in that beautiful part of the central coast.

That's one of the reasons we are building it. We are building a road between

Ocean Falls and Roscoe Bay, and it will be completed this year.

MR. CHABOT: For a townsite?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, we are leaving all our options open.

Seriously, these people have been limited in terms of their

choice and their access. We thought it was right in terms of

giving them greater choice and greater freedom in terms of

movement in that region to do this. Absolutely.

Roscoe Bay does have an urban potential; there's no question

about that. There have been some analyses by consultants and

our own staff in that regard. There are other opportunities in

terms of transport in the area that are significant. All of

this is important if Ocean Falls is to flourish and expand. We

think it can. The purpose of the Bella Coola study was to do the homework

that wasn't done in the past. It's the old story again. Because

of the lack of homework you guys bought the idea of closing

down Ocean Falls.

MR. CHABOT: It's not true.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, oh, oh. The ads were ready. The

Premier had shown you: "Town for Sale." Bye-bye, boys, we'll

blow up the townsite. Come on, now. The decision was made and

it was made in San Francisco and it was rubber-stamped in

Victoria — the way things always were done in terms of think big

companies making the decisions in their own base and getting a

rubber stamp downstairs.

We see a significant potential in the central coast. We do

not think that it has to be constantly cannibalized. We do

believe that there can be more employment in the central coast

and the Queen Charlottes, so we are determined that these areas

will not simply be areas of export to the lower mainland and

southern Vancouver Island. There should be greater diversity in

job opportunities in Ocean Falls, in Bella Bella, in the Queen

Charlottes and on the rest of the central coast.

The study was done to determine what the resource base was

in the central coast and the westerly Chilcotin and in the

Chilko. It was a study to look at the recreation base as well,

to look at the fisheries problems, to determine what kind of

constraints there should be in terms of industrial expansion on

the central coast, as well as seeing what kind of base there

could be for industrial expansion

[ Page 1586 ]

on the central coast.

As a result of that study, it is now clear that there is a

significant base, even with constraints, for fisheries, for

salmon, for the environment, for considerable recreational

preservation in the southern Chilko. Even with all of that,

there is a considerable potential for industrial expansion in

the central coast.

We are actively looking at all the opportunities and

alternatives. We have met with parties from abroad and

discussed the potential with them in terms of seeing to it that

the central coast if strengthened, that there is more

employment, and that we don't face the kind of situation that

you people were happy to live with only three years ago.

With respect to chip prices, the answer is no, we are not

contemplating cutting chip prices. We don't think that would

make any difference in terms of consumption at this stage. The

wood rooms, however, have been closed at Prince George Pulp, I

understand, in this last week, and at Intercontinental in

Prince George. There are cutbacks taking place in Canadian

Cellulose in terms of handling round wood as well.

You have to face the fact, however, that some of these pulp

mills are in regions where there is decadent timber and the

decadent timber has to come out. The natural kind of forest

base is such that some of that decadent wood, naturally, has to

come out. You can talk about using round wood but many of the

mills you are talking about are selling the round wood and

selling the chips. They are in the business of both selling

small round wood and chips. So you can't say the round wood is

just coming from the pulp mills. It is coming from the

independent sawmillers as well. It isn't that neat a

situation, unfortunately.

It seems clear that we've got a fair amount of work to do

regarding this problem. We are looking at the options in terms

of exports, in terms of medium-term possibilities. There is

obviously a significant base with which to work in terms of

future wood industrial expansion in British Columbia.

The fact that we had such an unrealistic chip price in the

past meant that burning was a regular thing all of the time.

The chips were simply grossly undervalued by all of the parties

concerned. By establishing something closer to the real value

of the chips, as we've done through that legislation, we are

starting to get a better picture of the numbers and

availability of material. That is going to provide us with the

base again for a further surge in industrial expansion in the

province.

MR. CHABOT: A couple of quick questions. The Minister didn't answer

the question regarding saw logs being turned into chips. It is quite obvious

that saw logs are being turned into chips. The first direction of these logs

should be to the sawmill industry and not into chips to the detriment of the

other small operators. It is being done by the integrated companies. I think

the Minister has a responsibility to state that he is either going to tolerate

this kind of situation or he is going to stop this kind of situation.

I asked the Minister a few questions regarding Ocean Falls

Corp. It is quite obvious the Minister skated around the issue

and wasn't willing to tell me whether the government would

proceed with expansion and growth in Ocean Falls.

I will make the announcement now: there will be spent

something in the neighbourhood of $118 million in Ocean Falls

to do away with the obsolete pulp mill there now and to

construct a new pulp mill and a sawmill complex. The townsite

will be located at Roscoe Bay to service the new complex to

which the Minister's front, the Bella Coola regional study,

will bring the raw material necessary to justify the expansion

at Ocean Falls. So now we know. Now we know that there is going

to be in the neighbourhood of $118 million spent for a new pulp

mill and sawmill complex in Ocean Falls.

I wanted to ask the Minister a few questions also regarding

Mr. Jones, the president of British Columbia Cellulose Co. I am

wondering whether he has any other titles or holds any other

positions in government. Would the Minister tell me what these

positions are? It is my understanding that he is presently

negotiating for the financing of the expansion of Ocean Falls

and he is suggesting that a consortium be established including

Can-Cel and MacMillan Bloedel to underwrite and manage the

venture of the complex which I have just announced for you,

which you have been unwilling to announce.

Is Mr. Jones authorized by the government to deal on their

behalf? Is he authorized also to commit Can-Cel to a consortium

at Ocean Falls?

The Minister didn't answer the question I posed regarding

the Bella Coola study. It's quite common knowledge that the log

supply terminates at the end of 1975 with Crown Zellerbach.

It's apparent that there is a shortage of prime hemlock logs

for the operation at Ocean Falls. I'm wondering if the Minister

would tell us, for his supply of material for the Ocean Falls

complex, just where this timber supply is going to come from

and what timber operation is going to be cut back.

I understand that the Forest Service is building roads to

the new townsite. The Minister announced that just a few

moments ago. He didn't say who, but I believe it's the Forest

Service that's building a road. I'm wondering where one can

find the expenditure for this road to Roscoe Bay. Will it be in

the Department of Highways' vote, or is this a charge against

the operation of the Forest Service? If it's a charge against

the operation of the Forest Service, who authorized this

expenditure?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Regarding the business of preventing

round wood or saw material from being

[ Page 1587 ]

used in pulp mills, we don't presently have the legislative

powers to handle that. If the Hon. Member for Columbia River is

suggesting that the Timber Products Stabilization Act should be

expanded in order to meet these ends, then the government will

certainly look at the proposal from the official opposition for

intervention in the economy.

MR. CHABOT: Cut their throats.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Intervention in the economy — imagine!

That's a shocking idea coming from those moss-backed Socred

Tories over there. Intervening in the economy, directing laws — imagine! Imagine trying to put that kind of rational process

into play. It's a shocking idea.

MR. CHABOT: Shades of Waffles!

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: On the question of Mr. Jones, Mr. Jones

is the chairman and president of British Columbia Cellulose,

and he is also a director of Ocean Falls, a director of

Kootenay Forest Products and a director of Canadian Cellulose.

So that is the range in terms of conglomerates he's involved

in. As you probably know, Mr. Jones was formerly with MacMillan

Bloedel, the Power River company here on the coast, and was the

president of the Eddy Co. in Hull, Quebec.

The matter of timber supply, future timber supply, wood

supply for Ocean Falls, is a matter that's still being

negotiated between various parties and....

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, that remains to be seen.

The question of details is still to be determined.

Negotiations, discussions are taking place between various

parties, and this former ugly duckling that the multinationals

said wasn't worth keeping is shaping up to be something of a

Cinderella. That's rather nice to see in terms of bold moves by

government to date to preserve the townsite and industry.

But I'd just like to clarify one thing. The Member for Columbia River said

that there was a pulp mill at Ocean Falls. Well, we should get it straight.

You know, there just isn't a pulp mill at Ocean Falls. It basically has been

dismantled for some 20 years or something like that. So it's sort of on a par

in terms of the factual base that we have to deal with that the opposition has

at its disposal. But it looks very encouraging indeed. Had we not been government,

we wouldn't be able to be looking to outside participants, the possibility of

joint ventures and the increased viability of the town and the life on the central

coast. It's something that I'm proud of and something that you should be a little

ashamed of in terms of your record.

MR. CHABOT: Who is going to suffer? What operators are going

to be cut back from the timber supply to look after the new

complex, the new conglomerate which you're going to establish

at Ocean Falls?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You should realize that there's all

kinds of unallocated timber in the Chilko. There's a huge

timber base on the central coast. There's a considerable base

in the Chilko. There's a potential. There's room for us all.

There's room for diversity at last because of the new

government.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I was disturbed by the

Minister's reference to Socred Tories a minute ago, and I hope

that the Minister will withdraw the remark.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I withdraw.

MR. WALLACE: I'd like to just ask a few simple questions of

the Minister, not as any expert in the forest industry but as a

taxpayer and a layman wondering about some of the matters that

are publicized regarding his department.

We've heard comments this afternoon, and quite rightly so,

about the tremendous importance of the forest industry to

British Columbia.

We've had a great deal of discussion about possible

solutions to the problem. We've heard all kinds of predictions

from economic experts in the States and elsewhere relating

their comments to the presidential election and the printing of

more American money to build more houses, and then suffering

another surge of inflation as soon as they get the president

re-elected, et cetera.

I wonder if the Minister would care to tell us, as British

Columbian taxpayers, when he thinks the lumber market can

return to a healthier state and all the advantages of higher

stumpage rates, employment and all the other financial

advantages to the government. When does this Minister predict,

for the information of the people of the province, this lumber

market is likely to improve? Of course, the equally important

question is: what long-term planning does the Minister have to

try and iron out the tremendous ups and downs in the lumber

industry?

We've seen an example of intervention in the market

regarding attempts to regulate the price of chips, and now we

find there's a tremendous surplus of chips. On that subject —

and I think I might have missed part of the questioning from

one of the other Members — since there is a surplus of chips,

and since the lumber market apparently is not yet beginning

[ Page 1588 ]

improve, I noticed a clipping in the press which stated that

the provincial government had given permission to a sawmill in

Grand Forks, to export surplus wood chips. Pape and Talbot Ltd.

I believe, has been granted until July, 1975, to export

chips.

We've talked before in this House about the close

restriction on the export of whole logs, and it seems to be

that in temporary times of distress the export of either chips

or logs is a slight salvation. I wonder if the Minister has any

decision or policy statement that he cares to make as to

whether or not we should look more seriously at the long-term

export. It's my information that some of the foreign buyers are

only interested in at least a five-year contract. Perhaps the

Minister would care to comment as to whether we are prepared to

look at that prospect or not, or whether we're still more

concerned that that represents in some degree an export of

jobs.

I was rereading the budget speech — no matter how many times

one reads this budget speech, I never seem able to find the

page I'm looking for — and on page 23 there's this $15 million

for a special employment programme for the lumber

section of

the forest industry. It says: "Details concerning the forest

industry and student employment programmes will be given by the

Ministers concerned." I wonder if the Minister is now ready to

give the House and the people some outline of this $15 million

programme.

When the Minister was in opposition he frequently spoke on

this question of reforestation. I notice that the budget is up — and I'll very carefully avoid referring to the vote by number

after our little discussion on protocol this afternoon. I

notice that the budget for reforestation is increased by a

considerable amount of money but, as I read it, I wonder if the

Minister can tell us how much is actually going to be

accomplished in restocking the amount that's being

harvested.

As I recall, it seemed to me a great deal of the money in

that vote was to spend on administration. The figures seem to

indicate that a fair amount of increased expenditure was for

staff — I think about $27 million out of $31 million is for

more staff. Presumably, if you plant more trees, you need more

staff. But it seemed to me, if that is a correct reading, that

if $27 million out of $31 million is for wages, then I'd like

to know, in some general way, just how many more trees we are

planting this year than last year, or how much greater over the

annual average for the last three or four years. The Forest

Service portion of the estimates is $93 million, and general

administration goes up by $12 million. Perhaps the Minister

would care to elaborate on that.

The whole question of the forest industry, in our view, seems to have such

significance in terms of our whole economy. It is our biggest asset. It is a

resource unequalled by any other resource in our province, and it has tremendous

environmental impact in North America. With this government's approach to land

use, it has shown an interest in longer-term planning and the whole impact of

population change. The whole problem of Indian land claims also enters into

a wide and broad look at the need for management of our land.

I wonder if the time has not arrived, particularly in light

of studies and commissions that have been set up and the fact

that the standing committee on resources, I believe, is

expected to look at tenures, for a royal commission on the

forest industry. Should we be going in this — piecemeal is an

unfair word — present manner where we have a variety of

different commissions...

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: ...standing committees, task forces, and a

somewhat disruptive way to approach what is an enormously

important subject for the people of British Columbia, whatever

government happens to be in power?

The feeling I get is that we are not really tackling this

immense problem on a wide enough front and in a co-ordinated

way. I notice, for example, just to take a specific situation,

that Dr. Peter Pearse in his third study stated quite plainly

that forest tenures were granted to large, integrated companies

at the expense of the small operator. It was mentioned in the

throne speech, as I recall, that the government would be

setting up... I can't recall if it was a special committee on

tenures or whether the standing committee of the Legislature on

resources would, in fact, carry out the study on tenures.

Anyway, the point is that we're headed for another committee

study. We've already had a fair amount of information supplied

by Dr. Peter Pearse.

I wonder, in light of the very extensive importance of this

resource, whether it's not time for a royal commission on the

forest industry. I can't recall the date of the previous one;

it was quite some years ago by Judge....

MR. GARDOM: Sloan.

MR. WALLACE: Sloan. Thank you, Mr. Member.

Again, maybe the Minister will consider this unusual coming

from a Tory who always wants to keep bureaucracy, studies and

task forces to a minimum, but I'm saying that this is of such

great importance to the economy and that employment of the

province and the future of the province and this whole

long-term look that we must take at land use, that it seems to

me that perhaps we have reached the time for a royal

commission. I'd like the Minister to tell us if he is

considering that this might be a good approach at this

time.

[ Page 1589 ]

One of the criticisms that we have levelled from this side

of the House in other departments is the whole question of

increasing the civil service and increasing the number of

bureaucrats employed by this government. I have to report,

after a study of the budget of the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources that, my goodness me, we have a reduction

in staff. Where, of all places, do I find the reduction but in

the pollution control branch — from 191 to 173. Again, I find

this, unless these staff have been reallocated somewhere else.... Of

course, perhaps I would just like to ask a few questions. I checked

back in

Hansard , and in the spring session of 1973 the Minister

said: "Standards of pollution have and are being set and deadlines are being established."

I thought that society's greater sensitivity to the

environmental factors would likely lead to more staff being

required to implement the guidelines and the standards which

the Minister had quoted in 1973, and yet we had the resignation

of a biologist by the name of Mr. Newcombe. I won't go into the

great details of that because I think there was some

unfortunate exchange of insults in the press which tried to

cloud the real issue. The fact is that Mr. Newcombe, who was a

biologist in the branch, resigned, and I think we should mention

some of the things he said. "People think that the pollution

control branch is controlling pollution," he said.

"That's nonsense. It only prosecutes under duress. We have to

bring things to the branch's attention and push it to

prosecute." He quoted the example of the Creston pulp mill on

the Kootenay River at Skookumchuck where the branch spent

$3,500 on a study to see if the water was polluted, and he

said: "You could take one look at the water and see that it was

heavily polluted." He went on to say: "We have to document our

complaints like the Watergate case before we can make a dent in

the armour of the pollution control branch."

Anyway, that was Mr. Newcombe's statement. I find very

interesting the response from the pollution control branch. The

person who was authorized to speak on behalf of the branch

publicly was a Mr. McCrossan who, unfortunately, I think,

referred to the biologist as an "eco-freak." Of course, to try

and diminish the arguments of your opposition it's always

standard procedure to impute some less than normal mentality to

the spokesman.

I think it was a regrettable way for a member of this government under authority

to respond, to use that kind of insult. Mr. McCrossan went on. I think it is

worth repeating exactly what he is quoted as saying:

"If we were guided by the

Chuck Newcombes of this world, if some of the way-out freaks, eco-freaks, or

extremists had their way, and if government bowed to these people and issued

clean-up orders to all industry in the province, then all industry would be

closed down overnight. But you can't do that in a province that is so dependent

on resources. That is what I would call 'poverty pollution,' and that is not

the aim of the government."

All I am saying is that this party ran for office with a

strong commitment to deal with pollution of the environment.

From these two points of view I've quoted, I suppose the truth

lies somewhere in the middle. Maybe the Minister could tell us

whether in fact the unfortunate image that the pollution

control branch permits pollution and only acts under duress is a

fair comment. If it is not a fair comment, how is it that with

an increasing population and increasing industries in this

province, the pollution control branch can do its job

effectively with a smaller number of staff? That just seems

puzzling. There may be an answer. The Minister could perhaps go

into that.

I wonder if the Minister could specifically describe

penalties that have actually been applied to polluting mills or

polluting industry and to what degree, if any, different

standards are being applied to the Crown corporations that

operate pulp mills or other industrial concerns which have

polluting effects.

I would like to touch on something of local significance in

the greater Victoria area. The Minister stepped into the

affairs of the greater Victoria area when he took action in

April of 1974 to freeze what was called the Reid site in the

Inner Harbour area. Subsequently in May of 1974 he spent $1.7

million actually buying the Reid property. There was a public

hearing in June and in July, 1974, Roderick Clack, the former

Victoria city planner, was asked to conduct a study and make

recommendations about the use of that land in the greater

Victoria area. Since then, there has been a surprising silence

about that particular site. Then, of course, in recent weeks

we've seen the government acquire other waterfront property on

the other side of the Inner Harbour, plus the acquisition of

the Princess Marguerite.

I would like the Minister to tell us by what logic, if any,

he as Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources has

finished up running the affairs of a boat or a ship or a ferry

or whatever. It just seems to be a very unusual diverting of

the normal responsibility of the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources to be made responsible for a ferry boat sailing

between Victoria and Seattle. The Minister is smiling; he is

obviously a happy sailor. But it is just a little puzzling to

the people of the province.

It is not quite so puzzling to the people of the greater

Victoria area because they feel and believe, and I do too, that

this whole issue of the Inner Harbour is in such a mishmash and

mess and disjointed in the overall planning with so many

fingers in the pie that nobody really knows what is

[ Page 1590 ]

going on. It was the final comic touch when finally this

same Minister finished up being responsible for the

Marguerite.

When I talk about it being a mishmash, we've really got

several levels of authority being involved. We presumably have

the Environment and Land Use Committee making the decision to

buy the Reid site and subsequently to buy the Marathon

property. We've got the Capital Improvement District

Commission, which is set up under the legislation for which

another Minister of the government is responsible, namely the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall). We've got the City of

Victoria very much involved. Now, finally, we have an advisory

committee under the aegis or the chairmanship of the absent

Member for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst). So we have at least four

different administrative, political, quasi-something-or-other

bodies all involved in a very priceless part of Victoria and a

priceless part of the province.

I'm not suggesting that the wisest development for the long

term is easy. I agree that there should be a great deal of

discussion and planning, but the discussion and planning has

gone at least a whole year since the property was taken over by

the government.

It was interesting that in Mr. Clack's report in July of '74

he stated that there should be some super-agency — I don't

think he called it a super-agency, but that's the word that was

reported — to oversee the development of the Inner Harbour, and

that that agency should perhaps utilize the expertise and the

past experience of the city, the province and such people as

Arthur Erickson who had done a study of the whole Inner Harbour

prospects in 1973. In other words, what I'm taking a long time,

I guess, to say is that we have had a tremendous amount of

preliminary action to make certain things possible, but we

appear to have had a whole year of inaction.

Part of the concern of people in the greater Victoria area,

for example, is that for years, back as far as 1967, the city

started asking about the relocation of the Black Ball ferry

terminal. Yet in the press release dealing with the acquisition

of the Marguerite the statement appeared to the effect that if

the city wanted to relocate that ferry terminal, the government

might be interested in helping. There's just this feeling that

there are three or four levels of authority involved in this

whole matter, and it's not at all clear that any one of them

knows what the other three are doing.

I think I heard comment yesterday under Municipal Affairs that there was a

real opportunity for closer cooperation between the city and the provincial

government. I'm trying to be fair and reasonable, and I'm not expecting overnight

results, but the people in the city and Mayor Pollen would, I think, be