1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 1975

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3267 ]

CONTENTS

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

On vote 136.

Mr. Schroeder — 3268

Mr. Lewis — 3268

Hon. R.A. Williams —3268

On vote 139.

Mr. Chabot — 3268

Hon. R.A. Williams —3268

Mr. Chabot — 3269

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3270

On vote 140.

Mr. Phillips — 3270

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3270

Mr. Phillips — 3270

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3271

Mr. Wallace — 3271

Mr. Chabot — 3271

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3271

On vote 141.

Mr. Wallace — 3272

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3272

Mrs. Jordan — 3272

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3272

On vote 143.

Mr. Phillips — 3272

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3272

Mr. Chabot — 3272

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3272

Mr. Phillips — 3272

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3272

Mr. Phillips — 3273

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3273

Mr. Phillips — 3273

Mrs. Jordan — 3274

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3274

Mrs. Jordan — 3275

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3275

Mrs. Jordan — 3275

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3275

Mr. Chabot — 3275

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3276

Mr. Fraser — 3276

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3276

On vote 144.

Mr. Fraser — 3276

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3276

On vote 145.

Mr. Fraser — 3277

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3277

On vote 147.

Mr. Fraser — 3277

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3277

Mrs. Jordan — 3277

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3278

Mrs. Jordan — 3278

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3278

On vote 148.

Mr. Chabot — 3278

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3279

Mr. Fraser — 3279

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3280

Mr. Fraser — 3280

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3280

Mr. Smith — 3281

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3281

Mr. Phillips — 3281

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3281

Mr. Phillips — 3282

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3282

Mr. Phillips — 3282

Mr. Fraser — 3282

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3282

On vote 149.

Mr. Phillips — 3282

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3283

On vote 150.

Mr. Wallace — 3283

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3283

Mr. Chabot — 3283

Mr. McGeer — 3284

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3284

Mr. McGeer — 3284

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3284

On vote 152.

Mr. Chabot — 3284

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3286

Mr. Chabot — 3286

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3286

TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 1975

The House met at 10 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Does someone know why there aren't more Members

in the House? Are there committees meeting without

authorization? Did they get authorization from the House?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I attended a meeting at the

end of last week, Mr. Speaker, and apparently permission is not

required. According to the government Members of that

committee, they decided that permission would not be required.

We didn't query it from the opposition side; we assumed that

this was the procedure that had been agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know that there is any authority for

that statement, but I will look into the question. I don't

think it is proper without authorization of the House for any

committee to be sitting.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): If you could advise us,

I don't think that we would raise any particular objection,

although we would like to know what your ruling is. Perhaps you

could give it to us later on.

MR. SPEAKER: If committees are doing this without the leave

of the House, it means the House is completely impaired in its

duties without having any sanction for what is being done. The

difficulty is that the rest of the House may find itself

hampered by the fact that it is short in numbers as we are this

morning.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): I'm a member

of the committee that is sitting now, and I can't be in both

places. What is the legal status of this public accounts

committee that is sitting illegally?

MR. SPEAKER: I'll look into this. I recall the Hon. Member

for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) complaining about this in one

session. I did look into it then and I will look up my notes on

it. I think that you have to have permission.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Point of order. I was just going

to say that in view of the fact that the Speaker said that the Member for North

Okanagan had complained about this in another sitting, I would just suggest

that it wasn't a complaint for the sake of complaining, but it was the fact

that we are faced with now. That is, it is impossible for Members to sit in

committee in the House and carry on their responsibilities to their constituents,

to the Legislature and, at the same time, be serving on committees.

MR. SPEAKER: That was the point that the Hon. Member made

before and I looked into it. I will look up the notation on

that. I think that it requires consent of the House. I will

report back to the House at 2 p.m.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...the impression given was this was

precedent. Apparently there have been other cases, and I don't

put this forward for or against the practice. I simply give it

to you for your information.

MR. SPEAKER: The practice in Ottawa was changed. Ours has

not changed so far as I know, but I will check into it and

report at 2 p.m. I don't think we should be doing it this

way.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF LANDS,

FORESTS AND WATER RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 136: Forest Service: general administration,

protection, and management of forests, $48,801,573.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): What kind of nonsense

is this? We thought we were going into Highways. I'm sorry, Mr.

Provincial Secretary, but we thought we were going into

Highways.

HON. MR. HALL: There is no intention, Mr. Member, of

changing horses in mid-stream. I thought we had an

understanding that we would start with this Minister and finish

him as soon as we could. We've started with the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams). We've

done his salary vote and we have gone through half of his

department. We have a few of his minor votes left. I say minor

not in terms of quantity but in the sense of being well along

his estimates votes. I thought we should get rid of this

Minister so he doesn't have to have his staff and everybody on

tap at any one moment.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would just like to say that we did hold up

this vote because the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) has some

items to bring up under this vote and he is also in public

accounts.

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

I would simply say, Mr.

[ Page 3268 ]

Chairman, that it is my understanding that the matter that

the Member for Cariboo was concerned about has been dealt with

in my office.

MRS. JORDAN: Point of order. I would just request of the

House that we seem not to be following any procedure in terms

of estimates. We seem to be jumping around like

grasshoppers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order, I'm afraid.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, yesterday we were led to believe

that we were on the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! That is not a point of order.

Interjection.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): On vote 136 in forest management,

I would like to ask the Minister whether or not he is considering a change in

the forest management policy that would allow for larger timber sales in the

upper valley where salvage operators are trying to run their businesses.

The timber sales have been reduced, it is my understanding,

to 100-acre lots and not more than two lots per operator. There

is a shortage of supply, yet there is a demand, strange as it

may seem. In the other areas of the lumber industry there is an

oversupply, but in this particular operation which concerns

itself basically with cedar products, there is a greater demand

than there is supply. They tell me they could sell twice as

many shakes, for instance, as they can produce because of the

shortage.

Would the Minister consider greater sales to each

operator?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think we did cover the point once

before, Mr. Chairman, and the answer is yes. We're prepared to....

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Under this vote I would like to say a few

words in regard to slash burning. I think that everybody in this House is aware

that it's a pretty touchy subject in my riding, when we consider what happened

with the Gleneden fire.

The practice of slash burning, in my mind, has never

been proven as the only alternative we have. In the fall month when the Shuswap

enjoys some of its best weather, we're often faced with smoke hanging in the

valley for periods of five and six weeks.

Last year particularly was most severe for smoke in the area

because we had such a beautiful fall; conditions were just

right for burning and the fires burned on for a long period of

time.

I was just wondering if the Minister has any studies

underway at this time to see if there is any alternative

available to slash burning, and what we can expect in the

future.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, there is a considerable

amount of work underway. It appears that we can modify past

practice considerably, depending upon the specie and the age of

the timber, whether its decadent or not, then we can probably

modify past practice considerably and cut down slash burning a

great deal. Part of the problem is that we have a considerable

residue from the past. Part of the Gleneden situation was

earlier slash as well as newer slash. The work has been quite

intensive since the Gleneden fire and it does look like we can

modify policies considerably.

Vote 136 approved.

Vote 137: Forest Service, reforestation and forest nursery,

$19,813,760 — approved.

Vote 138: Forest Service, forest and correction camp

programme, $78,000 — approved.

On vote 139: Forest Service, forest research,

$1,715,778.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Vote 139 — what's that all

about, Mr. Chairman? There must be something to be said about

it.

Research — forest research. There is a tremendous increase

here in the allocation of dollars for research in the Forest

Service, or in the forests of British Columbia, which is an

incredible increase — from $674,000 to $1,715,000. I wonder if

the Minister is prepared to give us some insight into the

justification for this tremendous increase.

We see an item here of $900,000 for forest productivity. Now

what does that mean? In the SYU which I live in, within the

area that is the Windermere SYU, I understand there is

apparently going to be a 25 per cent reduction in allowable

cuts, or in that vicinity, because of the expansion of park

boundaries, et cetera, in that area. So I wonder what the

Minister means when an allocation of $900,000 is made for

forest productivity when it appears that productivity

[ Page 3269 ]

is decreasing in certain sections of this province.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That's just the point: produce more on

less. Get it?

MR. CHABOT: The Minister says, "produce more on less."

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Right.

MR. CHABOT: Well, how can you produce more on less when

there's going to be a cutback on the allowable cut? What kind

of nonsense is that? Produce more on less.

HON. MR. HALL: It's just like your speeches, Jim.

MR. CHABOT: In the years I have been in this House, I have

always prided myself in being a brief speaker, always coming to

the point very rapidly, without the necessity of using

unnecessary words.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Talk to your friend next door.

(Laughter.)

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Oh, you're not so brief

yourself. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: I'm sure that the Minister would want to justify

this — not like he did the Marguerite , because that hasn't been

justified yet, but just what this $900,000 really is going to

mean in the field of increased productivity in the forests of

this province.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I simply say that it's basically a shift

in the vote from the former silviculture vote into forest

research. There was funding last year under the vote for this

purpose. The forest productivity study is an excellent

programme that has been under Mr. Dennis Glew in the

department. In addition, there have been some excellent people

from the university involved in that programme.

It's basically setting up a system similar to what has long

since been established in Scandinavia of sample plots around

the province in various ecological geo-climate situations in

order to see what the impact of various management activities

might be in those kinds of site-specific situations. The idea,

though, is very important — that is that prime sites or various

sites might well respond to fertilization or to drainage or to

thinning in a terrific way so there might be great accelerated

growth of the trees as a result of certain management

practices. So that's the purpose of this vote — to see to it

that we produce more from less.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, just a few words on productivity.

I wonder if this $900,000 takes into consideration the annual

cut vis-à-vis that of the previous year. Could the

Minister give us some information as to what the annual cut in

British Columbia was in the year 1974 vis-à-vis 1973? Is

that what this vote's all about? Could you give us some figures

as to the kind of reduction in cut of the forests that took

place in 1974, and whether the Minister anticipates a continued

reduction in the cut of timber in this province because of the

economic situation in the forest industry, whether he sees an

accelerated cut in 1975 and what the projection is for the

future?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The industry responds to the market.

Nevertheless, we've basically been cutting about the two

billion cunit level.

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, 2.0 billion. The variation

basically has been between about 1.8, if my memory serves

right, and slightly over two billion. The basic trend is very

clear: despite the fluctuations in the market there is an

acceleration of cut annually on a consistent basis. That

continues to be the case. The actual allowable cut, given the

whole Province of British Columbia, would be in the range of

three billion cunits, so we're really operating on the basis of

about two-thirds of allowable cut. The explanation for that

basically is the northern hinterland, which is not developed —

or is not being industrially exploited.

MR. CHABOT: One more brief question. Could the Minister

indicate to me how much of this two billion cubic annual cut is

utilized in pulp mills? That is, how much of this round wood

goes directly into chips for pulp mills in the province?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I understand that the percentage is much

less than the Member probably thinks. That is, it is relatively

low. But we could have the staff confirm it. I don't have a

figure at this time but my advice is that it is relatively

low.

MR. CHABOT: Does the Minister support round wood going

directly into chips rather than to the sawmill first and the

residue going into chips?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I suppose one might generally endorse

that in a stronger lumber market. But if one recognizes the

world market situations in profit maximization or optimization — if that is a goal, and I suspect it might be for the Members

opposite....

[ Page 3270 ]

MR. CHABOT: How about you? I thought you were bragging about

the profit Can-Cel makes? You weren't?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I was simply suggesting that that might

have been an interest.

MR. CHABOT: Be consistent.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: One hopes that we could optimize the

situation and have a combination of social benefit and monetary

benefit in the form of profit that would benefit all the

citizens of the province. That's the goal of this government,

not just profit maximization, which is important enough. The

other elements are part of our raison d'etre. At any rate, I

think that with stronger lumber markets that certainly would be

a goal.

Vote 139 approved.

On vote 140: Forest Service, public information and

education, $243,410.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd just like to ask the Minister if some of

the advertising and publicity money in the amount of $113,390

is to print ForesTalk .

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister answers "Yes."

Well, now, Mr. Chairman I'm slightly concerned about this

magazine ForesTalk , because I feel that instead of being an

information letter it's being turned into a propaganda piece of

literature. What concerns me more, Mr. Chairman, is that

literally hundreds of thousands of these are being printed.

And, Mr. Chairman, where are they going?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Doctors' offices.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, Mr. Chairman. They're going into our

schools by the carton. Carton after carton!

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You mean along with MacMillan Bloedel

junk?

MR. PHILLIPS: Carton after carton of them are ending up in the school

board offices with instructions from the Minister to see that each one of these

little propaganda papers gets into the hands of the students.

In some cases,

Mr. Chairman, the school teachers are refusing to use this propaganda tool.

And some have been returned or sent to the fire heap. I'd just like to know

what authority the Minister has to ask the school teachers to distribute this

propaganda organ in the schools. What authority does he have to try and force

the school teachers to distribute this socialist propaganda to the school children

of this province?

You know, Mr. Chairman, we have complained in this House

before about the fantastically high amounts of money in the

budget for political propaganda. I'm going to have to go to the

people in the province and tell them that that is the reason

the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) has no money to build

their highways with. All the money is being spent for political

reasons, for political propaganda. It's no wonder, Mr.

Chairman, that the Minister of Transport and Communications

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) wants to take over the airwaves and all the

television channels in British Columbia. Then we'll have a

complete political propaganda machine so that this government,

by using the people's own money, can endeavour to perpetuate

themselves in office.

But I'd like to know what authority the Minister has to send

these political propaganda pieces of paper into the

classrooms.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The magazine is available to any and all

who request it and I'm sure that Members of the opposition will

be pleased to hear that we are actually considering broadening

the magazine in terms of providing more worthwhile information

for more people. The requests of the official opposition and

all Members of the opposition of last year's estimates were

taken most seriously by the government, who urged that a public

information programme begin with respect to the Environment and

Land Use Committee secretariat and other activities of

land-oriented departments.

So I'm sure that all Members will pound their desks with

great feelings of support when I announce that ForesTalk will

be expanded into a large, broader magazine that covers the

Department of Recreation and Conservation and the Department of

Agriculture, the Department of Mines, Lands, Forests and Water

and so gives even a fuller view of the great work that's being

done in all of these departments.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, he can expand ForesTalk and

print all the propaganda he wants to, but he'd better go round

physically and ram it down the throats of these kids, because

they're just not buying it. And many hundreds of thousands of

these ForesTalk magazines are being put in the incinerators in

the schools because it's recognized by many clear-thinking

school teachers as just nothing but a piece of political

propaganda. And the children are not buying it. As a matter of

fact, the children hardly take time to read their school books,

so they're certainly not going to read your propaganda. I would

maybe suggest to the Minister that it might be cheaper and a

lot more effective and a lot better use of the taxpayers' money

if the Minister himself went

[ Page 3271 ]

and talked to the school children and allowed them to

question him. Or is he afraid of the school children? Does he

have to do it by the printed word so that they can't come back

and ask him questions? Why don't you go in to the school

children and talk to them? There you're forced to be

non-political. You'd have to state facts.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, I'll take the Member's advice and

certainly spend more time in the schools of British Columbia

addressing children in the auditoriums, giving them the

message, the factual message of what we've been doing in this

area.

MR. WALLACE: Since we're talking about doctors' offices I

thought I might talk about paranoia.

It seems to me that ForesTalk is an excellent magazine. As

one who probably knows even less than the school children about

some of the principles of the forests and all the far-reaching

ramifications, I happen to think that it is an excellent

magazine. The production is first class; it's colourful. I

agree with the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) that

there's never any doubt left as to where the magazine emanated

from. But I haven't seen or heard of any government yet, in any

jurisdiction, that doesn't peddle this kind of stuff along with

providing information.

I think it has been that way; it has always been that way;

and it would be that way if we were government. I think you

should realize this is part of the function of government, and

no government even misses a chance to let its achievements be

known. This is part of the balance.

On the other hand, I think some of the information in

Forestalk doesn't seem to be available anywhere else — the

strictly factual, biological, and environmental aspects. While

the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) has a point, I

have also heard comments in local schools as to how valuable

Forestalk is inasmuch as it is very much up to date in many of

the newer ideas in forest management. In balance, therefore, I

think that it is a good idea.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I want to say just a couple of

words on ForesTalk . There was what appeared to be an excellent

article, with some beautiful pictures in it, even of mushrooms — which were poisonous and which were not — but the information

lacked a tremendous amount of research. It was extremely

skimpy. In order to get the full details on the question of

wild mushrooms, I found it necessary to write to the federal

Department of Agriculture.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, it certainly wasn't a partisan

article, was it?

MR. WALLACE: Political mushrooms.

MR. CHABOT: If you are going to publish articles of this

nature, dealing with a specific matter, I think you should be

thorough in the coverage of the subject matter. You weren't in

this particular one, even though the pictures of the shaggy

manes and the other mushrooms were excellent, but there wasn't

enough detail. In order for someone to get the full details on

those which are edible and those which are not, it was

necessary to write to Ottawa's Department of Agriculture.

MR. WALLACE: You need to brush up on your mushrooms.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think you are about knee-deep in a

mushroom field.

MR. CHABOT: I wonder if the Minister would tell us now what

he intends to spend of the allocation on advertising and

publicity. I don't know whether printing and publication is

part of ForesTalk .

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes.

MR. CHABOT: I was wondering what the Minister's projection

of expenditure is for this new forest service organ for the

1975-76 fiscal year of the Government of British Columbia.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The proposal is right here in this vote

at this time, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHABOT: Is that the $113,390 and $90,150?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, that is the budget.

MR. CHABOT: Then it is $200,000, roughly, for ForesTalk ? Am

I correct in my assumption?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It is a combination, I think. The whole

firefighting advertising — Smokey Bear, Keep British Columbia

Green — is, I understand, all part of this. That is a

significant amount of money as well.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, I agree there. Now you are not giving me

the information. You must have some projection of the ultimate

cost of ForesTalk . Just a projection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes. The actual publishing and printing

costs are $64,000.

Vote 140 approved.

On vote 141: Forest Service, training school,

[ Page 3272 ]

$213,619.

MR. WALLACE: Just one item on the tremendous increase in

lecture and course fees. Here again, it may well be money well

spent if it does increase knowledge about our forests, but that

does seem a substantial increase — from $16,800 to $93,000.

Could we have a little breakdown on that?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: This is the in-staff educational system

for rangers. The purpose here is really to upgrade the courses,

so we are bringing people from the different universities to

Green Timbers. They are getting a pretty high-level academic

input as well as the practical Forest Service background in

their training programme.

MRS. JORDAN: I notice that there is $3,000 for laundry. I

assume that this high-priced intellectual conference doesn't

spend its time washing its shirts and socks. Why do they need

to have laundry money? If they are going, surely they can

afford to pay for their own laundry. It shouldn't be the

taxpayers of British Columbia that have to pay for the laundry,

should it?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I don't think that they would want to

wear the sheets they sleep on, Madam Member. This is an

in-house training programme, and there are dormitories. It is a

full training programme and that pays for the bedding. The

Member might agree that that is a reasonable proposition.

MRS. JORDAN: I would assume that university people pay for

their own.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We should straighten it out. This is

training of new forest rangers for the Forest Service. It is

not a university programme.

MRS. JORDAN: That is different from what you said

initially.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, I indicated that in addition to the

normal ranger training, we were adding university lecturers so

that they were getting a broader academic background as well as

the practical, regular Forest Service training.

Vote 141 approved.

Vote 142: Forest Service, grant to Canadian Forestry

Association, $35,000 — approved.

On vote 143: Forest Service, engineering services and

forest-development roads, $6,179,215.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, with less activity in the Forest Service

this year there is an increase in forestry development roads from $3,228,772

to $5,210,554. Now I would like to ask the Minister if part of this increase

is to reimburse those firms that have built roads in the past and have still

not received their payment from the Forest Service.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is the purpose of the increase in this road

due to the fact that the Forests department is going to build

their own roads now?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: In some situations, yes.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, is the Forests department going to build

all the roads this year and not allow any logging companies or

lumbering companies to build their own roads?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, certainly not. The $5 million would

be a drop in the bucket in relation to the need.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, will part of this allocation be

for that road being constructed south of Vanderhoof, B.C., for

Plateau Mills so they can steal the timber from the Cariboo

district?

HON. R.A, WILLIAMS: Part of the fund, some $700,000, will be

used on the Kluskus access road which will provide access to

the east Ootsa unit, which has not had road access in the past.

An independent study determined some years ago that the best

system would be to relate the catchment area road system to

Vanderhoof rather than the Cariboo. That was independent

forestry analysis prior to government ownership of Pleteau

Mills.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to ask the Minister if any of the

money out of this vote will be going for the bridge at

Kitwanga.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is that built entirely by the Department of

Highways?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That is my understanding, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is the purpose of this road not basically to

assist the Can-Cel operation?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, the Kitwanga road will be a major

north-south access route, Mr. Chairman, providing access into

the Nass and the whole Stewart Lake-Cassiar highway system,

and

[ Page 3273 ]

Kitwanga is the closest sort of natural take-off point to

feed into that whole area back of the Alaskan panhandle.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, it just seems more than

coincidental that Can-Cel has their operation in there when in

other sections of the province roads that have been in

existence for quite some time are not being upgraded. I think

this is strictly a political move on the part of the government

to assist that great operation, Can-Cel, to show a profit at

the expense of other areas in the province. This is what we are

going to see. It is a political road that is being built. It is

a political bridge that is being built, using up money from the

Department of Highways while other well-developed areas in the

province are suffering just because the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources, the great architect of British

Columbia, the most powerful man in British Columbia, wants some

money for highways for Can-Cel and for a new bridge at Kitwanga — a beautiful bridge across the river there on that road up

through virgin country. Why, Mr. Chairman? Why? To help

Can-Cel, that's why. Other areas in the province can be going

over potholes....

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not under this vote, I don't think.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it's road building. It could be, you

know.

I think what I am going to try to say, if you will just

allow me to continue trying to make my point, Mr. Chairman, is

that if the government wants to build highways to help Can-Cel,

they should take it out of the Department of Forests vote,

because there's the poor little Department of Highways being

squeezed right out of existence. We hardly have any department

left — just an administrative body — and I think if we are

going to build highways for Can-Cel and the Department of

Forests.... And it is strictly a road to help Can-Cel. That

bridge at Kitwanga is put there to help Can-Cel move the logs.

There is no other reason.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, if it wasn't for Can-Cel

in there, and if it wasn't for the fact that government owned

Can-Cel there would be no bridge at Kitwanga. I defy the

Minister to tell me otherwise. There would be no bridge at

Kitwanga.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Really, Mr. Chairman, the Members get wrapped up

in their own particular view of history and ideology. If you just check back

in history just a few years to the former Minister, Mr. Williston, you would

realize, in relation to that particular forest company, namely Columbia Cellulose

as it was then known, and owned by American Cellanese, the great spending was

done by that Minister. Great spending was done by the Social Credit Minister

on the road system leading north from Terrace to the Nass Bridge. There was

a major contribution from the Forest Service to the Highways department for

the Nass Bridge and much of the benefit, in terms of industrial benefits, total

benefits, was to the old Columbia Cellulose Co.

Despite that kind of bailing out of a multinational American

corporation, they still lost $10 million a year. Despite all

that, despite the Band-aids that the former Minister continued

to apply for 10 and 20 years, Columbia Cellulose kept losing

money. It was like holding a sieve. Then it changed. We became

major owners — the people of British Columbia became the major

owners — and what we're doing now is at Kitwanga, which is

outside of their main sphere of operations.

The main sphere of operations is north of Terrace; not at

Kitwanga. In fact, much of the benefit will go to a local

family operation called Hobenshiels, who have been there for

decades. They will be the ones. The Indian people at Kitwanga

and the old family that runs the small sawmill, the

Hobenshiels, will get the bulk of this benefit. So you've got

it all wrong again. You've twisted history totally in

reverse.

I doubt if the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) from

that southeast banana belt has even been in Kitwanga.

MR. CHABOT: I have so. Take that back.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I take that back.

MR. CHABOT: I fished at Kispiox a few years ago.

MR. PHILLIPS: To that, Mr. Chairman, I have to say again

Hozunga! He talks about Can-cel — and I don't want to get into

an argument on Can-Cel. Far be it for me to get into an

argument on Can-Cel, but we are talking about forest roads.

Can-Cel had to pay for their trees before that Minister took

it over.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: They still do.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, they had to pay for their trees. They

weren't subsidized by every department of the government. And

while we're talking about Can-Cel, where is the financial

statement? We hear all these great figures about a profit, but

I haven't seen any financial statement yet. I haven't seen any

financial statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to ask the Members to deal with vote

MR. PHILLIPS: We're talking about forestry development roads

and we should be talking about

[ Page 3274 ]

forestry development bridges, because the bridge at Kitwanga

is being built at the expense of other citizens in this

province who need that money from the Department of Highways.

The bridge at Kitwanga, in spite of what the Minister said....

Oh, he spoke about it, and I will be done in just a few

seconds.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: The bridge at Kitwanga and the road leading to

that bridge, which is a new road through virgin territory,

wiping out trees and desecrating the land.... But that

government does it and it's fine. Where are the

environmentalists? It's to help Can-Cel, and let us get that

firmly on the record. The bridge at Kitwanga — hundreds of

thousands of dollars and the road to the bridge at Kitwanga to

serve Highway 16 — is to serve Can-Cel's operation south of

the highway, and let's make no mistake about it.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, it's common knowledge that

Can-Cel operates under special privileges at the taxpayers'

expense and competes against other operators...

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That is absolute nonsense.

MRS. JORDAN: ...but that's not the point I want to discuss

at the moment. The Minister's terribly sensitive. Problems?

AN HON. MEMBER: The big lie starts to wear a little

thin.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, the Minister of typewriters ought to know

about "big lies."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: Big lies. He ought to know well about them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Member for North Okanagan has the

floor and I hope you're dealing with vote 143.

MRS. JORDAN: I am indeed. Mr. Minister, this is $6

million-odd. I would like to know....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Don't interrupt the speaker.

MRS. JORDAN: There's considerable concern around the province that under

this vote there used to be an opportunity for independent operators to bid on

forestry contracts to build these forestry roads in concert with the government.

There are cases now where independent operators were turned down on the basis

of the government Fair Employment Trade Practices Act. We asked that this be

changed.

I'd like to ask the Minister: (1) how many independent

operators bid last year for jobs in concert with this vote?

(2) how many were accepted? (3) how many of these were non-union

operators?

On that point I'd like to make it clear that there are many

family operations, or very small operations, in this area that

simply don't want to unionize for quite obvious reasons — which

is not a feeling of anti-unionism at all. It's a family

operation. It's the way they want to operate. They are

independent, yet they pay equitable wages and benefits, if not

more. In fact, frequently they pay more. They want to know if

they are going to have the same opportunity to bid and be

accepted on these jobs.

The second point I'd like to discuss is small in relation to

provincial importance but it is important to the North

Okanagan. The former administration purchased a beautiful piece

of property on Mabel Lake — the Siglett-Shields property. This

was committed to be developed over a four- to five-year period

as an independent campsite area and this has not proceeded as

it should under the current administration.

There are road problems and the forestry road has to be

relocated. This is the road that goes in from about mile 17, I

believe, on from Lumby, entering to the south end of Mabel Lake

on the east side of the road.

Some money was allocated last year and, quite frankly, Mr.

Minister, I'd like to have a repetition of the amount, because

the general impression of those who are conversant with

building forestry roads was that the money was absolutely

squandered, that the amount of work that was done, which was

minimal, could have been greatly extended if there had been

competent supervision of the road-building materials and also

if the students who had been employed to work on the job, and

who were eager, had been properly supervised. This was a matter

of great concern to local independent contractors because they

felt they could have more than doubled the work done for the

amount of money that was spent.

I'd like to know what's going to happen this year.

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

question on the number of people who had bid on road contracts

and so on, we don't have that, but staff will obtain it and

make it available to the Member.

With respect to the road into the south end of Mabel Lake,

that's something we'll have to review as well. There is nothing

contemplated in this year's budget.

[ Page 3275 ]

MRS. JORDAN: You mean you have sort of half-animated the

programme? It's half-started.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It must have been half started in the

previous....

MRS. JORDAN: The money was poorly managed last year. As I

say, it was taxpayers' money that those who know how to build

roads in the local area felt was squandered. Now it's going to

just sit at a standstill. There is really no way that

part can

be developed for public use until that road is relocated. I

would urge the Minister to meet the commitment that was made to

the people. That is an area that is heavily used in the

summertime. If the facilities are not put in there, then the

park is going to receive undue pressure, it's not going to

receive proper maintenance and it's going to destroy this

beautiful ecological area.

I appreciate the Minister not having the number of companies

that bid on the small contracts. But he didn't comment on

whether or not non-union operators, contractors, can bid and

whether they'll receive the same opportunity. It can well be

that they should be paying an equitable rate. They don't object

to that; a lot of them pay more. Are they going to have the

same rights to bid on this $6 million as anyone else?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's my understanding that the Fair

Employment Practices Act does apply with respect to this

particular vote — therefore, no. However, with respect to any

subcontracts of private operations on public land, that would

not apply. So the opportunities would prevail on the bulk of

the forest road systems of British Columbia, since most of them

are not covered by this vote.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you. I appreciate the Minister's

comments.

In light of his statement that the Public Works Fair

Employment Act does apply to these contracts, and in light of

the fact that government, regardless of where the interest in

its pockets lies, has a responsibility to represent all the

people within a province — in this case, all the people of

British Columbia — I would request that the Minister ask for a

review of this policy in order that small, independent

contractors could bid on government jobs in road-building in

the forestry area, and wouldn't be forced to go through

subcontracts through the private operators or the timber

licences. Would the Minister consider giving them the same

opportunity?

Whether they like you or not, you're as much their government as you are the

organized sector of society's government. In fact, it's even more important

that the government stand for the rights of everybody to have an opportunity

to bid on government work.

As I say, there are no objections to requiring that the same

wage scale and benefits prevail within the operations of those

small operators. But surely they shouldn't be channeled through

a controlled type of bidding when others, just because they're

doing one thing the government wants in terms of organizing,

have free access to the bids. Would the Minister consider

reviewing this policy in order that these small, independent

contractors can...? There are not that many in the province.

They are usually very good operators, very efficient operators;

they're willing to work long, long hours. I know of no

complaint where.... In fact, often it's felt that you really

get your dollar's worth from their efforts. And that's the

responsibility of the Minister — to see that forestry dollars

are well spent and that the dollar value is received in terms

of the work done.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Minister. I want to remind

you, though, that we are not talking about policy, we are

talking about legislation. It shouldn't take place under this

vote.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'll certainly discuss the matter with

the Minister, Mr. Chairman.

MRS. JORDAN: In a phone booth?

MR. CHABOT: Just a brief question to the Minister. I was

rather shocked that the Minister would suggest for a moment

that I wasn't familiar with the northwestern part of the

province. I've travelled on a few occasions to that part of the

world, primarily for fishing. Every time I went, I paid my own

expenses. That's more than the Minister can say when he holed

up in Terrace for one month at public expense not too long ago.

The Minister was buried up in Terrace, hiding — nobody could

reach him. I was always available; you could find me on the

river. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to remind the Member that you're

dealing with vote 143. That's got nothing to do with vote

MR. CHABOT: Well, the Minister suggested that the little

Member from Columbia River...

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think you are talking about an earlier

vote.

MR. CHABOT: ...was not familiar with the northwestern part

of the province — that I had never been to the northwestern

part of the province.

The question is: how much of this 026 of vote 143 is going

to subsidize road construction for the Ocean

[ Page 3276 ]

Falls Corp.? How much of last year's vote was a direct

subsidy to Ocean Falls in the construction and so-called

forestry-development roads?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You can call it what you like, Mr.

Chairman, but the point is that we inherited a situation in

which people in that region didn't have access to....

MR. CHABOT: Access to what?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: To the important inlet system north of

Ocean Falls. Roscoe Bay provides access to, I think, literally

hundreds of miles of protected waterways. So this we regard as

a very significant input in terms of improving road systems in

that part of the province, because it will mean that access

from Bella Bella can be tied in to Roscoe Bay and, in turn, all

of the waterways north and east of there will have access. So

we regard it as a significant development thrust by government.

In fact, the amount will be $1.5 million and it will probably

provide a range of opportunities in terms of both forest access

and forestry development, new settlement possibilities,

recreation possibilities and transport links in an area that's

been desperately in need of such links.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): On vote 143. Thanks, Mr. Chairman — I just came in from another meeting.

On the forest development roads that are in this vote, what

is the policy of the forestry department after the roads are

built, after the timber is cut? Are they going to leave them

and abandon them as has been the policy in the past? Then we'll

have no end of difficulty in the intervening time. The same

Minister has let Crown land go to individuals — I have no

argument about that — but they establish because this road is

there, and then they're forced to withdraw. They don't know the

difference, the citizen doesn't know the difference between a

forest road and a properly gazetted highway road. I would like

to know, since it seems there will be an increase of forest

development roads, what the policy is going to be when the

timber's gone. That's what I would like to know, and I think we

need some clarification on this.

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

vote at least, certainly almost all those roads would continue

to be maintained because they would be regarded as significant

parts of the road system, Any abandonment would generally be in

the tertiary, minor systems. So in terms of the public

road-building in the forest sector, they would be

maintained.

MR. FRASER: What you're saying is that the main-system roads

that are now being built will be looked after by the Forest

Service on a maintenance basis after the timber is all hauled

out. You know, this is what's causing the problem, because the

Forest Service today is saying that the timber's all gone, that

we have no more reason for that road. They will not snow-plough

it. It closes up in the wintertime. We've got hundreds of miles

in this province under that condition now, and I think we're

only adding to the problem if we're not going to have some

future change or policy change now.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, but there are really the two

systems, Mr. Chairman: one where we're funding and the other

that's generally coming out of stumpage, and initially through

the private operators. My comments were with respect to this

particular funding.

MR. FRASER: You say they will continue maintenance.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes.

Vote 143 approved.

On vote 144: Forest Service: fire suppression, $5

million.

MR. FRASER: Fire suppression: this is fighting forest fires?

Is that right?

I'd like to know, Mr. Chairman, how the Forest Service....

Is there any bidding on aircraft for fighting fires? Does the

Forest Service consider local operators — that is, area

operators? It doesn't appear to me they do. I don't know what

kind of a bidding system they have. I'd like the Minister to

tell me what it is. Why can't we use the people and the

machines in the general area? They have a lot better knowledge — I'm referring to the interior — rather than bringing an

operator from the coast up and stationing him at Williams Lake

or Prince George or wherever it is. They're not too familiar

with the terrain.

My understanding is that there are operators who could bid

this business, but they're never even asked to bid on it. I'd

like to know just what the....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's my understanding, Mr. Chairman,

that all operators are provided with the specs and material

with respect to these proposals and it is on an open-bid basis.

So if somebody has not been obtaining the information, it

certainly will be made available.

MR. FRASER: Just a closing comment on that. Maybe a little

better information could be given out to the interior operators

of aircraft, because they

[ Page

3277 ]

don't seem to be aware that they can bid on a thing until

after the bid has been awarded. Then it's too late for that

year.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I see.

Vote 144 approved.

On vote 145: Forest Service: forest inventory,

$3,038,675.

MR. FRASER: I think this is an important

section of

forestry. I appreciate the good job they've done but is this a

continuing process, this inventory basis? It's been going on

now I think for probably 10 years. It's very important because

of the tenures in the different working circles and so on. In

other words, what I want to know is whether they are upgrading

the inventory. By these inventories does it show that there's

actually more cut in a sustained-yield unit than, say, there

was five years before?

How current is the inventory now? Are you fairly well up to

date? Are you running five years behind? Just what is the

case?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We have been reducing the cycle. It is

now 10 or 11 years in terms of going over stands around the province. It is that kind of cycle —

getting into areas on that kind of frequency. Very frequently

the inventory work will mean that the allowable cut can be

increased, basically, because the previous data was

inadequate.

Vote 145 approved.

Vote 146: Forest Service: scaling fund, $10 — approved.

On vote 147: Forest Service, public recreation in forest

areas, $900,000.

MR. FRASER: This came up under the Minister's vote, as I

recall. I just want to comment that I am pleased to see that

this vote is up from $600,000 to $900,000. I hope it is a

little more than to just look after inflation and increased

costs.

I don't feel that the Forest Service has done a very good

job in the past or right up to now, not just in the last three

years but in the 10 before that, in informing the public where

these areas are. I believe the Minister answered earlier that

you now have a major programme to make these reserve areas.

Really, you know, there is no use having these reserved areas

when the general travelling public — like people like from

Vancouver coming up to Chilcotin — I don't know which are the

public reserve areas.

While there is some controversy from private operators, I would like to hear

what other development is going to take place in these areas if any, other than

signing the areas, which I believe you said is going to happen. Are there going

to be pits put in there so they can have a bonfire, or are you just going to

sign them and that is the end of it?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: On this kind of budget, it is pretty

minimal. Privies, certainly, have to be provided in more

locations. This is a minimal programme in terms of these sites

when you consider the size of the province. In terms of fire

pits, the actual number of new pits proposed is 600 under this

budget.

MRS. JORDAN: I would just briefly like to ask the Minister a

few questions relating to recreation. Before I do, because my

colleague from the Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) spoke of signing, with

your permission, Mr. Chairman, would he just like to mention

the signing that is going on in the province generally from the

forest area?

I can see good reason why the Minister wishes to identify

various forest regions, but the former government had a policy

of minimum signing along our highways in order that people

could enjoy the beauties of the countryside rather than a maze

of signs. Now we are getting signs all over the place on the

highways. One is from forestry regions reading, for example:

"You are now in the North Okanagan forest district." This may

have a very practical benefit that I am not aware of, but the

sign itself is a very mundane-looking sign. It is not

offensive, but it is not attractive.

If the Minister insists on signing these areas, I would ask

him to develop an attractive sign that is in keeping with

British Columbia. We are a wood area; this is the forestry

department, why not a natural wood-type of sign with the

lettering burnt into it rather than these garish placard-type

signs? They are really very ugly on the landscape.

Apart from that, and in hope of comment, is this whole

matter of winter recreation utilizing forest roads in terms of

motorized vehicles, and the same in the summer. There has been

a lot of effort by people in certain regions of the province to

work through the local forestry district and with the

recreation people involved to establish logical snowmobile

areas within the forest reserves. These are responsible people.

Everyone knows there are a few fly-by-night operators of

snowmobiles. But by and large.... Certainly the B.C.

Snowmobile Association is very conscious of safety factors;

they are very conscious of ecological matters. They want to

operate these recreational vehicles in a responsible manner

from the point of view of safety and compatibility with the

environment. The vehicles have opened up a wide avenue of

winter recreation for a lot of people, particularly older

people who might have heart

[ Page 3278 ]

conditions and who can't enjoy skiing but can go out on

snowmobiles on organized trips. They can take pictures, bird

watch — they have a whole new avenue of winter recreation

opened to them.

I believe it is essential that we have specific areas in the

province, particularly in the more populated areas, where you

can use these vehicles. When I look at this vote of $600,000 I

don't see much room, financially, for any assistance to help

establish these, so I'd ask the Minister what portion of this

budget will go to assist in the signing of some of these areas.

Is there any assistance going for the public maps of these

areas so that people going to the Armstrong area, for example —

where there is some excellent snowmobile land opportunities

that is compatible — can purchase weatherproof maps, know where

the trails are, know where the safe areas are and know where

they shouldn't trespass for ecological reasons?

I know that the Minister is opposed to these vehicles, but

it seems to me he has a responsibility to recognize...

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Who, me?

MRS. JORDAN: ...that they are a legitimate form of

recreation, that those who are responsible and use them want to

use them in a responsible manner. But there has to be

cooperation from this Minister in establishing these

areas.

I would also ask him what provisions have been made for the

establishment of some overnight shelters and wood stocking for

cross-country snowmobiling. Also they'll be used in part by

cross-country skiers. What staff has he now? There was one

staff member before who was working in this area. What staff

has he and are they dealing with and accomplishing something

and responding to the various submissions that have been made

by different regional districts?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I understand, in terms of

staffing, that there are approximately two in Victoria and one

in each forest district.

The forest districts are not the ranger districts. They are

the six major regions oriented on Nelson, Kamloops, Vancouver,

Prince George, Prince Rupert currently, and so on.

There are no funds in this budget for the kinds of

facilities for snowmobiling that the Hon. Member would like. I

would say, however, that basically the figure for Victoria is

two foresters, two technicians on forest recreation

questions.

As the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) has indicated

a little earlier this year, he is establishing a recreation

section that would

be more involved in this kind of activity than this department. The bulk of

our activities are just for small sites that are not significant enough to be

parks and yet are natural, pleasant little stopping places for the recreating

public. So we simply don't see our department's role beyond that. It would be

a matter for Recreation and Conservation in terms of the brochures and various

activities the Member suggested.

MRS. JORDAN: Just one further point. I appreciate the

Minister's comments and I'm sorry it's taking time. I think if

this gets out of hand it's going to destroy a legitimate form

of recreation. But also the all-terrain vehicles in the

summertime, and this does touch a bit on the next vote...but

again one must assume that these have a legitimate place in the

recreational field. There's no question that when they run

higgledy-piggledy all over the hills and ranges they're

destroying valuable rangeland. They're destroying valuable

ecological areas because, as the Minister knows, they tear up

the grass and what you get are weeds in place. Again, I feel

that the people who utilize these recreational vehicles, who

are the responsible ones, are most anxious to designate their

areas where they can enjoy these vehicles but where they're not

destructive. In the meantime, it's putting a heavy burden on

the producers in this province who are leasing Crown lands, or

have Crown lands under permit, to really clean up after these

vehicles.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, that's true. What's

happened is that the secretariat staff and forestry and

Recreation and Conservation staff have worked with local clubs

in particular and have worked out defining areas in some other

parts of the province. We would hope to see that continued so

that we get some kind of general input from the various users,

plus our own staff experts, in reaching a consensus in terms of

areas of activities.

Vote 147 approved.

On vote 148: Forest Service grazing range improvement fund,

$600,000.

MR. CHABOT: Vote 148, I'm happy to see, is an improvement

here in the allocation of dollars for grazing range

improvements.

I was wondering if the Minister would be in a position to

tell us what kind of programmes they anticipate to carry out in

the forthcoming year on range improvement, Are there any

programmes for the region which I represent? There has been a

long-standing conflict in the use of the range in our area

between big game and livestock; it's an ongoing battle. I'm one

who believes that big game and livestock can live side-by-side

and utilize the range. The habitat is historical for big game

to graze on in the winter months — the winter areas.

Nevertheless, with improvement I think that both can flourish

[ Page 3279 ]

the southeastern part of the province.

I wonder if the Minister would tell me whether there are

some dollars here for range improvement in the East Kootenays,

and specifically what areas he intends to spend this money

on.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The funding is basically for the three

regions that are naturally heavy in terms of grassland activity — that is the Cariboo, Kamloops and Nelson regions. So the bulk

of the funding will be applied in those three regions. That

does include the East Kootenay, but I'm afraid....

MR. CHABOT: It does?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm afraid I don't have the specific

details on the East Kootenay here. Again, we'll make a note of

it and make the information available for the Member.

MR. CHABOT: You will?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, just a few questions on this

grazing range improvement fund increase from $300- odd thousand

to $600,000. I'm happy to see that. Regarding the area of the

area of the Cariboo, I'd like to know how much of that — the

Minister said it's in three areas — goes to the Cariboo because

it's one of the largest grazing areas in the province.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Well, it shouldn't be going to Kamloops; there

are just a few cows there — not very many.

While we're on range improvement, I don't think I'm out of

order, Mr. Chairman — it gets us into the Grazing Act itself. I

have no intention of bringing up the individual case I did

before.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, don't! We have all the details.

MR. FRASER: At this time I want to acknowledge to you, Mr.

Chairman, that the Minister met the party and myself. We are

very happy with the meeting we had. I am happy to see that this

Minister, while he won't meet the president of MacMillan

Bloedel, will meet a small, individual operator. I give him

full marks for that.

It leads me into the Grazing Act and what causes these problems — I believe

the B.C. cattlemen have put a motion through. The problem with the Grazing Act

is that there is no proper appeal procedure when there is conflict. The only

appeal procedure now is to the Minister when an agrologist or a grazing officer

says that you can't have so many head of cattle on the

range, or you can't have any after you've had a permit. I think

there's an inadequacy in the Grazing Act, and I would like to

hear the Minister's opinions regarding this.

I don't think any Minister who holds this high, exalted

position of Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

wants to have an appeal put before him whether somebody's milk

cow should be released from jail or not. I really think that

should be the last resort.

What I'm saying is: will the Minister entertain an amendment

to the Grazing Act, in the not too immediate future, setting up

an appeal board that the individual can appeal to, an appeal

board made up of representatives of the Forest Service, the

Cattlemen's Association, I would suggest — the B.C. Cattlemen

or some responsible body like that — and the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture? Hopefully, those two could appoint a chairman who

would be more or less independent. This is just a general idea

that I have and which I've heard discussed by cattle ranchers.

I imagine the legislative process would be that the Grazing Act

would have to be amended. I'm aware of, I believe it is, the

McLean report on grazing, and I think they're even silent on

this point. I've read that report once or twice.

While I'm on that report, I'd like to know from the Minister

where it's at now. According to the Minister's public

statements, it's out for public discussion. I'm referring to

the McLean report. I'd like to know how long he's going to

leave it in the area of public discussion, and when

legislation, if required, will be brought in. I'm referring

mainly to the tenure recommendations that were made by Dr.

McLean — I believe he is a doctor.

The cattle people are quite interested in finding out just

what the thinking of the Minister of Lands and Forests is on

this report and when changes will come. It's obviously too late

for this year, but would he entertain legislation to adopt

whatever portions of this McLean report he sees fit in the fall

session?

I'd like to hear from him on those two points — a better

appeal procedure under the Grazing Act, and where he plans to

go regarding the McLean report on grazing, which I think,

industry-wise, and everybody I've talked to thinks is an

excellent report.

It provides for longer tenure of grazing. The individual

operator doesn't have to wait on the whim of a forest officer

till the day before turnout to know how many cattle he can turn

out on the Crown range and at what date. It's most

unsatisfactory now, Mr. Chairman. I can't understand why the

grazing division of the Forest Service can't let the individual

operators know earlier than they have been doing regarding

feeding the cattle and so on. They could organize a little

better if they were notified, say, in February or March.

[ Page 3280 ]

I believe the Grazing Act now says they have to apply some

time at the end of January — maybe February is a little early,

but March would be fine. May is no good at all, and that's what

has been going on in the interior of British Columbia — then

only after repeated requests to the grazing officer.

I would also like to know on this vote we are on just what

plans the Forest Service has. Is this to supply seed and give

it to the individual operators to put on, or are they going to

build fenced areas for grazing, testing plots, and so on? Just

what, exactly, are they going to do with this? What is their

plan and have they discussed it with the individual cattlemen's

associations in the areas involved and had their agreement? I

think there is a little grey area here too.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Certainly the question of appeal that

the Member raised and discussed earlier in my office is

something that we might well look at. I agree that some form of

appeal outside the Minister is probably desirable. That should

be considered at the time the Act itself is opened up.

The bulk of Dr. McLean's recommendations hinge on

administrative practice as much as on legislation. Tenures and

the like are really administrative questions, in terms of one-,

two- or three-year tenures. Further advice that we've had from

ranching experts indicates that it is not so much tenure per se

as some kind of security in terms of their rights or call it

what you will.

We again discussed the question of turnout dates. We have

some sympathy with the comments made but it is my understanding

that about one month's notice is really about all that could be

realistic in terms of analyzing the grass and understanding the

winters and seasons and the like in terms of determining that

base. But we are certainly sympathetic to letting the ranchers

know as soon as possible once we know. It appears there have

been some problems in that particular region.

The seeding activity is under the jurisdiction of the local

rangers. That might well be with local people handling that end

or other arrangements that the local ranger would make.

I must just make a general comment about the statements regarding the lone

milk cow that the Member was so eloquently protecting and arguing about a few

days ago, and just give a couple of the facts — not all of them, because one

could argue all day about them. It should be clear that this is a pretty strong-willed

individual. The idea of stringing stove wire between trees at neck height so

that when officials came around looking they just might run into problems in

the woods is a fairly serious problem that has happened in that general area

I understand. The business of the foresters cutting trees down in parks might

well be clarified as simply a recreation area within the forest. It's not a

provincial park. Six riders arriving on a certain date — the number is three

riders arriving on the same date and so on. I think that while the Member embroidered

his tale of woe to a fair extent, I think there is another side to the story.

I can understand his reasons, but I don't think the details need be gone into

at this time.

MR. FRASER: I'm pleased with your comments, Mr. Minister.

I'll go from back to front. Regarding the gentleman who has the

problem, I hope that you are in a position to come to a

decision soon because his cattle are still not out on the Crown

range, hopefully. They are on private property and he won't

have any forage for next winter because they are eating hay

meadows that should be growing to be cut for forage this

winter. The other point that I wanted to bring out was that you

really said that legislation is probably not required, but you

didn't say when you would be making administrative changes. I

think the industry is interested in knowing that. If

legislation is not required to the Grazing Act when do you

contemplate the administrative changes? Are you looking at

getting it done this year for the next year, 1976? I think that

the industry is quite concerned in view of the McLean report

coming in last year.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We are still looking forward to specific

recommendations from the cattlemen's associations and so on but

we have been proceeding. The head of the grazing division will

be retiring later this year, I understand. The idea is to bring

in an outstanding person on a six-month to one-year basis to

work with our staff now on new management programmes and

pulling together new policies, so the intent that we see at

this stage is an evolutionary process through that one-year

period, working toward some of the recommendations of the

McLean report.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I gather out of that that a person

who is not in the grading division now that will probably be

the boss of the new set-up when it gets organized, is that

correct?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, that's right, but the intention is

not that it be a permanent situation but rather that he work

with the existing staff then bring recommendations for further

organization and staffing. Then he would leave after six months

to a year, or something like that. He's outstanding and

probably could provide great service to us, but it wouldn't be

a long-term proposition.

MR. SMITH: Just a quick point. Am I right in assuming that

none of the money provided for improvement of grazing range is

used in the improvement of what is presently known as

"community pastures?" Are any of the funds in this

[ Page 3281 ]

vote used to improve the quality of grazing in community

pastures?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I gather not.

MR. SMITH: Okay. Might I make one suggestion to the Minister

then and that is this — that we have a number of community

pastures scattered throughout the province, a number of them in

the north particularly. In my own riding, one at Cecil Lake,

one at Doig River, and one at Fell Creek. Now the original

development took place under an ARDA programme which was fine.

It was a joint programme between federal-provincial

governments, but one of the problems is that the amount of

money available in relation to the size of the pastures was not

nearly adequate. They had to develop, or try to develop far

more acres of raw land than was actually possible and get a

good catch of grass in that area.

What I'd like to suggest is that the Minister look into the

improvement of the grazing areas within the community pastures

because I'm convinced that perhaps with fertilizer and some

minor treatment for brush now, and whatnot, we could double the

carrying capacity of the developed areas.

The other thing, that if we do develop any new community

pastures in the province — and I think this is an ongoing

project — you look very closely at the amount of money that it

actually takes to properly prepare the ground for development

and seeding.

If we don't do that then all we have is a large space with

half the number of cattle on that particular range that it

would properly carry if the utilization factor was better and

the actual silviculture that was involved, or the methods of

not only maintaining but improving, would be on a continuing

basis.

We have that problem in the Peace country now, that most

people say that they could double the carrying capacity of each

one of those pastures with a bit of improvement.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That's a matter we will certainly keep

in mind, Mr. Chairman.

MR. PHILLIPS: We have $600,000 for the improvement of

grazing range improvement. I'm concerned about a particular

case which would be under this vote because the land that this

particular homesteader is on is wanted by the Department of the

Forest Service to evidently turn it into grazing land.

The man moved on this particular area — two men, Mr. John W.

McKie and Mr. Leslie W. McKie — I don't know whether the

Minister's familiar with the situation. The description of the

land is: Lots 1325 and 1437 in the Cariboo district.

This man moved into this area in 1969. He has seven children. He built a house

in there and now he's being ordered off the land by the Department of Forestry.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: These are squatters?

MR. PHILLIPS: What's that?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: These are squatters, or what?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, evidently he went in and built his house

without receiving a proper lease. It's another situation but

this man is trying to raise seven children. He built his house

in there before he got the lease. Couldn't get the lease

because the Department of Lands at that time said that the land

was not suitable for agriculture and yet he's lived there since

'69 and has been raising his family. Now the Department of

Forestry has ordered him to get off the land and said he must

get off the land by the end of May this year and that was after

granting one extension.

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

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't think the

Hon. Member has the right vote for this particular problem. But

if he would like to provide me with the details we'll certainly

review it seriously.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well I would be most happy, Mr. Chairman, to

give the Minister the whole file. The information I have — the

reason I brought it up under grazing is that the Department of

Forests...it's not a laughing matter, is it?

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

MR. PHILLIPS: It doesn't matter, really, Mr. Minister. But

the Department of Forestry want this particular land for

grazing and that's why they're putting this poor fellow and his

seven kids off the land. I think we have a moral obligation,

Mr. Chairman. If we're going to use this land for grazing, we

have a definite moral obligation to either provide him with

some new land or help him. Or what are we going to do — put him

on social welfare? This is the problem.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: He's not on social welfare now,

then?

MR. PHILLIPS: What's that?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: He's not on social welfare now?

[ Page 3282 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: No, he's not. No, he's got 25 cattle, and he's

trespassing. What do you do with a man like that?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, I'm interested in any of your

ideas.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'd leave him there. Leave the man

there. He's been there since 1969. He's got his house there. He

is making a living off this land where the Department of Lands

said he couldn't make a living. I would suggest that you leave

him there; at least give him a lease until his family grows

up.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: How many children were there?

MR. PHILLIPS: Seven!

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I see. That could take a while.

MR. PHILLIPS: Seven children and 25 cows.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, I think the best thing is for us

to simply review the file the Member has and see whether there

are alternatives that might be preferable, or just what problem

is caused by his squatting in this location.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'll have copies of this.... Unfortunately this information just came to me after the

Bennett problem. But it is urgent. I'll be happy to make

letters of all the correspondence I have. I do wish the

Minister would check into it. He's given me his assurance here

this morning, Mr. Chairman, that he will check into this

serious matter, and I accept that.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of small items

I omitted regarding grazing. I don't know whether the

Minister's aware of this but the Prince George office of the

B.C. Forest Service is denying grazing permits in the northern

part of Cariboo because of the Indian land claim problem. I

just wonder whether the Minister's aware of this. I have

correspondence on it but I didn't bring it into the House.

Apparently they have had instructions to not grant these.

The Minister says he's not aware of them. Well, you know,

I'm telling you about it now. I realize that this is a very

controversial problem, but not only in the forestry side of

your administration but in the grazing division as well is this

becoming a problem. They're denying grazing permits because of

the Indian land problem. I just want you to know that, and I

realize that you're concerned with this and that you have a

meeting coming up.

The last thing I want to bring up regarding grazing: I don't

accept the answer, Mr. Chairman, that your advisers have given

you regarding one month's notice of turnout date. I think that

can be improved on a lot. I'd just like to relate what

happens.

The agrologists and the grazing officer of the Forest

Service watch very diligently all from spring till fall, and

they are able to appraise the condition of any given range by

moving around on the grazing areas. I might say they do an

excellent job in that regard. But somewhere after that

everybody goes to sleep. They get into their nice offices,

their comfortable offices, and they start preparing their

reports and so on.

Now I realize that they have to wait until probably the end

of March to see if they have had winter kills from frost and so

on on the range. But I really can't accept the fact that they

can't do better than one month. I think that the cattle owners

are entitled to a minimum of two months' notice in view of the

fact that they've watched the range through to the time of

snowfall and then they have all winter. Really, they can't

wait, in my opinion, until the results of winter are fully

appraised, because by that time it's August in a lot of

areas.

What I'm really saying, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, is

that I think the grazing officers can give two months' notice

and it wouldn't put them out one iota. The other thing is that

if they're short of staff to get forms out and so on, well, I

don't think that's a big item to upgrade that staff. I might

say, Mr. Chairman, that that staff has certainly been increased

quite substantially in the last three to four years. I don't

argue about that at all. But the fact is that the fellow who is

paying the bill, the owner of the cattle, is entitled, in my

opinion, to two months' notice for turnout in the spring of the

year. They have large investments. A lot of things have to be

determined. You are not getting the right information if you

are being told that these operators are now getting notice.

They're getting hardly any notice at all — within 10 days. I

don't think that's a way to treat the cattle industry in

British Columbia.

HON. MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: We've noted your comments.

Vote 148 approved.

On vote 149: Forest Service: Peace River community pastures,

$24,000.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to tell the

Minister that this programme was started quite some years ago.

It's been very well accepted, both by the Forest Service and by

the cattle and sheep ranchers in the area.

But there is getting to be a crowding in the

[ Page 3283 ]

existing community pastures, Mr. Minister, and I think you

are going to have to move either through ARDA or through some

other programme to....

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, not really.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it is hard to know. I ask the Minister

of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) and he says: "Go to the

Minister of Forestry." But we are going to have the lands we

need for expansion of these community pastures that are

presently under the jurisdiction of the Department of Forestry.

So it is the Minister, or the Environment and Land Use

Secretariat — I don't know, you've got so many bureaucracies

over there now you hardly know who to go to. One doesn't know

what the other is doing.

But what I am saying, you're the man in charge. You're the

most powerful man in British Columbia. You can tell the

Minister of Agriculture what to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a Caesar.

MR. PHILLIPS: Caesar! So that's the reason I'm telling you

the problem, because I know you can solve it. But we are going

to need some new land extension. There is some set aside. It is

just a case of getting the Forestry department to give it

up.

I've argued this with the Minister of Agriculture — if the

transfer has taken place yet — and we don't really know. Tell

me, has the transfer of these community pastures gone to the

Department of Agriculture?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The transfer has taken place and the

cattlemen have said that they would prefer it to be back in the

Forest Service.

MR. PHILLIPS: If it has taken place, how come the money is

under your vote? What is this expenditure for? What are you

going to do with this $24,000?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I guess we are in mid-stream, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. PHILLIPS: All right. I just want to get this in the record, then.

The community pastures, Mr. Chairman, are being transferred from the Department

of Forestry to the Department of Agriculture. Next year we will see this vote

under the Department of Agriculture. Is that the way I am to understand the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That is our understanding, Mr. Chairman, but there

is this difference — that the cattlemen seem to now have reconsidered the matter

and feel that it might well be in the Forest Service. But the process of it

is ongoing. It has been transferred to Agriculture, yes.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, probably the confusion on

the part of the cattle ranchers is because they can't get any

satisfaction anyway. How could they say they want it back in

the Department of Forestry when the Department of Agriculture

still hasn't got control of it? They don't know whether the

Department of Agriculture is doing a better job or not. What

the confusion is right now when they do want an extension or

want to deal with a community pasture, or want it upgraded, as

the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) said, because we

can increase the productivity by the use of fertilizers and

getting rid of the aspen that grows very rapidly in that area,

right now there is confusion because they don't know who to go

to. Whether to go to the Department of Agriculture or the

Department of Forestry. This is the problem.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The Department of Agriculture — the

process is moving as we suggested it, but apparently the beef

growers' convention this year passed a resolution urging

transfer back to Forestry.

Vote 149 approved.

On vote 150: reservoir waterway improvements, $10.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I just want some clarification on

the item under code number 030, where it very blithely says,

"All other expenditures, $4.7 million" — that's a very large

sum of money to be under the title "all other expenditures."

Could the Minister give me some idea, just very briefly, what

is included in the term "all other expenditures, $4.7

million"?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, that's the actual cost of the

work, Mr. Chairman, so for example, expenditures will be $2.5

million in Williston Reservoir, $1.6 million in Mica Reservoir,

and so on.

MR. WALLACE: I see.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I notice that last year under this

vote there were six flunkeys, and I'm wondering why there are

only two flunkeys required this year? (Laughter.)

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That is efficiency in the public

service.

[ Page 3284 ]

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I

wonder if the Minister could give us an idea how much money is

being spent cleaning up the Duncan dam? How much is being spent

on Stave Lake? How much is being spent on Bridge River? How

much is being spent on Libby, and if anything is being done in

the way of cleaning up Tweedsmuir Park?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I indicated, Mr. Chairman, $2.5 million

on Williston, $1.6 million on Mica, $700,000 on Duncan,

$170,000 on Stave Lake, and Libby is not covered under this

vote. In the past it has been handled under Water Resources,

and I think everything has been expended in terms of what was

intended there.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, if these costs of reservoir

waterway improvement are being charged to the B.C. Hydro at a

net cost of $10, how come we don't have clean-up of the area

behind the Kenney Dam with charges being made to the aluminum

company?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, that's certainly a matter that I'd

be happy to discuss with the aluminum company. We have carried

out by warrant expenditures in the past of about $300,000, if

my memory serves me, last year, working with local operators

out of Vanderhoof on Ootsa Lake and determining costs of

clearing under different conditions, and on a priority basis in

terms of recreation sites in that reservoir.

So we now have, I think, satisfied ourselves about costs in

the series of lakes that were flooded by the Kenney Dam and the

aluminum company's activities for the Kitimat operation.

A very narrow kind of contractual relationship developed

between the Crown of those days and that company. Certainly

it's my personal view that there is a case for the aluminum

company to make expenditures to clean up the monstrous

environmental damage they've perpetrated on that part of the

province.

I'd certainly be pleased to discuss the whole matter with

the aluminum company, and I have on other occasions in a

general way indicated my concern about this question with the

management, but it's something that might be more actively

pursued.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, two more questions.

Do I take it from what the Minister has said that he has

given a public commitment to engage in negotiations with the

aluminum company with a view eventually to cleaning up that

mess which exists in the northern part of British Columbia?

My second question is: at present rates of expenditure on

the waterways we are clearing, such as Stave Lake, Mica, and so

on, when will those reservoirs be finally cleared up along the

shoreline? Stave Lake is now more than a half-century old — the

environmental damage — with lots of work still to be done. I

wonder if there's any prospect of having these reservoirs

cleaned up within a century, let's say.

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

information, Mr. Chairman. It's something that we might apply

ourselves to. I think it's abundantly clear that what we've

done to the environment in these basins is considerable, and

the cost will be huge, absolutely huge, in terms of cleaning up

the mess.

I think the important thing is that we're seeing to it that

more is being done and that the activities have begun in places

where they weren't taking place before. At least they're

established on a priority basis in these reservoirs.

It's a major job that we have. We might well be able to

provide information at a later stage on how long it would take

at current rates.

MR. McGEER: One final question, Mr. Chairman.

We know that once environmental damage is incurred by a dam

we may be looking forward to a century of ruination. The

clean-up taking place now is alleged to be so costly that it

can only be considered on a very long-term basis. We're talking

50 to 100 years. What I'd like to ask is whether in future

power developments — and I'm thinking specifically of Site 1

and the Pend-d'Oreille — whether or not the environmental

damage is completely taken into account in the initial costing

of the dam so there won't be a century of clean-up left over

after any new Hydro projects.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, yes. There's no intention to carry

on the practice of the old government. There will be clearing

of these basins. They are relatively small basins compared to

the others, of course.

Vote 150 approved.

Vote 151: Forest Service: salary contingencies, $7,917,269 — approved.

On vote 152: Water Resources Service: general

administration, $204,594.

MR. CHABOT: Vote 152, Mr. Chairman. I want to refresh the Minister's

memory a little here because in an earlier discussion with the Minister regarding

water diversions he suggested I bring it up in the oral question period and

I really didn't want.... The Minister can give me a reply that he would take

the matter

[ Page 3285 ]

as notice and I'd never get a reply, because I've had correspondence

with the Minister now since March 26. I received an acknowledgment of my original

letter and I traced it on April 20-something, and also I've recently written

to the Minister again seeking a very simple answer to a problem that is being

experienced in my area.

I thought maybe if the Minister took it as notice I would

never get an answer so I thought that this would be the

appropriate place to bring up this question of water levels and

potential water diversions. This relates to

article 13 of the

Columbia River treaty in which the Province of British Columbia

has the right of diversion of certain quantities of the

Kootenay River into the Columbia River. In 1984 volumes of 70

per cent of the Kootenay River can be diverted into the

Columbia for maximizing of power production at Mica and at

other downstream dams.

I'm firmly convinced in my own mind that certainly I have to

agree that it will maximize and increase the potential power

production of Mica, but it will have tremendous economic and

ecological disruption. I personally cannot see any

justifications for the cost that would be incurred in the

diversion of this water, which the province has the right to

do. It would involve the costs of possible relocation of a very

costly railroad that has been upgraded over the years. It has

moved from 65-pound rail to 85-pound rail to 100-pound rail to

120-pound rail to ribbon steel — that's a progression as far as

railroads are concerned. Once you move out of a resource-type

railroad you move up and you upgrade as traffic justifies an

upgrading of a railroad.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I see.

MR. CHABOT: You get the picture, I hope...

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, I think so.

MR.CHABOT: ...of the kind of costs that have been incurred

because of increased traffic on that railroad — the kind of

disruption and the kind of costs that would be involved in

building a comparable railroad that is handling a tremendous

amount of traffic, not a resource railroad like you see in

northern British Columbia that were built to lower standards

because of lack of traffic.

Also, it would involve elevating of the highway in certain locations, it would

involve changing of highway bridges, and most of all, it would disrupt waterfowl

nesting, which is a very important thing in the Columbia Valley where the geese

and the ducks nest. It would also destroy one community if you.... There is

a tremendous fluctuation on those lakes — Columbia Lake and Lake Windermere

— in flood. These lakes increase in elevation by 10 feet during flood.

Now we're looking at a diversion of up to 70 per cent of the

Kootenay River, which would again increase tremendously the

flooding potential of the area which I represent. It would have

tremendous disruption.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Limited fluctuation.

MR. CHABOT: Limited fluctuation? I'm advised that the

fluctuation, instead of being in the vicinity of 10 feet, which

is critical, would increase the water level between two and

three feet more. It would completely destroy one community for

sure, without any doubt, plus a disruption of the hundreds of

homes that are located adjacent to Lake Windermere and Columbia

Lake.

MR. CUMMINGS: How many?

MR. CHABOT: I said hundreds of homes — hundreds of summer

homes along the east side of Lake Windermere.

MR. WALLACE: What do you know about Lake Windermere,

Roy?

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't even know where it is.

MR. CHABOT: Not only that, but the kind of environmental

damages that would result along the Kootenay River would be

horrendous. It would create tremendous pollution. When you

remove 70 per cent of the water from a river and dump it into

another river at the height of land — Canal Flats — you can imagine what would happen to the dam and the power

production on those dams that presently exist on the Kootenay

River. You would turn the Kootenay River virtually into an

irrigation ditch — that's what would take place on the Kootenay

River. You can imagine the kind of pollution that would exist

because of the pulp mills and the steel mills — well, not a

steel mill any more, but the effluent coming from the lead and

zinc mine from Kimberley. With a reduced flow of water, you can

imagine the tremendous amount of pollution that would be

created on the Kootenay River as well as the disruption of

power production.

Without discussing this at any great length, I want to say

that I can't really believe that the benefits that would be

derived from additional power generation justify the kind of

ecological and economic disruption that would take place in

that part of the province.

The Deputy Minister has provided me with details telling me

that you're evaluating the technical and economic feasibilities

of this potential diversion. He

[ Page 3286 ]

also mentioned the possibility of a control weir near the

outlet of Lake Windermere in the vicinity of Athalmer to

maintain favourable summer levels on the lake that is being

studied. I'm under the impression that that has been studied

for some considerable period of time. It's been a matter of

constant review; it is a problem with this tremendous

fluctuation of the lake. I thought by now that the Department

of Water Resources would have some answers — it's just a

question of getting the thing underway.

I wonder if the Minister will tell me whether there is any

intention on the part of the Province of British Columbia to

exercise

article 13 in the Columbia River treaty which would

involve, in 1984, the diversion of up to 70 per cent, 1,500,000

acre feet of water, into the Columbia River to maximize power

production on Mica.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, there is no question that

this would be a significant enterprise and would have impact of

some scale in various ways. But, you know, it is all part of

our rights under the Columbia River treaty, and the former

government let so much slip through their fingers...

MR. CHABOT: Nonsense!

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: ...in relation to the Columbia River

treaty that this option must be analyzed in considerable

detail. That is what we are doing now, analyzing this option in

considerable detail in terms of economic benefit, in terms of

ecological impact and the like. At this stage we are simply

trying to ascertain the facts and the impact of such a

proposition. There is no policy decision at this stage at all,

other than to see to it that detailed studies are carried out

so that we know exactly what kind of impact, cost and benefit

we would have, were it to be considered.

MR. CHABOT: There is just one other brief question. The

people in the region I represent are in a state of hiatus now

because now we have these ecological, economic and technical

studies going on. Are they going to be held in abeyance until 1984 to get an

answer? Is the government carrying out these surveys and

studies for the purpose of strengthening their position, or for

economic benefits, when 1984 rolls around, for negotiating

strength with the United States? Or is there a genuine desire

on the part of the government to divert — the rights which were

given under the Columbia River treaty — into the Columbia River

a part of the flow of the Kootenay River? Is this the

intention, or is the intention just, basically, to strengthen

your negotiating position with the United States?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think the answer I gave covers the

Member's question, Mr. Chairman. But, certainly, Hydro's

position of the last few years has been to involve the public

in the decision-making process and to provide them with data

and information. So all we are doing at this stage is getting

the data and information, and any subsequent step would have to

involve some participation.

MR. CHABOT: Participation by whom?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, the public — the locally affected

people.

MR. CHABOT: Now, Mr. Chairman — I don't know whether.... It

is 12 o'clock, maybe the committee should adjourn.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution

and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:02 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1975, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada