British Columbia Hansard — Wednesday, May 15, 1974 — Afternoon Sitting (30th Parliament, 4th Session)
30p 04s 740515p
British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 1974
Afternoon Sitting
[ Page
3137 ]
CONTENTS
Routine proceedings
Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 132). Hon. Mr. Nimsick.
Introduction and first reading — 3137
Leasehold and Conversion Mortgaged Loan Act (Bill 133). Hon. Mr. Nicolson.
Introduction and first reading — 3137
An Act to Amend the Hospital Insurance Act (Bill 135). Mr. Wallace.
Introduction and first reading — 3137
Oral questions
Steps to offset increased gasoline prices. Mr. Bennett — 3138
Federal-provincial consultations on taxes on mining industry. Mr. Gibson — 3139
Meetings re Vancouver bid for 1980 winter Olympics. Mr. Wallace — 3139
Refusal of Interior body shops to conform to set rate. Mr. Fraser — 3139
Arrangements for conversion of Stena Danica. Mr. Curtis — 3140
Enlargement of Tsawwassen ferry terminal. Mr. Curtis — 3140
Appeals on decisions of courts of revision. Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3140
Delays in ICBC payments to auto body shops. Mr. Schroeder — 3140
Pending legislation. Mr. Gardom — 3140
Increased assessments on golf courses. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3140
Committee of Supply: Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources estimates
On vote 137.
Mr. Bennett — 3141
Mr. Smith — 3143
Hon. R.A. Williams — 3144
Mr. McGeer — 3144
Mr. Phillips — 3149
Mr. Smith — 3150
Mr. Fraser — 3151
Hon. R.A. Williams — 3151
Division on vote 137 — 3151
On vote 138.
Mr. Fraser — 3151
Hon. R.A. Williams — 3152
Mr. Gibson — 3152
Hon. R.A. Williams — 3153
Mr. Gibson — 3153
Mrs. Jordan — 3153
Mr. Curtis — 3154
Hon. R.A. Williams — 3154
Mr. Fraser — 3155
Hon. R.A. Williams — 3155
On vote 14 1.
Mr. Fraser — 3155
Hon. R.A. Williams — 3155
Mr. Fraser — 3155
On vote 144.
Mrs. Jordan — 3156
Hon. R.A. Williams — 3156
Mr. Fraser — 3156
Hon. R.A. Williams — 3156
On vote 145.
Mr. L.A. Williams — 3157
Hon. R.A. Williams — 3157
Mr. Rolston — 3157
Hon. R.A. Williams — 3159
Mr. Wallace — 3159
Mr. Phillips — 3160
Hon. R.A. Williams — 3161
Mr. Phillips — 3161
Mr. L.A. Williams — 3161
Hon. R.A. Williams — 3162
Mrs. Jordan — 3162
Mr. Smith — 3163
Hon. R.A. Williams — 3164
Mr. Gibson — 3164
Hon. R.A. Williams — 3164
Mr. Smith — 3165
Hon. R.A. Williams — 3165
On vote 146.
Mr. Rolston — 3165
On vote 147.
Mr. Gibson — 3166
Hon. R-A. Williams — 3166
Mr. Phillips — 3166
Hon. R.A. Williams — 3166
Mr. Phillips — 3167
Hon. R.A. Williams — 3167
Mr. Smith — 3167
Hon. R.A. Williams — 3167
Mr. Gibson — 3167
Hon. R.A. Williams — 3167
On vote 148.
Mr. Smith — 3167
Hon. R.A. Williams — 3168
Mr. Curtis — 3168
Hon. R.A. Williams — 3168
Mr. Smith — 3168
On vote 14 9.
Mr. Smith — 3169
Hon. R.A. Williams — 3169
On vote 15 1.
Mr. Fraser — 3169
Hon. R.A. Williams — 3169
Mr. Rolston — 3170
Mrs. Jordan — 3170
Mr. Smith — 3170
Hon. R.A. Williams — 3171
Mrs. Jordan — 3171
Hon. R.A. Williams — 3171
Mr. Gibson — 3171
Hon. R.A. Williams — 3171
On vote 15 2.
Mr. Gibson — 3172
Hon. R.A. Williams — 3172
Mr. Fraser — 3172
Hon. R.A. Williams — 3172
On vote 153.
Mr. Smith — 3172
Hon. R.A. Williams — 3172
Mr. Wallace — 3172
Hon. R.A. Williams — 3172
Mr. Gibson — 3172
Hon. R.A. Williams — 3173
On vote 156.
Mr. Fraser — 3173
Hon. R.A. Williams — 3173
On vote 15 7.
Mr. Fraser — 3173
Hon. R.A. Williams — 3173
On vote 15 9.
Mr. Rolston — 3173
Hon. R.A. Williams — 3173
On vote 16 1.
Mr. McClelland — 3174
Mrs. Jordan — 3174
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
the Member for Delta (Mr. Liden), who is not here today, I'd like to
ask the House to join me in welcoming a group of students from North
Delta Senior Secondary who are visiting us, accompanied by their
teacher, Miss Stephanie Barker, who is a member in good standing in the
constituency of Vancouver-Burrard.
MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I'd
like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery
of students from Carson Graham High School in North Vancouver,
accompanied by their instructor, Mr. Siebert and Mr. Brown. I'd ask the
House to make them welcome.
HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, I'd
like to advise the House that at 3 o'clock (because the galleries are
so full) there will be 35 children from the L.B. Brown School in
Olympia, Washington, visiting the Legislature. They've spent most of
the academic year studying Canadian politics.
Introduction of bills
PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974
Hon. Mr. Nimsick presents a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill
intituled Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1974.
Bill 132 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on
orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House
after today.
LEASEHOLD AND CONVERSION
MORTGAGED LOAN ACT
Hon. Mr. Nicolson presents a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill
intituled Leasehold and Conversion Mortgaged Loan Act.
Bill 133 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on
orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House
after today.
AN ACT TO AMEND THE
HOSPITAL INSURANCE ACT
On a motion by Mr. Wallace, Bill 135,
An Act to Amend the Hospital Insurance
Act , introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the
day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On examination of Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, May 14, I find that there's a departure from the usual procedure in that a point of order is recorded in Votes and Proceedings . I'm wondering if we're going to start insisting that all points of orders raised in the Legislative Assembly are recorded in Votes and Proceedings , as has been done on May 14.
MR. SPEAKER: What page, please?
MR. CHABOT: Inside of the cover page — page 2, in other words
— we find that a point of order has been recorded, which is an abnormal
departure from the usual procedure.
MR. SPEAKER: I think that was actually raised as a point of
privilege and would have become a point of privilege, had it not ended
up on a point of order.
MR. CHABOT: Are points of privilege usually published in Votes and Proceedings ?
MR. SPEAKER: A complaint of privilege and the disposal of it
are usually recorded, where a breach of privilege is alleged and the
matter is dealt with. Here apparently the wording was used that it was
a point of order, but I seem to recall it was a point of privilege.
MR. CHABOT: Well, there's a mistake, then, in Votes and Proceedings .
MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps we can correct that.
MR. CHABOT: Will you see that they correct it, Mr. Speaker,
to make sure that we don't get into the business of having double
standards regarding points of order?
MR. SPEAKER: Yes. I don't want to see any double standards, but I appreciate very much your bringing it to my attention.
MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I just want to keep the record straight — and consistent as well.
MR. SPEAKER: I suppose the custom has been that when matters
are of some import — that is, where they can lead to a large dispute in
the House, and the question of privilege is, in effect, being
considered.... Certainly it was ah extensive business
[ Page 3138 ]
that went on in this particular instance, waiting for transcripts and so on....
MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, you might recognize it yourself
personally as being a matter of intensive debate and intensive
research, but I don't recall it being a matter of intensive concern to
the Legislative Assembly. Really I don't see that it justifies having
been published in Votes and Proceedings .
MR. SPEAKER: Have we got a time limit on this debate, or can we go on to some other business?
MR. CHABOT: We've got about 15 minutes, Mr. Speaker. If you want we can pursue it in a rational way right now.
MR. SPEAKER: We'll look at the question and see what the
proper practice should be in each case. Certainly I'll report to you on
my observations.
MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much, as long as we're consistent in what we do in the House, Mr. Speaker. It's most important.
MR. SPEAKER: I appreciate very much your reverence for the rules. (Laughter.)
Oral questions
STEPS TO OFFSET
INCREASED GASOLINE PRICES
MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): To the Premier
and Minister of Finance: as today seems to be the day that gasoline
prices were hiked by 10 cents a gallon, I wonder if the Premier and
Minister of Finance would advise the House what steps he will take to
aid the consumer to absorb part or all of the price impact?
HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I anticipated the
question from the opposition today on this particular matter, and I'd
like to share with the House a telegram sent by the head of the B.C.
Energy Commission, Dr. Thompson, on May 14, 1974, to nine oil companies
in Canada:
PRODUCTS WHICH PROVIDE FOR A 9.2 CENT PER GALLON MAXIMUM INCREASE. THESE GUIDELINES
ARE HEREBY MODIFIED FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA BY REDUCING THE INCREASE FOR MOTOR
GASOLINE AND HOME HEATING DISTILLATES BY 1.2 CENTS PER GALLON AND BY AUTHORIZING
OFFSETTING HIGHER INCREASES FOR HEAVY FUEL OILS. THE RESULT WILL BE AN 8 CENT
PER GALLON MAXIMUM INCREASE FOR MOTOR GASOLINE AT THE RETAIL PUMP THROUGHOUT
THE PROVINCE AND CORRESPONDINGLY REDUCED INCREASES FOR HOME HEATING DISTILLATES.
THE INCREASED HEAVY FUEL OIL PRICE SHOULD NOT EXCEED $10.25 PER BARREL, F.O.B.
VANCOUVER.
The rationale for giving heavy fuel oil offsetting higher increases
is because historically heavy fuel oil has been in oversupply and
prices have been depressed in the world market. Recently, as a result
of the world's petroleum energy shortage and increased off-shore crude
prices, heavy fuel oil has been in short supply and prices have
increased substantially.
Whereas heavy fuel oil has traditionally been
priced at or below crude oil prices, it is presently running well over
$2 above crude oil prices in Canada.
Heavy fuel oil should now be priced more in keeping with the cost of
the raw material plus refining, and coincidentally more in keeping with
the energy content of the fuel. Underpricing encourages the inefficient
use of the fuel.
Because heavy fuel oil sold at depressed prices, gasoline and other
products had to be at a higher price in the past to develop sufficient
revenue for a barrel of refined product. The former conditions no
longer prevail; therefore gasoline and home heating distillates should
now be priced relatively lower than the heavy fuel oil.
Dr. Thompson has instructed the nine gasoline distributing companies
— the oil companies — that it would be acceptable to the Province of
British Columbia to limit the increase to 8 cents per gallon at the
pump for the motorist. It is the intention of the Province of British
Columbia to ensure that the increase in the price of crude oil does not
go to excessive profits for the oil companies. Thus the Minister of
Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) introduced a significant bill just today.
The government itself will be entering into the question of the
increase in price and has fixed the return of the increase of the price
of oil of $2.50 a barrel to 80 per cent return for the people of
British Columbia. With that 80 per cent return to the people of British
Columbia in the increase of the price, we have committed ourselves to
ensure that the British Columbian motorist will be able to put his
vehicle on the road at a cheaper level of operation than he not only
experienced at the time of gasoline prices yesterday, but hopefully
cheaper than with the increased price in gasoline.
However, we will not go the route that will allow the non-resident
to escape gasoline taxes — that is, tourists coming to British Columbia
must pay the full share of taxes.
We will announce within a short period of time a dramatic concept in assisting the drivers of this
[ Page 3139 ]
province in putting their vehicles on the road at a
much cheaper basis. Everything has its natural sequence of events, in
answering this question, Mr. Speaker. Today we've announced that we
will limit the increase in price to 8 cents a gallon. No one will
escape paying their taxes on the gasoline. We have a plan in mind; we
will be recovering 80 per cent of the increase. This is a government
that cares for the consumer, as events will prove.
MR. BENNETT: I hate to ask him a supplemental. (Laughter.) I
just wonder why the difference down to 8 cents from the 8.5 cents that
the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) introduced in bill form.
HON. MR. BARRETT: After reviewing our figures, we saw that 8 cents was a fair return.
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONSULTATIONS
ON TAXES ON MINING INDUSTRY
MR. GIBSON: I have a question for the Premier and Minister of
Finance as to whether he's received a telegram from the president of
the British Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines proposing essentially
that before new taxes are imposed on the mining industry at either the
federal or provincial level, the two governments should get together to
discuss how this should best be done. Will he be following that
suggestion and contacting federal authorities to have such talks, both
to protect our own B.C. tax position and to protect employment in the
mining industry?
HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that I
received a telegram, but I hate to do this publicly. I just want to
inform the Member that there is no more federal government.
MR. GIBSON: Oh, sure there is!
HON. MR. BARRETT: There's an interim caretaker group that
cannot introduce legislation. Depending on the outcome and the wisdom
of the people of Canada, I will consider discussing that telegram with
David Lewis as the new Prime Minister.
MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Dreamer!
MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary then, Mr. Speaker, does the
Premier accept the proposition that there should be no tax increases
until discussions are held between the two governments, whenever that
can be arranged?
HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I just find that incredible.
He wants me to deal with a non-government in the hopes that the
Liberals will get back in. Now, that's absurd. We're here to govern,
and if we had to wait for the Liberal Party, we still wouldn't have
Medicare in this country.
AN HON. MEMBER: Hoist Bill 31!
MEETINGS RE VANCOUVER BID
FOR 1980 WINTER OLYMPICS
MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of
Travel Industry regarding meetings between the City of Vancouver and
the winter Olympics committee. Can the Minister tell the House if
meetings are planned in the near future in Vancouver's bid for the 1980
winter Olympics?
HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry):
Mr. Speaker, that question would be better referred to the Minister of
Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) because of the parks
aspect of it. There is a cabinet committee and there's a staff
committee. My department's represented on that committee, but I would
ask the Member to deflect the question.
MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the Minister of
Recreation and Conservation.... I gather a meeting for April 30 was
cancelled and the City of Vancouver is unhappy about lack of progress.
Are meetings planned in the near future?
Perhaps to save time, could I ask the second part of the question?
Has the government reached the point of specific policy formation as to
whether or not they favour the holding of the winter Olympics in
Vancouver?
HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation):
Yes, meetings will be held at future dates, Mr. Member, and no, there
has been no policy set yet. Policy probably will come forth from the
meeting we will hold with the officials of the City of Vancouver.
REFUSAL OF INTERIOR BODY SHOPS
TO CONFORM TO SET RATE
MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): A question to the Minister of
Transport and Communications: in view of the fact that almost all the
body shops from 100 Mile House in the south to Prince George, including
the City of Prince George, in the north refuse to work at the rate of
$14 an hour and all these motorists are subject to a surcharge, what
are you going to do about it and when?
HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I don't know how long it is since the Member's been in contact with the area but...
[ Page 3140 ]
MR. FRASER: Last weekend.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: ...the last report that I had was that one
of the major shops in Prince George, one of the medium size shops in
Prince George and one of the smaller shops in Prince George have
accepted the $14-per-hour rate and are working at that rate.
ARRANGEMENTS FOR CONVERSION
OF STENA DANICA
MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Minister of
Transport and Communications. Several days ago on the subject of the
new ferry vessel Stena Danica, I asked if arrangements had been booked
with any yard concerning the conversion job which the Minister
indicates will be necessary. I wonder if he could indicate if such a
booking has been made or if, in fact, the vessel is going to be
modified at the Ferry Authority's Deas Terminal.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Member, I've been away the last couple
of days and I haven't had a chance to get an answer to that particular
question. I'll try and have it for tomorrow.
ENLARGEMENT OF
TSAWWASSEN FERRY TERMINAL
MR. CURTIS: A further point, Mr. Speaker, on the same general
subject was with respect to the enlargement of the Tsawwassen terminal
facilities. I gather the Minister would like to take that as notice too.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes.
APPEALS ON DECISIONS
OF COURTS OF REVISION
HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the leader of the
Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson) asked a question in the House on the
Finance department as to whether or not approvals to appeal decisions
of courts of revisions have been advised. To my knowledge, no approvals
were given to appeal decisions of courts of revision on golf course
assessment reductions this year. Six requests to appeal court of
revision decisions came to my office in February and March of this
year, but I did not sign the approval forms. This means that the
decisions of the local courts of revision in these cases have been left
to stand.
DELAYS IN ICBC PAYMENTS
TO AUTO BODY SHOPS
MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): This is for the Minister of
Transport and Communications. What steps is the Minister taking to
correct an injustice that is occurring in the payout of ICBC to auto
body shops?
I understand that in some instances the body shops have only
received two-thirds of their money for the month of April, and have had
to go to interim financing to pay their labour costs. What steps is the
Minister taking?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's the first I've heard of it, Mr.
Member. If you have specific cases, I'd appreciate getting them from
you and I'll certainly take it up at the next director's meeting.
PENDING LEGISLATION
MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question to the
Premier, Mr. Speaker. Since we're now into the longest session in the
history of this province and there was little indication in the Speech
from the Throne as to the legislation that was to come before the
House, I wonder if the Hon. Premier could indicate to the House roughly
how many more government bills are contemplated prior to the end of the
session?
HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it's wonderful that we are now setting records for full debate in this House.
MR. GARDOM: You ended that today in committee.
HON. MR. BARRETT: There, you see, they want it one way and now the other.
MR. GARDOM: Answer the question.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, just give me a chance; you're interrupting me all the time, that's very rude. (Laughter.)
Mr. Speaker, we are dedicated to improving legislation in this province, therefore we will carry on our programme.
AN HON. MEMBER: What does that mean?
INCREASED ASSESSMENTS
ON GOLF COURSES
MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): A supplementary question to the
previous reply from the Minister of Finance. In the light of his reply,
may I ask him whether the March 22, 1974 letter to the Castlegar and
District Golf Club from M.D. Naish, the Provincial Assessor, is invalid
in view of the fact that the Premier and Minister of Finance has not
given his
[ Page 3141 ]
permission for....
Interjection.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Please get Peter to tell you all about it. I spoke to him yesterday.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...is invalid in view of the fact that they have made application for appeal. Tell him, Peter.
HON. MR. BARRETT: If you were in the House, Mr. Member, you
would have heard me say that I signed no rights for approval forms.
Now, the local court decision stands. The local court decision stands.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The question is whether the March 22, 1974
letter addressed to the Castlegar and District Golf Club which reads:
"Dear Sir, Enclosed please find notice of appeal regarding the decision
of the 1974 Court of Revision...." et cetera, is invalid because of....
HON. MR. BARRETT: Signed by whom?
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Signed by M.D. Naish, as I mentioned before, the Provincial Assessor...is invalid because of your failure to give approval.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I haven't signed any approval in my office....
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
HON. MR. BARRETT: A guy gets a doctorate, and they want perfection. (Laughter.) Mr. Speaker, they're wasting the question period again....
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
HON, MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have signed no approval for
appeals, and the local court decision stands. If the Member has some
information that indicates the opposite, then I would appreciate
discussing it with him either in the corridor or my office, but I have
signed no approval. The information I have is that the local assessment
has been left to stand.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I appreciate the Premier's remarks, Mr.
Speaker, but the fact is that the notice of appeal says that consent of
the Minister of Finance has been obtained.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
Orders of the day
The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.
ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF
LANDS, FORESTS AND WATER RESOURCES
(continued)
On vote 137: Minister's office, $105,352.
MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Last night
in-session when the Minister was answering about B.C. Hydro, as a
director, after giving his statement on the site I project earlier in
the day, I felt that the answers were less than frank for this House in
outlining the government's and Hydro's plans for the people of the
province — particularly concerning the crisis on Vancouver Island.
It's a question that was raised in this Legislature earlier in the
session and a question that still concerns the people of the Island,
and indeed of British Columbia.
It's a question that could have and should have been answered by the
Minister, particularly when he has in his possession a detailed capital
works programme for Hydro which involves projects that are itemized as
mandatory projects — projects which are entitled "essential projects" —
a detailed report that gives scheduling and capital works projects, not
only for site 1, but indeed for the Hydro requirements from April 1,
1974 till 1984 — a 10-year projection of all Hydro development in the
Province of British Columbia. It's information that could have been
given to this Legislature last evening in answer to the questions that
the Members put.
Now, decisions and schedules for these projects are already in the
Minister's hands, yet weren't divulged to us. The Minister's concept of
preplanning and environmental studies seems to be different from that
of Hydro, because Hydro right here in this report covering preplanning
says "where possible" — not absolutely, but where possible — lead times
have been increased to allow the necessary time to meet with municipal
and regional planning authorities to carry out environmental studies to
ensure best overall use of the land and to allow for pre-logging where
this is considered desirable. Considered desirable by whom?
If we're going to have a report, and if the report is going to be
the basis on which Hydro development is based in this province,
certainly these reports should be undertaken and used when considering
the
[ Page 3142 ]
projects, and not taken at the same time that the project is underway.
Here we have...and specifically in a question dealing with one of
the particular projects, the Minister said that there would be full
studies before the Seven Mile project was undertaken. Yet here we have
a timetable for the Seven Mile project which indicates that much of the
work will start in 1974. We have details of all sorts of acquisitions,
clearing and purchases of specifics to do with that project that
weren't divulged to this Legislature, that can't possibly happen if
the....
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Are you complaining about the announcement of site 1?
MR. BENNETT: I didn't. I'm happy about the announcement of
site 1; it was made in 1961 when the first project was started.
Construction at site 1 was part of the overall Peace River project. The
final allocation of funds in the scheduling of this is part of the
overall development, and was something that's been expected and
anticipated as part of the original engineering.
What I'm concerned about is that here we had last night detailed
questions to do with Hydro and the fact that the Minister with his
report in his hands wouldn't give us the answers. In fact, even in the
preparation of the site 1 project, it doesn't really meet the
information that I see in this report. It talks about $140 million, and
the Minister then says with inflation, right in his speech, that it may
go to $500 million.
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Interest during construction.
MR. BENNETT: Interest during construction. There's an
inflation factor of the report I have which says: site 1 project: $407
million; uninflected price, $281 million. And we have a
schedule for
site 1.
But I look below that and I see a
schedule for the Seven Mile
project. The Seven Mile project is going to cost $403 million. And I
see that there is money allocated in 1974 — $5,109,000; 1975 —
$22,767,000; 1976 — $40 million allocated for the Seven Mile project
and so on. A project that wasn't going to be started or scheduled until
all the studies were undertaken, yet here we see the
schedule is
already developed — Hydro has made a commitment to the Seven Mile
project. That commitment is based on an internal study; the scheduling
is made. Yet this information wasn't given to the House last evening in
questions specifically dealing with the Seven Mile project.
The Duncan Bay project is going to cost $70 million. The Revelstoke project
— $943 million. The Vancouver Island Transmission System — $68 million. These
and other projects add up to a total of $7,679 million over the next 10 years
— a projection for hydro development that the public should properly know about
in British Columbia that wasn't divulged to the Legislature. When we.... Pardon?
MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): You can only get the old people in the Social Credit just now.
MR. BENNETT: I'm talking about today. I'm glad to know that you have been around for awhile, Mr. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.
Interjection
MR. BENNETT: I am asking you about today. I was here last
evening. I am concerned about these projects; the public is concerned.
But this information in this report isn't marked "confidential." It
should be available to any opposition or government MLA. This report
should be available to the public. This report — and I quote from the
beginning — says:
"The plan continues the systematic and orderly
expansion of the electric system throughout the province, based on
meeting the official load forecast which predicts a total load on the
integrated system of 9,825 megawatts" — the printing is blurred there —
"and a rate growth of approximately 9.5 per cent a year from the
forecast peak load of 3,000, 910 megawatts for 1973-74.
"To meet this rate of growth, B.C. Hydro is faced with
the need to expand the generation, transmission and substation plant by
between 400 and 500 megawatts per year during the first five years of
the period, and between 500 and 600 per year during the last five years
of the period."
Now this is information that dealt with detailed questions from all
Members of the House last evening, which many of us would have liked to
have received. Yet we got all-encompassing answers, vague answers, no
answers, answers that gave us no information at all. Yet here is a
report — a report completed December 10, 1973 — dealing with the
province's power requirements from April 1, 1974, to March 31, 1984,
with scheduling, not only in gross amounts but by yearly amounts, and a
time
schedule for bringing on stream these different projects.
Particularly the projects we're concerned about are projects that deal
with the crisis areas.
Right here in this report the report says:
"Power supply to Vancouver Island continues to be critical. And the second pole of the HVDC interconnection is scheduled for
[ Page 3143 ]
completion with the first valve group scheduled for 1976."
These are the type of answers we were looking for last night, Mr.
Chairman, the type of answers that the people of the province are
interested in finding out.
Hydro, we have been told and we know, is their corporation, their
company. There is no reason of competitive edge in not giving this
information. Why is this report not made available? Why can't we get
answers instead of the vague answers that we asked for?
Now this isn't like the Minister's....
Interjection.
MR. BENNETT: Well, certainly, but it is not up to the Leader
of the Opposition. I may have to table this report as I may have to
table the Gottesman Central National contract.
MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Hear, hear! It will be tabled.
MR. BENNETT: I may have to table those so that the public can
find out. But is the Leader of the Opposition going to have to be the
one to table government documents?
MR. CHABOT: They should all be tabled.
MR. BENNETT: Maybe all of them.
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You'll have the wrong one.
MR. BENNETT: Maybe I will have to table all of them.
But here we are, with this report of the detailed accounting of all
of the Hydro expansion plans for British Columbia for the next 10 years
— something that this Legislature is concerned about. Some of those
questions were asked last night.
I feel the Minister was not being fair to the Legislature in not
providing those answers because, as I say, this report isn't marked
"confidential." It is not marked "secret." It is there for the
information of British Columbians. It is a Hydro report and I would
wonder if, perhaps, the Minister would table this report in the
Legislature so that all of the MLAs may have the advantage of this
report.
MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): It is fairly obvious that the Minister is going to continue his posture of no answers on the questions that are being asked.
I think, Mr. Minister, that you owe an explanation to the Members of this Legislature,
and that you have the very definite responsibility to respond to the Leader
of the Opposition on questions concerning the development of hydro in the Province
of British Columbia.
It is very obvious from this report that a 10-year plan is, in
effect, in your hands and that you have had this report for some time;
that it was not developed overnight; that the plans of Hydro are well
advanced, not only for site 1, as you announced when your estimates
were on the floor of the House, but for the Seven Mile project, for
many other projects, the Kootenay Canal project — as a matter of fact,
the total projects for British Columbia as you see it for the next 10
years, including Vancouver Island.
It was for one reason or another never pointed out to this House,
when you spoke about site 1, that the $407 million figure quoted by
yourself, was a figure already including. Inflated costs, because the
figure originally in this report showed that when the initial studies
were done, the figure was $281 million, and you had taken inflation
into consideration when you arrived at a figure of $407 million. In
every job total there is a provision showing the initial estimates, the
original estimates — I presume made some time ago — and the now
inflated figures as a result of projections of inflation that we have
to face today.
So what about all this flim-flam and garbage that $407 million was
not the correct figure, that perhaps $500 million was closer to it,
when you knew that the figure you were giving us included the factors
of inflation? What about that?
I think that you owe an explanation to the House, Mr. Minister.
Interjection.
MR. SMITH: Well, all he has to do is table a copy of the report.
HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Send him a drawing.
MR. SMITH: Then every Member of this House will have access to this information, which is the right of us.
AN HON. MEMBER: Your leader has a copy of it.
MR. SMITH: Yes, but that doesn't mean that every Member of
this House has a copy. I happen to have a copy of it too, Mr. Member.
But that does not mean that other Members of this House should be
denied the right. I think it is up to the Minister to table this report
in the House so that every Member has an equal right and opportunity to
study the plans of Hydro. Because it is going to require a vast amount
of capital in the next 10 years.
It is obvious from the remarks of the Premier last night that he is concerned about that type of finance
[ Page 3144 ]
and the escalation of use of electricity in this
province. That's why he has suggested that we cut back on the use and
consumption of electricity, because he is concerned about financing the
costs that will be involved, the costs that are involved in financing
the provisions and construction projects mentioned in this report.
It is also obvious that right at the moment, the Seven Mile project
and the Pend-d'Oreille River is scheduled for 1979 and 1980. It says
that two 187.5 megawatt units in 1979 and one in 1980 will be placed on
the Pend-d'Oreille River. Is that true, Mr. Minister?
I would say it is, from the report you have at your disposal. So I
think that the time has come for the Minister to reveal in greater
detail than he has so far in his estimates the plans for B.C. Hydro,
the plans for the Lands, Forests and Water services in this province,
the plans for northwestern British Columbia as he sees them, the plans
for people who would like to avail themselves of Crown land. Are they
going to be able to lease land to improve it and purchase it as in the
past? Certainly, your department officials have been guided by somebody
to issue statements and sign letters indicating a position other than
that.
No, it is quite clear that the Minister has two sets of standards:
the public face that he shows to the people of the Province of British
Columbia and the other face with respect to the operation of his
department.
But if he is to be an efficient Minister, then it is important that
the policies of the department, once they have been approved, become
the knowledge of the Members of this Legislative Assembly.
Why all the secrecy? Why all the secrecy, Mr. Minister? Is it for
something that you are concerned about — that you feel that once it's a
policy it is your policy alone; that it does not belong to the people
of the Province of British Columbia; that they have no part to play in
the operation of this province; that as a super Minister you'll go
along your own course?
If the public doesn't like it, do they lump it? Is that the
attitude? We've had precious little information supplied by you all
during the debate of your estimates. What information we have, came as
a result of digging and pressing, and there were very, few replies to
any of the pertinent questions put to you.
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, all of this is very
interesting. I can't help but reflect on the former board of directors.
I don't recall Mr. Gunderson....
MR. SMITH: You're the new, open government, so you say.
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I don't remember Mr. Gunderson coming to
the public accounts committees and reporting on behalf of Hydro — the
nice appointee of the old W.A.C. Remember old bank man, Einar
Gunderson? Did he ever go to the public accounts committee? Not on your
life. He had one of the fancy corner offices up there and a hotline
telephone right to W.A.C. But he never reported to the Legislature or
to a Member of the opposition who would chair the public accounts
committee. Not on your life.
Interjections
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, secret documents, secret information.
No information. I don't even remember a day in the past when you would
even get a chart like this from the former Minister regarding the
likely projections of demand or regarding the projects which would meet
those demands; you never got those kinds of details before. Let's not
kid ourselves. Talk about double standards! For those of you who didn't
even know how to plug in a light bulb in relation to B.C. Hydro when
you were in government, it's a bit much for you to complain about the
quality of information now. Well.
For the benefit of the budding financial genius, the Hon. Member for
North Peace River (Mr. Smith), the difference between the $410 million
and the $500 million that I referred to was interest during
construction. If you look at the chart, you will see that initial
construction work and expenditure commitments will commence this year.
The facility will not be in place until 1980.
Now, does Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition understand that there are
interest charges between now and 1980 and that would be applied to the
$410 million? I know you got the A plus B thing, but can you get the 1
plus 1? Let's try that one. It's interesting during construction and
corporate overhead. These are the two basic elements that explain the
difference between $410 million and $500 million roughly.
The Seven Mile project on the Pend-d'Oreille has been the product of
considerable environmental study since we came into office. Those are
not the kinds of studies that the old Socreds thought were worth
spending any money on. Now the studies continue. We've held information
hearings in the Trail area, just as we did in the Peace country,
regarding site 1. There will be further information hearings in the
Columbia basin. In addition, there will be public hearings by the
Comptroller of Water Rights before a final decision is made. The final
decision will be made by the Treasury Board and the board of directors,
and that decision has not been made at this time. Thank you.
MR. McGEER: I've listened with interest to the
[ Page 3145 ]
New Democratic Party and the Social Credit Party
scratching away at each other like in the old days. While I can
sympathize with much of what the Minister of Lands and Forests had to
say...
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Nevertheless....
MR. McGEER: ...about the bad old days of Social Credit — and they were bad old days, Mr. Chairman....
Interjections.
MR. McGEER: Perish, Mr. Chairman, that we would ever, ever return to that kind of government again.
Interjections.
MR. McGEER: No, I wouldn't.
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, you would.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks....
MR. McGEER: It's like, Mr. Chairman, asking....
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
MR. McGEER: It's like asking which you would rather have,
measles or mumps. The answer is that I find both of them distasteful.
If you were to ask which was worse, I would have to say the bad old
days of Social Credit were worse than the bad new days of the NDP.
They're still bad.
I left the Legislature last night when we adjourned just after 11
o'clock and looked at the air pollution, the scandalous air pollution
from the B.C. Forest Products plant just up the way. I thought things
really haven't changed. There was a lot of brave talk from the New
Democratic Party when they were in opposition about how they were going
to change things and clean British Columbia up. But it's really just
the same as it always was.
I thought of all the things the Minister of Lands and Forest said
when he was a critic in opposition about pollution in British Columbia.
The first thing that happened the first fall that he took over was a
slash fire which burned right down the mountainside and desecrated an
area of the Interior. And the Minister of Lands and Forests is giving
licences to pollute. He believes every bit as much in air pollution as
the former government believed in air pollution.
Interjection.
MR. McGEER: No, no, that's true. The Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) wouldn't deny that they believed in air pollution in the bad old days.
We'll continue to have slash burning in British Columbia and air
pollution every fall under the Minister of Lands and Forests. He can
say how terrible it was that the former Social Credit government would
never give any information. I've asked him how many slash-burning fires
he has ordered here in British Columbia and he won't answer questions
on the order paper. He's just as bad as the former government, maybe
worse. We've still got every bit as much air pollution as we had under
Social Credit, probably more. We've still got slash-burning going on;
we'll have slash-burning this fall.
Interjections.
MR. McGEER: I hope we aren't going to have communities
consumed in the process as Salmon Arm was last year. But I'm completely
convinced that this Minister of Lands and Forests isn't going to reduce
slash-burning one bit. If the Minister is prepared to clean up the air
in British Columbia and order an end to slash-burning in this province
and the desecration of our clean air every fall, I hope he'll stand up
and say so at this session.
But if he is going to permit slash-burning, if we're going to
continue to have air pollution in British Columbia on the same scale
that we've enjoyed in the past, I hope the Minister will stand up and
state candidly that that's what we're going to have.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) earlier today talked
about how disgraceful it was of the present government not to give
information about power development in British Columbia. No one
deceived the public more about power development in British Columbia
than the Social Credit government when they had political power. They
deceived; no question about it.
MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Hog wash.
MR. McGEER: Unfortunately, we can't give a clean bill of
health to the new Minister. The Premier is chirping away there again.
He laid a confidential document from B.C. Hydro on the table and I
compliment him for it.
But when it came time to ask questions of B.C. Hydro before the public accounts committee, who was running interference?
HON. MR. BARRETT: Who was?
MR. McGEER: Why it was the Minister of Lands and Forests. Yes
sir. He tried for three weeks to block interference for those people.
Finally, we managed to get around him, but it was a struggle. I
[ Page 3146 ]
tell you, we dragged him kicking and screaming into the arena of public opinion.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, oh!
MR. McGEER: The Minister of Lands and Forests only yesterday
stood up in this House and tried to draw the wool over our eyes about
the cost of power. "Ohhhh, " says the Premier and the Minister of Lands
and Forests. Well, we had all these costs laid before us about how
nuclear power was really twice as expensive as any other form of power
and how foolish it was not to go ahead with site 1 and all the natural
power developments on three running rivers, and so on, including a
1,715-foot dam on the Pend-d'Oreille instead of 1,730.
But last night I challenged the Minister on some of his cost figures
as far as nuclear power was concerned. I said the Government of British
Columbia had done everything it could to arouse public fears about B.C.
Hydro.
I said the government had invited people who were regarded as
nuclear quacks to B.C. I tempered that statement a bit by saying they
were merely people who had been discredited in professional circles and
therefore had to rely on the kinds of information and the kinds of
invitations that the Premier of British Columbia awarded them to
maintain any kind of public presence at all.
Here I have a report handed to all
Members of the Legislature, including Members of the present
government, entitled "Nuclear Power for Vancouver Island", signed by
Mr. Gray on behalf of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Here's what he
says as a flat statement:
"No document that the Minister of Lands and Forests
has released, or that the B.C. Hydro has released, or that the Energy
Commission of this province has released, in any way refutes the
statement made in this report."
I'm going to read what the report says for the record, Mr. Chairman. The
summary of this study says:
"Vancouver Island is one of the most logical areas for
the application of nuclear power in Canada. The cost of power from a
nuclear power plant on the Island will be less than for any
alternative, and inflations in the cost of conventional fuels will
increase the differential during the life of the plant.
"The effect on the environment will be less than for
any alternative source of power. The effects of any radioactive
emissions will certainly not be detectable at any point. The effects of
the thermal discharge depend somewhat on the site chosen, but will be
unlikely to be detectable more than one-quarter to one-half mile from
the site and within this distance are more likely to be desirable than
otherwise."
I agree with that. If hot water were being discharged from a nuclear
power plant somewhere on Vancouver Island I'd like to have my summer
cottage and swimming beach close to that point.
"No other environmental effects are involved.
"A very significant proportion of the expenditure on a
nuclear plant will go to local and provincial labour, materials
supplied..."
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Isn't that true of any project?
MR. McGEER:
"...manufactured components, operator training and engineering."
That is not the case for every alternative. No sir, it is not the
case because the nuclear power plant is capital-intensive and not
operating-intensive, as coal, natural gas and oil are.
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: And hydro.
MR. McGEER: Hydro is not a viable possibility for Vancouver
Island, as the Minister well knows. It's all very well for him to talk
about the cost of power delivered at site 1, but it's a very different
matter to talk about that power delivered in Victoria because you've
got to get the power transported from the mainland to the Island.
The advantage of a nuclear power plant, as the Minister well knows,
is the fact that a nuclear power plant can be built so that in peak
periods it can deliver power in the opposite direction, namely to the
mainland, and save enormously on the cost of underwater cables or
whatever form of transmission you decide upon to move power between
Vancouver Island and the mainland.
Mr. Chairman, what I am saying in short is simply this. The Minister
has given false information to the House for political purposes. He has
deceived the people of British Columbia as to the true cost of nuclear
power on the Island....
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!
MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'm just getting to the worst part. Why don't you call me to order after I've finished that. (Laughter.)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!
MR. McGEER: The Minister has deliberately....
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw any imputation that the Minister has
[ Page 3147 ]
given false information to the House.
MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, he has given information to the
House which is not in accord with the facts presented in this report
which I hold before you, called "Nuclear Power for Vancouver Island."
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member
first to withdraw; then we'll accept the second part of his speech. But
I would ask him to withdraw the original imputation.
MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I rest my case entirely on the second part of the speech and not on the first part. (Laughter.)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member simply to say: "I withdraw those words."
MR. McGEER: I withdraw, Mr. Chairman, and I substitute the
equivalent which is in this particular report. The point that I'm
trying to make, not to the Minister — he knows these points very well —
but to the public of British Columbia....
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would just point out to the
Hon. Member that it is necessary, when requested to withdraw, to simply
withdraw unconditionally, and then, if he wishes to say the other
remarks later, not to qualify his withdrawal.
MR. McGEER: Well, that's exactly what I did.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would just like the Hon. Member to make an unqualified withdrawal.
MR. McGEER: That's exactly what I did, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll accept your words now. You may proceed with your speech.
MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the Minister even went so far last
night as to suggest to the House that we might have an earthquake
somewhere along the San Andreas fault — I didn't know that we were on
the San Andreas fault here on Vancouver Island — and that suddenly all
this nuclear material would be spread all over the place wreaking
havoc. That's the extent he's been prepared to go to, to undermine what
through logic and technical information is by far the best choice of
power on Vancouver Island.
Mr. Chairman, I'm only bringing forward all these facts to explain
to you that the present government is no better than the previous
government and that's one devil of a thing to say about any government
in British Columbia.
AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!
MR. McGEER: That's condemnatory. Who — would want to be put
in the same bag with the former government, and yet the Minister of
Lands, Forests and Water Resources, Mr. Chairman, has qualified for
that.
AN HON. MEMBER: You're an old government already.
MR. McGEER: Yes sir. They told us about how terrible Einar
Gunderson was, and I agreed. Can you imagine, Mr. Chairman, a man who
was the bagman for Social Credit being paid a fat salary to sit as the
vice-president of the B.C. Railway and sit on the board of directors of
the B.C. Hydro...
AN HON. MEMBER: Executive director.
MR. McGEER: ...and then go and turn the thumbscrews on every
corporation in British Columbia? There wasn't a single forest company
that didn't toss money into the coffers of Social Credit when Einar
Gunderson called up and said it was time for the club dues.
MR. FRASER: Balderdash! Balderdash!
MR. McGEER: Believe me, you paid. When the testimony came out
at the time of the Williamson trial, the answer was: "He never got a
refusal. Never once." You're darned right they all paid up.
Well, we had men on the provincial payroll who were at the same time
collecting for the Social Credit Party and I admit that was bad. But
the only way you're going to cure that, Mr. Chairman, is to begin
laying the facts on the table as they are. And we had some facts laid
on the table: "Nuclear Power for Vancouver Island."
That told it like it is. It gave the relative cost of the various
power alternatives. It was done in a completely objective way. Yet all
of that is smeared under an escalating table that the Minister of
Lands, Forests and Water Resources put before us yesterday in which he
somehow left a suggestion that nuclear power was twice as costly as any
other alternative. He would have had you believe that for power on
southern Vancouver Island to put in a nuclear power plant would cost
twice as much as the kinds of alternatives he was contemplating. Mr.
Chairman, this report puts the lie to that kind of assertion. This
report does, not me.
I've read you what this report says and, Mr. Chairman, it's
incumbent on you to challenge that Minister to lay the facts on this
table, to tell it to the people of British Columbia like it is and to
leave political considerations out of our power
[ Page 3148 ]
development. We saw from the example of the
previous administration that when political considerations start to
influence the kinds of power development we have in British Columbia,
not only do we have environmental damage but we saddle the public of
this province with costs that they would otherwise not have to bear.
Only yesterday, Mr. Chairman, the Premier of this province was
hinting darkly about the consequences of continuing to consume power in
this province. It was, if you like, a veiled threat. When people asked
if this meant that consumer electricity was going to rise in price, he
said: "Oh, no, not that — only industrial." Well, Mr. Chairman, I know
who's going to wind up paying for industrial increases — me, as a
consumer.
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Did you buy all that pulp yourself?
MR. McGEER: What the pulp is sold for is not what the people of British Columbia get.
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Ninety-five per cent of that is exported.
MR. McGEER: Ninety-five per cent is exported, and when it's a government mill, who gets the profit?
AN HON. MEMBER: Gottesman.
MR. McGEER: Gottesman gets the profit! The people of British
Columbia supply the trees, the workers of British Columbia make the
pulp, the transportation people of British Columbia ship it, and for
all of that work they get $213 a ton, less freight.
Gottesman sells it somewhere in Timbuktu or some other place like that for $600 a ton or something.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would point out to the Hon....
MR. McGEER: And Gottesman pockets the $400 a ton profit.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would, point out....
MR. McGEER: And the Government of the United States gets the taxes on that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member please not
reopen a subject which has already been dealt with in the debate on the
amendment?
MR. McGEER: I know it's painful, Mr. Chairman.
I hate to reopen it, because if anything cut me to the quick, it was
learning that we'd been skinned in British Columbia by some fast
operators in New York. It won't be the first time and I expect it won't
be the last, but it still will be the biggest skinning we've ever taken
next to the Columbia.
Mr. Chairman, I hope the Minister will give us a clean account of
what is taking place with respect to power development on Vancouver
Island. I hope that he will give us a clean account of what the air we
breathe is going to be like this fall, because I detect another
choke-filled, smoke-filled Indian summer.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister would care to explain in the
House instead of in the corridor, I'd like a little something about the
University Endowment Lands, because I've found the reports I've heard
on the news today very revealing.
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Would it be a good location for a nuclear power plant?
MR. McGEER: Well, it's a good location for a park. It's an excellent location for a park, not for a housing development.
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You wouldn't want a nuclear plant in your neighbourhood, is that it?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. McGEER: Well, there's two dirty old Hydro sub-stations,
and there is no worse industrial polluter than B.C. Hydro. A rat's next
of wires all over the place, disgraceful looking railroad lines running
through Point Grey, hydro stations not at all done in any kind of taste
or environment decor — this is typical of B.C. Hydro. It is no better
under you than it was under the former government; it was no better
under the former government than it was under the private owners. At
least under the private owners they were a little bit sensitive to
public criticism, but they have since become hardened, Mr. Chairman.
When we come to what legitimately should be park in this province,
and we find that the master planner from Wall Street has sent out
tenders to several architectural firms before he even thought of doing
an ecological study on the area, we begin to see the kind of
hypocritical approach he uses.
He said one thing when he was in opposition, and if one had listened
to what he said during those years one would almost have thought he was
interested in the environment. Yes, it was possible to draw that
conclusion. I even had suspicions along that line myself. In my heart I
knew it was probably phony, and certainly the Minister has amply proved
it since he took office, because he took what should be a second
Stanley Park in the lower mainland and couldn't wait to get his hunkers
on it to carve it up
[ Page 3149 ]
for mass housing.
We learned last night by his own admission, not in the House but out
in the corridor, that he had hired architectural firms to carve it
up....
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I said that in the House, too.
MR. McGEER: No, you didn't. You only gave us a tenth of the bad news. The disaster struck out there in the hall.
Mr. Chairman, the Minister doesn't realize what he's running into
because the people, in their hearts, want an area preserved for a park.
They know if he goes in there with his bulldozers, I'll be there and
lots of other people will be too, saying we don't want that area
destroyed by this Minister, who is far worse than Ray Williston or
Ralph Loffmark or Ken Kiernan all put together when it comes to
destroying the environment.
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Withdraw!
MR. McGEER: I will not! You prove it, Mr. Minister. And I'll
tell you how you can. Ken Kiernan took a pencil and paper and he drew
lines all around the parks of British Columbia, but he left parks where
they should be left, in the densely crowded areas. Ray Williston
stopped the development in the endowment lands. Yes, he did. Credit to
them.
This Minister of Lands and Forests takes the one area that most
needs to be protected for a park, and that's the area he's going to
move into with housing. He's doing a disservice that no other Minister
has done in 60 years since this area was set aside.
I hope the Minister will recant in the House today and tell us that
that land will not be touched until we have had a proper ecological
study and know the areas that have to be preserved until we lay out a
park and develop a park, and then give consideration to what housing,
if any, might be erected on the University Endowment Lands.
MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I want to speak for
just a few brief moments on hydro power. If I'm a little shaky, Mr.
Chairman, it is because I've been exposed to the radiation of atomic
power from the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). You know,
if my life is ever shortened, Mr. Chairman, it will be because I get
exposed to that radiation from Vancouver–Point Grey at every session of
the Legislature. I don't know how much more radiation I can take,
because when I travel around that great north country and see the
millions and millions and millions of horsepower that flow every day
into the Arctic Ocean, there for the asking, a waste of energy beyond
our wildest imagination just flowing every day into that Arctic Ocean,
that could be harnessed into hydro power, why, when the Member for
Vancouver–Point Grey starts talking about atomic energy I get all
exposed to that radiation.
I would like him at some time to take a trip, Mr. Chairman, up into
that great north country, and see the energy that flows every second of
every minute of every hour of every day of every year, flows freely.
All we have to do is harness our resources, harness that energy, and
then maybe, Mr. Chairman, B.C. Hydro will stop burning up natural gas
in its plants in Vancouver and start using this untapped natural
resource that we have.
Interjection
MR. PHILLIPS: Well, the leader of the Liberals (Mr. D.A.
Anderson) says they should harness me. I want to tell you if you could
harness that Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) you'd have
three times as much.... (Laughter.)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!
MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the formal announcement was made
yesterday in the Legislature by the Minister of Lands, Forests and
Water Resources that we're going to go ahead and spend $500 million on
site 1 in the Peace River area. And this is a good announcement because
the Minister is taking advantage of previous research, previous
requirements of energy in the province for years to come, and I'm glad
to see that he's intelligent enough to take the recommendations of the
previous administration and bring them into fruition.
But you know, Mr. Chairman, we're spending $500 million in the Peace
River area to put site 1. There's an area in the Peace River area still
that doesn't have hydro electricity so that they can turn on their
lights.
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Let me guess — Lone Prairie.
MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister announced during his estimates
just recently that for rural electrification they were going to change
the formula. What bothers me is that these poor people in Lone Prairie,
who have been out there pioneering in that great area, those 32
residents of Lone Prairie will have to pay through the nose to have
hydro power, and after they get it then maybe the Minister says he is
going to change the formula.
Mr. Chairman, I ask the Minister again, as I've asked many times
before: will he please give some consideration to paying the cost of
building that hydro line through the seven miles of Crown land to
reduce the cost of hydro power to those great
[ Page 3150 ]
pioneering souls in Lone Prairie? And will he move immediately on it? Those people up there certainly deserve hydro.
When this government can spend $70 million on an increased civil
service in one year, Mr. Chairman, what is a mere $18,000? Why, even
the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) spends $18,000 on a little
helicopter trip up in that great north country to look at the roads, so
what is $18,000 to help these poor souls in Lone Prairie?
Would the Minister stand in this Legislature today and tell the people of Lone
Prairie that he's going to pay for that hydro line through those seven miles
of Crown land and help those great souls up in Lone Prairie?
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, when enough people move in and they
qualify with respect to the formula, but I will keep it high in my
agenda. Lone Prairie is close to my heart.
MR. PHILLIPS: Well, the Minister said if enough people....
Interjection.
MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, he says he is going to redo the formula. He is going to redo the formula.
And I want to tell you, Mr. Minister, I want to tell you here and
now, the reason there aren't people in Lone Prairie is because there is
no hydro. You are I putting the cart in front of the horse, Mr.
Minister.
You are putting the cart in front of the horse. I want to tell you,
with the shortage of food in this world, if you put hydro into Lone
Prairie, there will be more people move in there and the production of
agricultural foodstuffs in this province will go up. Do something for
the world, not only for the people of Lone Prairie. Don't put the cart
before the horse, Mr. Minister.
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You warm the cockles of my heart. It's wonderful.
MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Minister, please don't put the cart before
the horse. Put the power in and more pioneers will go in and open up
more farmland and produce more foodstuffs.
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Hallelujah! Power to the people!
MR. PHILLIPS: Power to the people. Let there be light! But
Mr. Chairman, will the Minister tell me that he is going to do
something for those poor people in Lone Prairie?
MR. SMITH: I thought the Minister of Labour wanted to speak in this debate. Is it a matter that....
Interjection.
MR. SMITH: Oh, I see — he's been promoted to house Leader. In that case, I will stay right where I am, Mr. Minister.
I think it is very clear that all through this debate he official
opposition, in the points we have made, have been right on Ocean Falls
and on your deal with he Gottesman Corporation on behalf of the people
of the Province of British Columbia. It is very clear that the Minister
has not been altogether fair and honest in his remarks in this House.
It is a fair thing to state also, that when you have spoken inside
this House and outside it about B.C. hydro and your plans for the
future, your statements have been unclear, unclear as to what your
actual plans were.
It's also fair to state that the information we have on B.C. Hydro,
the information that we have on the Gottesman Corporation and its
relation with Ocean Falls, the information that we have on Can-Cel and
their situation regarding the international markets of the world and
the international business entrepreneurs of the world is something that
we have had to document by hard research because the Minister was not
in any way prepared to be honest and forthright in his dealings with
these particular problems.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, we asked for the Minister's resignation.
And we were right in doing that. That is why we say one thing further:
if this is the attitude and the direction of the government not only
the Minister should resign, the government should resign.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before the Hon. Member for North
Peace River resumes his seat, I would ask him to withdraw any
imputation that the Minister was dishonest in the House. Will the Hon.
Member withdraw that imputation?
MR. SMITH: Would the Hon. Chairman recall when I called the Minister dishonest?
MR. CHAIRMAN: He stated that the Minister was not honest.
MR. SMITH: Pardon me?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member stated that the Minister was
not honest to the House, and I am must asking him to withdraw any
imputation that the Minister was dishonest.
[ Page 3151 ]
MR. SMITH: I withdraw any imputation of dishonesty. I will just say that he was not completely frank in some of the remarks that he made.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I accept the withdrawal.
MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, the other evening when we were in
debate I brought up certain questions about allocation of timber, and I
am not aware that the Minister replied.
I would like, just for a minute, to review them. They were referring
to the timber in Chilko working circle that has been directed in a
northeast direction instead of a westerly direction, and the Forest
Service is building a 50-mile road to get this timber out.
I would like to know why this happened. I would also like to know the approximate cost per mile for this road, if anybody knows.
I would like to know when Plateau Mills is going to become a legal
operation. The one mill that's left is not operating properly under the
forest regulations or the pollution regulations of the province.
Another thing that I brought up, and didn't hear the Minister say,
but it is causing wars in the Interior — I refer to Tree Farm Licences
dealing with municipalities and not with the regional district which
that municipality belongs to.
It is causing conflict at the local — we'll call it local or
political levels. People of the region around the municipality involved
— and the Minister knows who they are — feel they are left out of
things. I would like to know what the Minister's opinion is on this.
Does he intend to expand his invitation to both of them or to confine
it where it is?
Those are the three items I would like some answers on, Mr. Chairman.
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Regarding the North Chilko or Kluskus
Public Sustained Yield Unit, the analysis was carried out at an earlier
stage prior to the acquisition of Plateau Mills by the government. The
recommendation of the professional foresters was that this should be
considered a forest drainage area to the north to Vanderhoof. So the
professional judgment of the Forest Service, even before we acquired
Plateau Mills, was that the best solution was to orient that forest to
the north, rather than to the east.
I am afraid I don't have the cost figures at hand regarding the
road, but the countryside is relatively easy compared to most parts of
British Columbia.
Deadlines regarding burners have been established by the PCB, and
general rules will prevail. As the Member is aware, one of the mills
which did not conform is now, in fact, burned down — in the last week.
Regarding the question of municipal Tree Farm Licences — the matter
was discussed on our tour of the northwest and we are convinced that
there is a need for some area representation outside of the community.
So there might well be a joint involvement of representatives from both
the community and the surrounding area in the region. It has yet to be
worked out, but we are convinced that would be the more reasonable
thing to do.
Vote 137 approved on the following division:
YEAS — 29
Hall
Sanford
Radford
Barrett
D'Arcy
Lauk
Dailly
Cummings
Nicolson
Strachan
Levi
Skelly
Nimsick
Lorimer
Gabelmann
Stupich
Williams, R.A.
Lockstead
Hartley
Cocke
Rolston
Calder
King
Barnes
Nunweiler
Lea
Kelly
Brown
Webster
NAYS — 15
Chabot
Phillips
Anderson, D.A.
Bennett
Richter
Williams, L.A.
Smith
McClelland
Gibson
Jordan
Schroeder
Wallace
Fraser
McGeer
Curtis
MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I would ask, when you report to the
House, that you indicate that a vote took place in committee and ask
for the vote to be recorded.
On vote 138: Environment and Land Use Committee Secretariat, $2,227,340.
MR. FRASER: Would you ask the Premier to sit down? I might be a half an hour or so here. The Hon. Member may stand even if he is a doctor.
I've got some questions to ask about this great octopus called the
Environment, and Land Use Secretariat. I would like to know how large
an organization this is and what branch of government they don't
interfere with and slow up and hold up — which is happening ever since
we had Bill 42 and the expansion into this.
We have the Bill 42, the public hearings, the agricultural land
reserve maps all done at the local level, sent to the B.C. Land
Commission and they get lost there for several months. Then I
understand that the route is they come to the Environment and Land Use
Secretariat.
I'd like to know from the Minister how long a process it is and what
the process is from the Environment and Land Use Committee Secretariat;
[ Page 3152 ]
how long do they fuddle around with the
agricultural land reserve maps that have already been into 5 or 10
public hearings at the local level, the regional level, through the
B.C. Land Commission, and then here? Then finally, I understand, they
all initial these agricultural land reserve maps and they get on to the
real politburo — the cabinet — where something happens.
I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that this process has got this whole
province at a standstill because of appeals that are made to get in and
get out of these land reserves. This process of red tape has got the
citizens of this province completely confused. I also would like to ask
the Minister why he doesn't put out a bulletin to, say, regional
districts and municipal councils — I'm not aware that he had; maybe he
has — of the chair of command that takes place following the local
hearings, because when they were held the Land Commission gave the
opinion that that was pretty well it; once they'd reviewed them, they
would become law and then appeals to get in or get out would be dealt
with.
I can see, Mr. Chairman, and it's the reason I'm mentioning it here
under this vote, that we're going to lose all 1974 over community plans
and individuals' plans because of the conglomerate we're faced with —
the Environment and Land Use Committee.
I also would like to know what departments of government they
contact, or do they just make their own decisions as they see fit? Have
they any connection with the Department of Lands? Do they ever
communicate with that department? Or is it the Department of Highways
that gets involved?
But, really, I would like to know a lot more about it. Do they meet
every day? Just what are their activities? I'd like to hear some
general remarks from the Minister about this Environment and Land Use
Committee Secretariat.
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, regarding the agricultural
land reserve map, there is a procedure — that is, there's been the
hearings in the regional district. The regions have had their staff
work on it, and the politicians at the regional district in turn have
made their recommendations. Then they go to the Land Commission. The
Land Commission, by and large, does not have the kind of technical
staff or Canada Land Inventory data on the scale that we now have here
in Victoria. So that is applied once the proposals are received.
Just to give an example, the Environment and Land Use Committee met
this morning and dealt with the Squamish-Lillooet agricultural land
reserve, the Comox Regional District land reserves, the Greater
Vancouver Regional District land reserves and the Bulkley Valley one.
It's interesting, you know, the kind of data we're now getting out.
So in the Bulkley Valley, while the regional district recommended
massive agricultural reserves, in fact there are frost-free days only
on a one-to-two basis. That is, the odds are that you can actually have
frost every other day in the Bulkley Valley. Yet the regional district
had recommended massive agricultural reserves.
In addition, the soils are such — and this is old data that we're
able to pull together here in Victoria — that tractability is
difficult. So while you might have the frost-free days, you can't move
the equipment on the type of silt soils that exist on those
agricultural lands.
So at long last we're getting this kind of specific information and
we're able to look at the regional input and the political and
technical input at the region, but we're able to check it out with the
best data available and see how much solid sense it makes.
As a result, most of the recommendations have simply been approved
by the Environment and Land Use Committee in cabinet, and the ones that
we considered today will go to cabinet tomorrow through the Minister of
Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich). So there is not going to be much time
wasted there.
But in the Bulkley Valley instance we're just going to have to
change the maps, because it's simply misleading to say there's this
massive agricultural reserve when, in fact, people might well buy land
in the area assuming, because government has said it's a major
agricultural reserve, that it makes sense for them to go into the
farming business. Frequently it won't.
So there's that kind of worthwhile technical-political involvement
that we just haven't had before. The methods and techniques are
improving all the time and I think that we're literally breaking new
ground with the Environment and Land Use Committee of this cabinet and
the secretariat.
We are pulling departments together. They are acting as the
catalyst, and we're not getting the kinds of interdepartmental fights
we've had in the past. Cabinet tries to meet weekly as the members on
the committee. We don't always, but the conflicts between departments
are being quickly resolved, and we're getting people in the middle
level of the civil service working together in a way we've never had
before. I'm convinced that the kind of leadership that new staff in the
secretariat are providing will set a standard for the other provinces
of Canada, and that we'll see them following the lead that has been
established here in British Columbia.
MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman,
just very briefly in following up from what the Minister has said, it's
obvious that this is a very important and powerful committee with a
good deal of data at its disposal.
[ Page 3153 ]
I would ask the Minister what general policies have been set for the
making public of the data in the hands of this committee — its
decisions, the matters it's considered, the very many staff studies
that unquestionably go into the decision-making process.
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, I would recognize a gap there as the Member suggested and as the Member for Cariboo, in effect, suggested.
There really is a need for almost a formal information process. I
must admit that I personally am hesitant to go sort of an information
route. But with respect to the secretariat's work, there's so much
being done and so much worthwhile, it's just a matter of disseminating
it.
I think there is a case for some kind of information process that
makes more of this data available to the public, and that's something
we have under consideration right now.
MR. GIBSON: Just to follow up with the Minister then: one of
the problems that often arises is that busy managers and executives and
planners in this kind of a system simply don't have the time to decide
what should be made public and pull it together in a proper way. Would
the Minister give consideration to the addition of an information
officer to the secretariat for that very purpose, to get the maximum
amount of public knowledge out of this?
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, I certainly think so.
MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Just on that point of the
overall working of the land secretariat, is there not some way that the
process can be speeded up where there is an obvious complete
inconsistency with the zoning that is there and what in fact is what
the land should be used for? I'd like to cite two cases in the
constituency I represent, and this is why I've kept it for this
specific vote.
One is in the area of Lumby where a man had a mobile home park and
adjacent to that he had a very large area of productive field and then
a side hill. When he went to expand his mobile home park, he found that
the Land Commission had zoned his side hill agricultural and the flat
land residential. I could give four or five instances within that area
where this has happened.
Now we have an acute housing shortage in the area. The council, the
regional district, everyone is supporting the extension of this mobile
home park, preferably on the side hill and not on the lower land. But
the crisis is so severe that he's going to go ahead with the lower land
because they've assured him that it's going to be six, eight or 10
weeks before he can get an answer on the side hill, and we just can't
afford to wait that long. There should be an avenue, where a situation
is as ludicrous as this, that you could get a very quick response.
We also have the same situation in the Vernon area where there was
land that had been occupied by a family in a farming capacity for many
years and this man had worked outside. He wants to develop an indoor
riding ring with stables and barns for his crop storage and go into the
specific business of this area of riding. He's in close proximity to
five schools so there's a good potential, and he's on the edge of town.
When he went to get his building permit, he had it all but in his
hands and suddenly somebody came along and said: "Oh, no. Where you're
going to put that building is zoned residential." That in fact is his
arable land and the flat land. When they looked at the plan, his flat
land, his arable land, is zoned residential and his side hill, again,
is zoned agricultural.
In the meantime he has borrowed money, he's ready to go and he's
paying interest on this money. Again, the procedure is so slow. There
surely must be some element of consideration where the local regional
district in these ridiculous cases can move much more quickly and not
cost the individual the amount of money that it is and the
inconvenience that it is.
I also would like under this vote to ask the Minister regarding the
situation of Cosens Bay. I don't want to go into all the details but,
as the Minister is aware, this was a commitment by the former
government. The Minister's own report recommended that this be a
provincial park.
The land is now for sale. There has been an active committee for a
long time in this area to promote this and to achieve this land as a
provincial park. It's extremely high on the priority of park
acquisitions by the Parks Branch.
I should really be dealing with this under parks but, Mr. Chairman,
you'll understand why I'm not; I'm not transgressing. When this
Minister was Minister of Recreation and Conservation and then as
Minister of Lands...when a meeting was held he absolutely cut out all
the local input, all the local committees, and said that he would
undertake the dealings with Marathon Realty and he would let them know.
Now this is the Minister's prerogative if he wishes to do this. But,
Mr. Minister, this is over a year ago. What is happening now is that
nobody really knows where you're going. I say to you, through you, Mr.
Chairman, because this is exactly where the power in this land
acquisition lies — and, I assume, the land secretariat.... Or I'd like
to know: is the secretariat handling the dealings or is the Minister
handling the dealings?
The only area of contention was whether or not the local people
should contribute to the capital cost. I believe the Minister's aware
that this is not acceptable to the people on the basis of all the
information that's available. Now they are becoming very unsettled and
are deeply concerned with the
[ Page 3154 ]
Minister's actions because the rumour is that again
there are professional designers, architects, et cetera involved; that
there are circuitous suggestions coming through to people such as the
golf club and other people that they should contribute to a pot to have
a formal design of a recreation area for this area — perhaps put a golf
course out there.
The rumour is — and I will ask the Minister's confirmation or denial
— that landscape architects and architects have been involved in the
situation. I make no accusations against the Minister, but I do ask him
today on behalf of the committee and the people: exactly what stage is
the acquisition of Cosens Bay at in terms of your dealings?
Are you only involved with Marathon or are you, through you, Mr.
Chairman, involved with other companies? Have any architects been hired
to design a combination recreational park-residential area?
When will the deal be brought to a close and when will the people
get the assurance that this will be a provincial park, that it will be
recognized as more of a natural area than a developed area and allay
their fears?
I know the Minister is aware that there's no urgency on the part of
the people at all, nor the Parks Branch, to develop any
section of this
land as an organized park. This can be at the government's leisure, if
ever.
What they are interested in is not just the water and the shoreline,
which is magnificent in both its beach contours and its sloping rock
contours and land contours; they are interested in the land itself.
This is vital. They are interested in maintaining the size of the
present accepted park area, which is over 2,000 acres.
If the Minister has plans for a combined development outside those
approximately 2,000 acres, this is entirely another matter, and this
may be where the rumours are emanating from. I would ask the Minister
to make very clear today what his position is. If these rumours that
are unsettling everyone are not true, please deny it, and please
outline what he has in store for this land and the people's involvement
with it.
MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): I would like to
identify my feelings with those expressed in the first part of her
remarks by the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) and also earlier
by the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano. (Mr. Gibson).
As government at all levels becomes more complex and, in this
context particularly the provincial government, regional districts and
municipalities and cities, the citizen is faced with a bewildering maze
of lack of information, or confusing information, in terms of, "Where
do I go and how do I go about a particular move in order to reach this
goal?"
1 think it is appropriate under this vote to again underline for the
Minister the need for — probably at the Environment and Land Use
Secretariat level — some kind of layout which would be of assistance to
the individual, whether he or she is moving into farming or intent upon
establishing some business somewhere, or whatever it may be — housing;
the list is really endless.
I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister recalls from his earlier
career in municipalities that even on a matter which appears to be as
relatively simple as zoning, the citizen who has to come into municipal
hall and get information is pretty well lost in terms of what step is
to be taken first, then what follows — "Do I need a lawyer?" — and so
on and on.
I think it would be welcomed by all Members of this House to learn
that this particular secretariat had attached to it an individual who
could lay out for the individual, under some title, the responsibility
for not only telling what has happened after the fact, but indicating
to the citizen what route is to be followed before the fact.
I noticed the Minister nodding his head in agreement when I
commenced the remarks. I would hope that he would look at this very,
very carefully. This doesn't have to be an information officer in the
usual sense, but rather a simple guideline. "This is the goal that you
wish to reach; this is how you will go about it. This is the
relationship between Land Commission and the Environment and Land Use
Secretariat. This is where a regional district enters the picture" —
and so on.
Interjection.
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, no. I'd want to make sure it was a resident of British Columbia.
The questions regarding specific sites in the Lumby area that the
Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) mentioned: I suppose that
initially we're going to have some of these problems and I would think
that maybe the best route would be the chairman of the Land Commission
— that's not under this vote — but to directly try and deal with the
chairman so that the matter might move quickly.
The original fault, of course, must be shared between the region and
others. Certainly the people in the region would know this specific
situation, or you'd think they would have, so the slip might have been
caught there.
The question of information — or something different, but related to
an information officer — I'm very sympathetic to and that's something
we have under active consideration. I agree it is confusing and
difficult and if there's at least a road map, it would help.
The Cosens Bay question is a matter still under active
consideration; there's a range of complications which I really can't go
into because they're property
[ Page 3155 ]
matter questions. But I am aware of the
desirability of Cosens Bay and Twin Bays and Cypress Bay, whatever
they're called, and they're among the finest potential recreation lands
in all of British Columbia.
There are not landscape architects hired by the government as far as
I'm aware, however, or people of that nature working on the question in
terms of technical information. I think we have all we need at this
time.
MRS. JORDAN: Just one further question. I certainly respect
the need for a certain element of privacy in terms of land dealings.
But would the Minister be prepared to give me the assurance today, as
the representative of the people in the Legislature, that the wishes of
the majority of the people in terms of having that approximate area of
2,000 acres kept as a — I hesitate to use the term natural area,
because how can you have a natural area that's used by people — but in
this context, that there will be no allowance of an intrusion of some
formalized type of recreation area combined with housing or any type of
commercial recreational development? I don't mean outside the
boundaries, but within this particular area.
Would the Minister be able to send this word back to the Interior?
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I would think, if my memory's correct,
Madam Member, that this area is designated under the agricultural land
reserve, and that in fact would give the assurance you're asking for.
MR. FRASER: I just have one small question to the Minister.
Why does the director of the Environment and Land Use Committee
Secretariat get a salary of $33,000 and Associate Deputy Ministers in
various departments get $28,000? Why is he so important all of a sudden?
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think we might very well seriously reconsider all the salary levels of the senior staff.
MRS. JORDAN: Are you cutting them down?
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No.
Vote 138 approved.
Vote 139: General administration, $409,585 — approved.
Vote 140: Lands Service, Lands Branch,
$1,276, 583 — approved.
On vote 141: Pre-servicing Crown lands for sale or lease, $2 million.
MR. FRASER: Yes, I brought this up before in this House, Mr.
Chairman, and this vote here deals with the development of Crown land
subdivisions. If I'm wrong, tell me so, but I think that's what it is.
I'm happy to see that it's increased from $500,000 to $2 million,
because there are a lot of people certainly looking for serviced lots,
no matter who does it. But one thing I object to most strenuously and
have before is that on the servicing of these lots they turn it over to
the Highways department.
I don't buy the garbage the Lands department puts out that they have
got the engineering and everything and they're all ready to go and
they're the only ones that have. That is just not so. Throughout this
Province of British Columbia we've got contractors in business for
subdivision work for private people in small and large communities all
over. This work should be going out to tender so they have an
opportunity to do the work, bid on it and do it. And they will do it
far more economically than the Highways department will do it. You put
this up for tender; you'll find out.
The other and worst aspect of this is that the Highways department,
for some reason or another, just love to take on this work and they
waste a whole summer in a subdivision and they leave all the roads
they're supposed to be doing the maintenance work on; they are just a
pile of rubble. It's a disgraceful situation. Of course, I guess
they're doing it to recover some funds because they're short of funds.
But the highway system suffers and they never should have been there in
the first place.
I'd like to know if the Minister is considering a policy change
here. Put those Highway department fellows back where they belong —
looking after the highways, instead of developing Crown subdivisions.
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, in fact we do turn over
some of these to private bid contracts. One of the major ones we have
underway right now is in Kitimat, known locally as the cable-car
subdivision. That's a half-million dollar servicing project and that's
all by contract that doesn't involve the Highways department. I'm
reasonably sympathetic to opening it up to local contractors because
frequently the Highways department will put it too low on their
schedule, or it won't tie in with what we have in mind. So I'm
sympathetic to what the Member said.
MR. FRASER: I, of course, am referring to Cariboo, because
nobody seems to work on Crown subdivisions there except the Highways
department, and they work pretty slow at times.
Vote 141 approved.
[ Page 3156 ]
Vote 142: Lands service, Surveys and Mapping
Branch $3,356, 854 approved.
Vote 143: Lands Service, University Endowment Lands Administration Act , $ 10 — approved.
On vote 144, General administration, protection and management of forests, $36,917, 983.
MRS. JORDAN: This involves a small shake mill in the
Okanagan. Perhaps you'd like me to wait until.... It's Lumby Red Cedar
Shakes Limited of Lumby and a Mr. Don Mattoni is the manager and
operator of this mill.
Essentially this is a cedar shake-making mill which, when it
originally went to the branch in 1967, was told by the director of the
forestry in the office in Kamloops that his request for a quota for
shakes and, shingles was not really necessary and that he could operate
in cooperation with companies in the area that had the quotas, because
basically he uses decadent or fallen cedar; he doesn't need to cut good
cedar for shakes.
He didn't press the issue to go on for having his own quota because
this was a much more practical situation and more economical and also
it was better forestry utilization. This worked quite well until he got
into the position where the close-utilization quota system came in and
he found that in a position of following through behind those who held
the quotas, the forestry was leaning on him to clean up faster than he
was able to because of fire regulation.
At that time we went to bat to see if some agreement could be
arranged between the forestry service, the utilizers of the major
timber, or the holders of the quota, and Mr. Mattoni so that he might
even share the cost of fire protection — but so that that timber which
he could utilize so well wasn't burned. He operates with about anywhere
between 10 and 16 full-time employees. He provides a good work
opportunity for many people in the area.
This didn't work out too well, so he then went back to get a quota.
They told him he was too small and that he didn't have the necessary
facilities to manufacture chips, et cetera, and therefore he wouldn't
be eligible for a quota.
Now I understand he does have some land under his jurisdiction, but
again he hasn't got the facilities to cut it, so he was subcontracting
it out to be cut. Again, this appears to be a terrible waste of a
quality of wood that could be used more efficiently and for better
public use in terms of boards rather than cedar shakes.
We've been back and forth, to make a long story short, between your
department and Mr. Mattoni and the lawyers — on and on and on again.
Now the only answer that we have been able to get until a while ago was
that the forestry is reviewing the policy; and it's been two years.
Unless he gets some consideration, here's no way he can survive. I
would urge the Minister to take an active hand in this in order that we
can help him survive. If something's happened in the meantime since
I've talked to Mr. Mattoni, I'd be very pleased to know it.
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think, Mr. Chairman, it might be
worthwhile if the Hon. Member could maybe put this in a letter to
myself — a
summary of the problem as she interprets it. Then we might
deal with the individual question at-our level.
MRS. JORDAN: Would you see them if they came down? This would be the best thing.
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: If my estimates ever end.
MRS. JORDAN: If it's through by May 24?
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm sure we can work something out. Yes,
I'd be glad to meet with them once my duties in the House aren't quite
as heavy as they are at the moment. I would say that we've been
carrying out for about a year now an overview of allocations in the
Okanagan. There are problems of probably over-extended land, for
example, and a limited resource.
A significant study has been underway for a year, should be
completed this summer, so we'll know pretty well what can be done with
the wood resource in relation to existing plants in the Okanagan. I'd
be pleased to meet with these people later.
MR. FRASER: I've a few questions in this vote; I believe it
would fall in this vote, Mr. Chairman. First of all, there are bids
closing on May 17 for the establishment of a mill, hopefully in the
Clinton area of the Cariboo.
When would those bids be made public? How long does it take? Do you
analyse them or do you just release them? The other thing I'd like to
know is, what is the total number of staff on the headquarters staff of
the Cariboo Forest District as well as the Prince George Forest
District, and how many agrologists are in the Cariboo Forest District
this year as compared to last?
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Regarding the bid proposal requests for
the Clinton area, because several companies have requested an extension
— that is, companies that were interested — the extension has been made
until June. I don't remember the exact date. Those that actually make
the bid proposals will be announced as soon as the district forester
receives them. There will be an analysis down here. The information
regarding the proposals will be made public right away.
The information on the agrologists and staffing in
[ Page 3157 ]
Prince George and Williams Lake I don't have, but I might get it shortly.
Vote 144 approved.
On vote 145: reforestation and forest nursery, $12,924, 608.
MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Just one brief
question. Would the Minister indicate why incidentals and contingencies
have risen from $1,000 to $5,534,000? It seems to me that's a fair
incidental and contingencies figure.
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I would agree that it's a significant
inflationary factor. There's no doubt about that. Agrologists in the
Williams Lake area number two. We haven't got latitude, unfortunately.
We might pursue that by letter.
MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Is this a misprint in the estimate book? Surely $5 million is not an incidental and contingencies allotment.... It's code 030.
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's a computer error, Mr. Chairman. We
should have advised the committee earlier. The figure should be the
same as last year — $ 1,000 — in 030 and the $5 million should be added
to "forest nurseries and planting." That's where the expansion is
taking place. "Forest nurseries and planting is $9,616, 638 and
"incidentals and contingencies" would be just $ 1,000 as it was in the
last fiscal year. This was brought to my attention earlier that it was
a computer error and I should have picked it up.
MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Chairman, I've been waiting
for a few days in the House and I was going to do a little talk on
trees because I did want to wait for the proper vote.
I must say I've made some big circles on that particular
section of
the vote, hoping that this would mean a lot more trees and a variety of
trees. I have an interest in this since my riding has various people
involved in forestry, both in the manufacture of artificial ways of
reforestation and also in the planting. I'm very happy that our
government has increased it. That's a whopping big increase over last
year.
If we review the statistics there were 48.4 trees as part of our
artificial reforestation programme in 1972. We're going up to at lease
70 million trees by 1974 and possibly even more. Of course we've at
least doubled the budget in the year in reforestation.
[Mr. Gabelmann in the chair.]
The thing I want to ask.... Incidentally, just before I say that, I
met some people at the airport yesterday who were returning to Germany
and who I just happened to sit next to waiting for the bus to come
back. They were alarmed at the lack of reforestation in our forests.
The people in this House should really take a drive out Harrison
Lake — you really should do that. Drive out the west side of Harrison
Lake and drive out the east side of Harrison Lake and it is pretty
shocking — the lack of a planned reforestation programme. There are
places as you get to the infamous Red Hill on the east side of Harrison
Lake where you'll see certain sections where you can see what could be
done through artificial reforestation programmes. You really get the
impression that we just take some kind of chance that there will be
reforestation.
I remember during the election I think on all sides of the political
spectrum people were certainly lamenting the fact that we take about
eight times as many trees out as they actually plant. That's just not
good enough. These people from Germany were saying: "Boy, if that was
Germany we'd expect a tree in there within six months. We'd expect a
crop in 60 or 70 years. You people are so casual the way you do your
reforestation." I just hope this is the real beginning of a really
careful crop of trees and that in 70 or 80 years we should jolly well
expect....
You talk about all your knowledge of slopes and frost and soil and
that. Well, that applies to forests, too. We should systematically, as
a government that expects a much greater yield out of the forest, a
great deal more than we are getting.... I just believe this is the
beginning.
Of course, in a riding like Dewdney this is very, very crucial. We
have some beautiful valleys — the Harrison Valley, the Norrish (which
we call "Suicide Creek Valley"), the Chehalis Valley, the Pitt Lake
area, Stave Lake area — which must have a much higher yield than is
presently appearing.
Of course, you can see some beautiful illustrations. The Members
could drive out to Port Renfrew and take the trip from Port Renfrew
through into the Cumberland Valley. You would see some excellent
illustrations of what could be done. In that case I think it's B.C.
Forest Products that have trees that are somewhere around 25 or 30
years old now, beautiful trees. With some thinning we really will see
some excellent forests. So let's further escalate this forestry
programme.
I'm asking you a question, Mr. Minister. We've had many discussions
on this just about the way you do this. Now this is a mud pack.
Incidentally, these trees have been sitting there for a week and it's
the mud pack and the Styroplug which are the only trees that are going
to survive. The humidity, the dryness — both climate and content wise —
of the last seven days in this Legislature....
This is a mud pack. I think you've seen this. This is
[ Page 3158 ]
a one-year mud pack and you are purchasing more mud
packs, not many, but at least you're purchasing 3.5 million this year
from Pelton Reforestation, the mud pack people in Maple Ridge.
I certainly appreciate that at least you're going to get some kind
of an objective look at mud packing as one of the alternatives, because
it would seem that if you look at various climatic areas of British
Columbia there is a whopping difference in the soil and the
adaptability of certain trees. Even if you go from one end of Harrison
Lake to another, there is a very definite climatic change as you go to
the top end of Harrison Lake and up into Lillooet Lake. Presumably that
needs a different programme, a different type of tree. We need to have
an overall mix.
I feel it's just an essential question to ask if you're putting in
70 million to 75 million trees. Why do you make such an immense
commitment towards a styroplug, which now I gather you're going for
somewhere around 30 million trees, and I've just got to check this —
yes, somewhere around 30. These are very dried out styroplugs but these
are grown in plastic or styro containers at a large establishment where
we're spending a great deal of money south of Langley.
It's a very large commitment which I just hope is the wisest
commitment, that we really as we do this reforestation constantly
appraise and test the total economies. The taxpayers are paying for all
the clearing of land and asphalting and the purchasing of styroblocks,
which the Members should know is just a plastic block with many
cavities. We should be very sure that the total economics are
meaningful. We should be very, very sure of what it costs per tree
after being planted.
I certainly congratulate the Minister in the kind of testing. At
least he's continually doing testing and finding out what the survival
rates of these trees are. Here, of course, is the bare root, which is
still the classic way and good healthy roots there, in this case still
more or less alive. We have some two-year-old trees. These are
two-year-old bare root trees. Again, in the west coast with the heavy
foliage it's very necessary to go to a two-year-old, sometimes
three-year-old, tree to get a real jump on the ferns and the bracken
and everything.
Again, I think the question needs to be asked and maybe you can help
us as we go from a tremendous increase in styroplugs — three million
trees two years ago to 20 million anyway, if not even more, to the
Styroplug way of growing a tree.
I think we need to know the survival rate of these; we need to know
about cross rooting, about spiraling; we need to know about the total
amount of money laid out.
You say you are going toward the mechanized process. We have seen no
machines. There are grand ideas of blowing the tree out of plastic
casing. We haven't seen this and there doesn't seem to be much
likelihood of this. I think we need to know about the total economies
of this as well as the mudpack which seems to be, I think, a very
necessary alternative in certain areas. We need to see the total
economies of the bare root, and, of course, the bullet designed by
Walters of the UBC research farm.
I have asked you several times — and haven't had an answer — why you
don't charge for these under the Act. You are permitted to charge for
the tree. Simply let customers decide for themselves what they want.
Presumably there would be a difference in price for a one-year-old and
a two-year-old tree, whether it's grown in a plantation or wherever.
Then, of .course, the customer can decide whether he wants to spend
extra money to have it grown in a styroplug or whether he wants to have
it grown at extra cost — something like 2 cents — in the bare root or
in the mudpacking process.
Under
section 151, you have authority to charge. I would have
thought that if you charged, there would be a greater sense of
responsibility by your various customers. We could talk about B.C.
Forest Products. Those guys say: "Look, we know the side here. Why
don't you let us do the planting? We have our foresters stationed at
Maple Ridge. We know that area. There will be greater continuity of the
same people working the same ground. We will ensure even a greater
survival rate than we are presently getting."
I was very pleased to hear that Princess Mudpack has a survival
rate. Maybe it was survival after a very wet fall which may be a
variable we constantly need to look at. But 90 per cent is a pretty
high survival rate contrasted to bare root which would be considerably
lower. So I am asking you to continue to evaluate and test.
Then I think you need to make a political decision. I really think you should charge.
I think of even greater economies, greater responsibility. I think
the local people who know their area will even do their own research.
They will work more closely with the department; there will be a much
greater yield for that area.
I think if you do charge, there should be more relation with the
small companies. The smaller companies could possibly still bring in
various work crews and crews like the summer employment programme the
students are involved in now. They would actually have the overall
supervision; their foresters would be giving a lot of the direction.
I would also like to just remind you that other areas are looking at
the example of the Mission tree farm. It is a very small tree farm, Mr.
Minister. We have asked you, when are we going to hear from you on
reverted timber berths?
There are old timber berths which presumably reverted back to Crown
that are surrounding the Mission tree farm. We wrote you nearly a year
ago
[ Page 3159 ]
and are still waiting. I remind you now and then.
It would give greater economy to the Mission tree farm. The Mission
tree farm, incidentally, is only 16,000 acres. It would certainly
benefit if some of those old timber berths were included in this tree
farm which you feel is a prototype and which I understand other areas
such as Smithers, Burns Lake, Quesnel, et cetera, are looking at.
I can assure you that we are very proud of it at Mission. In fact,
we hope a lot of students this summer will be working in there, not
just to do the planting or the actual task but learning and relating. I
think it is a very excellent programme.
So those are some questions and we will get on to the next vote later.
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I am sympathetic to the idea of charging
for seedlings. But it is a circle, really, because it reflects in
stumpage. But there might be some advantages simply in the process. It
is something I think we had better review.
The question of having all our eggs in one basket. The plugs versus
the mudpacks is something that does concern us. We presently have a
senior forester in Scandinavia right now reviewing all of their
techniques and processes in order to compare them with what we are
doing now in British Columbia. Our senior staff people generally didn't
have the freedom in the past to get about and see what was being done
in places like Scandinavia. It is my own view that we couldn't spend
money better than having our senior professional staff see what is
being done in other parts of the world.
We are a relatively competitive industry in some ways; we should benefit from the experience of others.
I am sympathetic to the possibility of charging. It's something we
will want to look at in more detail and something that we might
continue a dialogue on throughout the next few months.
MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I have always tried to use
estimates intelligently and reserve comments to certain votes. The
House has commented at length on the debates that have gone on on the
Minister's salary. If I could just ask the Chair at the moment, I was
called to a meeting in the Speaker's office just like that, trying to
meet my responsibilities in the House to debate this business of the
Blues. I am now prevented from taking
part in any discussion on the
Land Commission or the Environment and Land Use Secretariat. I think
this is very unfortunate that this kind of situation arises.
I don't know if the Chair would allow me a little bit of latitude to
ask just one particular question which I think is certainly out of
order on this motion.
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Ask it fast.
MR. WALLACE: It is the question of the delay in dealing with
claims of the people who are in difficulty because of the land freeze.
I will quickly leave it at that. I don't know how the Minister could be
in order by answering it any more than I am in order asking it.
I have one particular instance which I would have otherwise
mentioned to the Minister of a situation which went on for 15 months.
By the time it was settled, the individual had spent money and the
development was no longer possible. I just make that comment in
passing. Perhaps the Minister at a later time can get back on to that
subject.
On the question of reforestation vote I would just like to ask one
or two very quick questions. The Minister, when he was in opposition,
was one of the most devoted spokesmen on behalf of adequate
reforestation. I can remember him making many strong speeches from this
side of the House. I can't recall the figures but at the time he was
making it very plain that we were far behind in replacing the natural
amount that was lost by disease, fire and by the actual cutting of
timber.
I wonder if the Minister could give us a comparison, let us say,
between 1972 and 1974 as to how close we are coming in 1974 to the
so-called sustained yield idea: whatever we or Mother Nature is
removing of our forest resources is, by and large, being replaced.
I have had some discussions with foresters, and one of the points
they expressed — it's only an opinion and I want to hear both sides of
the story — is that there is a tendency in the Forest Service today of
foresters not being out there where the action is. There is less of a
practice to have the forester out there in the forest in the front
line, as it were, finding out exactly what some of the problems and
needs are in the whole question of good planning for reforestation and
so on.
There is the feeling among some foresters, I understand, that there
is too much time spent shuffling papers and sitting in offices and
planning. It is maybe a little bit like the surgeon who spends a lot of
time reading how to do an operation but doesn't get into the operating
room to do it. Or when he gets in there he is not sure that what he saw
in the book was right. That may not be a fair analogy but it is the
kind of analogy that people tell me about when I try to discuss
forestry.
The other question is on the nurseries in this vote. To what degree
is the department of forestry interested in having the private sector
go to greater interest in developing their own nurseries? Is there some
good reason in the past why this did not work or should not work?
Once again, I feel we must have cooperation between the government
Forest Service and the private sector. I wonder if this is another area
the
[ Page 3160 ]
Minister could comment on.
MR. PHILLIPS: Just a few brief questions to the Minister before we pass this $12,924,608 for reforestation and forest nurseries.
I would like the Minister to tell me if he feels reforestation and
money spent on reforestation in the Ocean Falls harvesting area is
being well spent. Is it fair to spend the taxpayers' money to reforest
in the harvesting area of Ocean Falls when we're giving the paper from
the trees that are grown in that harvesting area, which is subsidized
by the people of British Columbia, to Gottesman company of New York?
I would like to ask the Minister if it is not true that the contract
signed with Gottesman was for a mill net of $160 a ton. If it is, we
will be spending taxpayers' money in reharvesting the harvesting area
of Ocean Falls, spending good taxpayers' money to make Gottesman, an
international newsprint selling agency, rich. I don't feel it is fair
that the taxpayers of British Columbia should have to subsidize an
international corporation.
We will be spending and reforesting in the Ocean Falls area; the
trees will be cut down, put through the Ocean Falls mill, sold to
Gottesman at $160 a ton when the cost of manufacturing this newsprint
alone is $195 a ton. In other words, the taxpayers of this province are
subsidizing Gottesman to the tune of $35 a ton for every ton of
newsprint which is processed through Ocean Falls.
Here we have a situation where this department, in incidentals and
contingencies and forest nurseries and planting, is spending
$9,617,000. A great amount of this money will be spent in the
harvesting area of Ocean Falls to keep those forests going so that
Gottesman and company can make a profit.
I'd like to ask the Minister if it is not true that the contract is
tied to the California price, a delivered rate of $213 a ton.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!
MR. PHILLIPS: Is it not true that if this price drops below
$213 a ton, Gottesman and company can cancel the contract and leave
Ocean Falls with all their newsprint and not sell it?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me just a moment. If the Hon. Member
would just stop for a moment for a point of order, I would like to
remind him that in the early part of his remarks one-half of each
sentence was in order but the other was out.
You are now beginning to be more out of order than in order. I would
appreciate it if you would come back to the vote which deals with
reforestation.
MR. PHILLIPS: The problem is that....
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Maybe I can simply tell you that the figures are incorrect.
MR. PHILLIPS: Here we have a....
Well, Mr. Chairman, if the figures are incorrect, why doesn't the Minister tell us the truth? Why doesn't he file the agreement?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!
MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister has the agreement. He has shown disdain for the House by not giving us those figures.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask you to try and come back to the vote, if you can.
MR. PHILLIPS: As I said, I am here to protect the taxpayers of British Columbia. Here we are spending $12,924,608 on this vote 145...
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You don't care about seedlings.
MR. PHILLIPS: ...to look after reforesting our forests. How
much of that money is going into the harvesting area of Ocean Falls?
Here we have a situation where the taxpayers of British Columbia will
be reforesting this harvesting area at Ocean Falls while Ocean Falls
loses $850,000 a year and Gottesman stands to make millions and
millions of dollars profit.
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Order!
MR. PHILLIPS: Why should the taxpayers...?
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Order, Mr. Chairman. On a point of order,
this matter has been thoroughly canvassed for some seven days by Her
Majesty's Loyal Opposition. I would urge you to bring the Member back
to order and discuss the question of reforestation, which is the vote
at hand.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I agree entirely, Mr. Minister. Apart from
being out of order in terms of what you are talking about, the matter
of repetition is pretty clear as well. I would ask the Member to move
on to another topic or take his place.
MR. PHILLIPS: It will never be a matter of repetition when
the principles of good government and protecting the taxpayers of
British Columbia are involved. Never will it be a matter of repetition.
As I've said before, will the Minister tell me how much of this
$12,924,608 is going to be spent in the harvesting area of Ocean Falls
to reforest those forests...
[ Page 3161 ]
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'd be glad to answer that question.
MR. PHILLIPS: ...where the trees are being cut down to go
through Ocean Falls to sell the newsprint to Gottesman and company so
they can rip off millions and millions of dollars of the taxpayers'
money? That's a fair question under this vote, Mr. Chairman.
Here we have Gottesman....
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! I would appreciate it if you
would stop just for a moment while we discuss whether or not you are in
order. I would suggest, Mr. Member, that you are out of order. I would
ask you either to take your place or move on to another topic.
MR. PHILLIPS: I would like the Minister to tell me....
MR. CHAIRMAN: When he takes his place, he can either answer or not answer. That is up to him.
MR. PHILLIPS: All right. I want to know. I'll restate the
question again. I want to know how much money is being spent — the
taxpayers' money of British Columbia — in replanting the harvesting
area in Ocean Falls.
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: There is no harvesting area in Ocean
Falls, so no funds are being expended. The company buys pulp from
another company and buys logs from another company, so there are no
direct activities in the Ocean Falls area by the Ocean Falls
Corporation. There is no such harvesting area.