1973 Legislative Session: 2nd 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, MARCH 28, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 1817 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

LRB denial of vote to

Cominco employees. Mr. Chabot — 1817

Funds for development of artificial kidney. Mr. Wallace — 1817

T-4 slips for MLAs. Mr. Richter — 1817

Prosecutions under Consumer Protection Act. Mr. Brousson — 1817

Restrictions on supplying of packaged milk. Mrs. Jordan — 1817

Duties of V.J. Parker. Mr. McClelland — 1818

Discrimination against female civil servants. Mr. Williams — 1818

Administration of Green Belt Protection Fund. Mr. Phillips — 1818

B.C. Hydro interim report. Mr. McGeer — 1819

Cattle grazing at high altitudes. Mr. Fraser — 1819

Restrictions on shipping of packaged milk. Mrs. Jordan — 1819

Committee of supply: Department of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources estimates.

Mr. McClelland — 1820

Mr. Smith — 1826

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1827

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1828

Mr. Brousson — 1830

Mr. Fraser — 1834

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1836

Mrs. Jordan — 1838

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1844

Mrs. Jordan — 1846

Mr. McGeer — 1848

Land Commission Act (Bill No. 42). Amendments.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 1850

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 1973

The House met at 2:15 p.m.; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Introduction of bills.

Oral questions.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

LRB DENIAL OF VOTE TO

COMINCO EMPLOYEES

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A question to the Minister

of Labour, Mr. Speaker: will the Minister examine the decision

of the Labour Relations Board which has denied the employees of

Cominco a representative vote?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I have

received a copy of the reasons for the adjudication which the

Labour Relations Board made in respect to the certification

application by the Canadian Workers Union in Trail. I have it

under study at the moment. I presume that answers the Member's

questions.

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

Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): A supplementary

question, Mr. Speaker: has the Minister of Labour heard from

the CCU on this question and, if so, has he given a reply to

them?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have received a number of

telegrams today regarding this matter. At this point I haven't

replied to any of them. They just came in this morning.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

FUNDS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF

ARTIFICIAL KIDNEY

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister

of Industrial Trade and Commerce: in light of the fact that here in British

Columbia one of our Canadian medical teams has perfected a much improved artificial

kidney and is having great difficulty finding anyone who will finance the marketing

of this improved kidney — they are talking about going to the States to gain

financial backing and marketing arrangements — could the Minister comment on

whether he will take any action? We take a lot of credit in B.C. for what these

doctors have done.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce):

Well, Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Member raised this subject. I wish he

would give me a little memorandum on it so that I may refer it to the department.

It may be that they have already received some request which hasn't come to

my attention. If not, I would like that kind of thing to be thoroughly investigated,

because it is the kind of scientific secondary manufacturing that wherever possible

we should encourage in the province.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen.

T4 SLIPS FOR MLAs

MR. FX RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, I would like to

direct a question to the Provincial Secretary: when will the Members of the

Legislature be receiving their T-4 slips for income tax purposes covering the

spring session and the fall session of 1972?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): I'll take that as

notice for the Speaker, if I may, Mr. Member. I take my advice

from the Speaker and perhaps will be in a position to tell you.

I'll certainly look into it with the Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano.

PROSECUTIONS UNDER

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, a

question for the Hon. Attorney General: have there been any

prosecutions and, if so, how many under the Consumer

Protection Act?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll have to take that question as

notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Member for North Okanagan have a

question?

RESTRICTIONS ON SHIPPING

OF PACKAGED MILK

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Yes, thank you, Mr.

Speaker. To the Minister of Agriculture: has the Minister

himself looked into or has he instructed any of his staff to

look into the matter of restricting of shipping of packaged

milk in the

[ Page 1818 ]

Province of British Columbia?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker,

one item of legislation that is being considered would be

dealing with that problem but whether we will be able to bring

that in, in this session, I am not sure at this time.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary: would the Minister of

Agriculture be prepared at a future date to elaborate on what

he has in mind?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think he needs to answer that one, in

that form.

MRS. JORDAN: I would just be asking him to take it as

notice.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I would like to address

my question to the Acting Minister of Health, if I may.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think the practice should be followed of asking

other Ministers to deal with the department not under their direct administration.

This question period is to ask the Minister responsible.

MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this

matter has come up in this House three times. On one occasion

it was myself; on two other occasions you allowed the questions

to be directed to the Acting Ministers. When I asked the same

privilege you refused. I'm trying to ask it again.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm trying to create some order in this matter

and I don't think it is a proper practice to ask other

Ministers questions not to do with their portfolio. If it

happened twice because two Ministers stood up and answered,

really I can't take all the blame.

MR. McCLELLAND: I would just like some clarification, with

your leave, of course, Mr. Speaker. I just felt that I wanted to

ask the question because it is a matter of some urgency to my

constituency.

MR. SPEAKER: I would suggest you withhold your question

until the Minister is in the House.

DUTIES OF V.J. PARKER

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question then to the Minister

of Municipal Affairs — another question. I would like to ask the Minister of

Municipal Affairs whether Mr. Victor J. Parker, who was

the director of transit in your department, has been loaned to any other department

since his time of employment.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): No, he is

working in my department and is responsible to me.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound.

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST

FEMALE CIVIL SERVANTS

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

a question to the Hon. Provincial Secretary: is the Hon.

Provincial Secretary aware that women employees in the civil

service are being discriminated against and that they must

provide birth and marriage certificates, while this is not a

requirement of male employees? Is it the intention of the

Minister to have this practice discontinued?

HON. MR. HALL: I'm not aware of that, Mr. Member, and I

would be pleased if you would send that material to me. I

simply say that the policy of the Government is to do away with

every single case of differentiation we can find. We have

already done away with a lot; we are still finding a lot. We

need the encouragement and the assistance of every Member in

the House in finding out those things over a multitude of

statutes.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: A different subject or the same subject?

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): A point of information,

Mr. Speaker. I also received the letter concerning this

discrimination against women. I investigated it and found that

it wasn't a case of discrimination in the civil service. The

reason that the question…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member may be giving us

valuable information but unfortunately she is out of order.

MS. BROWN: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. Can I reply to that

question?

MR. SPEAKER: I'm afraid not. The Hon. Member for South Peace

River.

ADMINISTRATION OF

GREEN BELT PROTECTION FUND

[ Page 1819 ]

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I would

like to refer a question to the Hon. Premier with regard to the

Green Belt Protection Fund Act . Would the Premier advise

me as to what cabinet Minister is in charge of this fund and

who the officials are?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): As I said in the budget speech,

the whole matter of funds is under review. I would take your

question as notice.

MR. PHILLIPS: At the present time, Mr. Premier, can

applications be directed to anybody? Are applications not being

received? If they can be directed to somebody, to whom should

they be directed?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams).

MR. PHILLIPS: Is there money left in the fund and will

applications just run up into a blank wall or are they going to

be seriously…?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, there is money in the fund and the

provincial revenues have never been better in the history of

this province.

MR. PHILLIPS: Then applications, Mr. Premier, are going to

be seriously considered.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Then the Hon. Member for

Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary on the same

subject to the Premier: could the Premier tell the House

whether any money has in fact been spent from the fund this

year?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, if you put the question on the order

paper, I will give you the details.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's on the order paper.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, it is not. I have answered every one

of the questions asked of the finance department. And I will

continue to do so.

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

Grey.

B.C. HYDRO INTERIM REPORT

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier if

he has had an opportunity to study the interim report of the

B.C. Hydro brought by the Comptroller General and whether he would be prepared to

table that in the House?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have not had the opportunity to study

it, Mr. Member — I have been too busy here in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

CATTLE GRAZING

AT HIGH ALTITUDES

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Thank you, Mr. speaker. I have a

question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

Were there recently representations made to the Government to

eliminate cattle grazing from higher elevations?

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

We have many representations with respect to cattle and higher elevations from

various parts of the province and with respect to watersheds. We are reviewing

all of them, and have amended some policies in relation to those problems.

MR. FRASER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. What elevation

will be the line of demarcation and will grazing rights above

that elevation be revoked?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I am afraid it is not as simple as

that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

EROSION OF

CLIFFS AT POINT GREY

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

Lands, Forests and Water Resources: have you yet received the

report from the expert you hired re the erosive problem in the

Point Grey cliffs and, if so, will you table it?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The report has been received, Mr.

Speaker, but I haven't yet seen it myself.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

RESTRICTIONS ON SHIPPING

OF PACKAGED MILK

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, this is actually a supplementary

to the Minister of Agriculture: has the Minister of Agriculture

instructed or spoken to the Milk Board regarding the curtailing or shipping of

[ Page 1820 ]

packaged milk in the Province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Yes.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: has the Minister

asked for a report from the Milk Board on this situation?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, there have

been discussions leading to possible legislation and I can't

say at this time whether the legislation will come in in this

session.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: whether the

legislation comes into the Legislature at this session or not,

will the Minister of Agriculture discuss this matter with the

various cooperative shipping groups in the province before the

legislation is drafted?

HON. MR. STUPICH: There have been discussions with various

cooperative shipping groups already, Mr. Speaker, and there

will be further discussions.

MRS. JORDAN: Would the Minister be prepared to advise the

House which groups he's discussed the matter with?

MR. SPEAKER: I think that the questions on the

supplementaries have become somewhat attenuated. Any other

questions?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee of supply, Mr. Speaker.

House in committee of supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF LANDS, FORESTS AND WATER RESOURCES

On vote 131: Minister's office, $64,032.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I have a few questions I'd

like to ask the Minister before we pass vote 131 — on a number

of subjects all relating to his department.

First of all, I'd like to talk for a moment about dyking and

drainage, particularly in the Cloverdale area, the area of the

Nicomekl-Serpentine River. I note first of all, that the

federal government, Mr. Chairman, has provided a further $12.5

million for improvement of dykes to prevent flooding on the

Fraser River — along the length of the Fraser River in the

Fraser Valley.

I wonder first of all, whether the provincial government has

agreed, or is going to agree soon, to put in their share of

money for that dyking programme because the money from the

federal government is not available unless the provincial

government participates. It's vitally important to that whole

area that the provincial government participate to a much

higher degree than has been.

I would also like to suggest, and I'll do it again I think

later, that the provincial government has to end its insistence

that the local governments take a financial

part in this kind

of a programme because they just don't have the money and

they're not getting that money from anywhere particularly since

their increase in their per capita grant was minimal this year — it makes it even worse.

I'll also be talking about the very severe tax burden on the

local ratepayers, particularly those inside of the dyking

district. The tax that those people are being asked to pay is

growing out of all proportion to any of the other taxpayers in

the province.

A question too, Mr. Chairman, about the priority with regard

to dyking and drainage that this government is going to place

on that whole area, the Nicomekl-Serpentine River Valley. The

people in that area are quite concerned about the government's

plans for the future because there has been some indication at

least that the government plans to turn that area over to ducks

instead of farms.

It seems that in the Mud Bay and Colebrook dyking districts,

the farmers have been told to lay off for now; not to consider

any further plans for drainage because the government isn't

quite sure what they're about to do, and the whole drainage

improvement project in that area is now in jeopardy — if we're

to believe what some of the comments from the department

are.

The first project was, of course, to be work on damming the

rivers in that area and then improving the sea dykes and the

internal drainage. What is most important is the pumping

stations in that area because we're not only talking about

flood water from the ocean, we are also talking about water

that drains down from the uplands. Without the heavy duty pumps

to take that water away, then that area is under water too

often too much of the year.

The question still is that — in the letter from Mr.

Raudsepp, I believe it was from Mr. Raudsepp, to the dyking

districts — there's a possibility that the area may be made

into a wild duck refuge. If that's the case, is it going to

take in all the Colebrook and Mud Bay dyking districts, leaving

only the Surrey dyking District? If that's true, we would seem

to be infringing on quite a lot of valuable farm property and

certainly placing the burden for dyking and drainage on an even

smaller number of taxpayers — farmers in the area.

[ Page 1821 ]

The farmers are quite concerned that this indecision by the

department, or what appears to be indecision by the department,

will hold up the improvement of some 10,000 acres of farmland

in that area. It's where the main commercial farming for that

whole region is located and without the necessary dyking and

drainage programmes going ahead, we have no hope of improving

the farming in that area.

There was a three-phase programme in that area for drainage,

all of them of course considered vital. The farmers though that

we'd at least be into phase 3 by now, but because of this kind

of inaction we're not even into phase 1. The farmers are quite

concerned and they'd like to know when they're going to get

that land drained, or what at least is the government intention

in that area. Is it going to be kept for farming, or is it

going to be turned into some kind of a water fowl refuge?

In general, Mr. Chairman, that area is probably the most

important area to the Province — that flood plain area in there — in relation to its potential for supplying all of western

Canada with probably the finest vegetables that can be found in

western Canada, and some of them that are unique to the whole

of western Canada. They grow cauliflower in that area that is

grown nowhere else and can't be grown anywhere else as well as

in this area.

I think we can all recognize that it can be far more

productive than it is now by the simple matter of a few million

dollars, maybe $3 million at the moment to improve that

drainage area. It could supply all of western Canada with fresh

vegetables all through the growing season, rather than at

interrupted periods now because of the area being covered with

flood water — with no drainage.

That problem in that area has become much more acute in the

past few years because of the upland development. On the hills

all around that valley there has been considerable development.

Of course, as we lay blacktop on those residential areas then

we increase the run-off so that we have water on the flatland

far more times of the year than we now do. The run-off water is

being channeled right into the farmland areas where the

drainage facilities have always been inadequate and

overtaxed.

Last July when we had those unusually heavy rains, that

whole area was under water for a long period of time — right in

the middle of their peak growing season. Some of us who visited

the area during that period would have noticed that on a couple

of farms, where the farmers had installed heavy-duty pumps on

their own, the crops were not impaired to as large a degree as

the other crops. So we know the solution. All we need is some

action in that area and we can certainly improve the growing

procedure there.

Whether it's a freak of nature or not, I don't know, Mr.

Chairman, but certainly the magnitude and the frequency of

flooding in that area is increased dramatically in the spring

and fall. I suppose that that's primarily due to that upland

situation again. But whatever the reasons, it is causing pretty

heavy direct crop losses in the area and more importantly, as I

mentioned before, the interruption of the flow of products.

Not through any fault of the farmers, the area is developing

a reputation as being not a steady and reliable supplier. The

major wholesalers, the major purchasers are sometimes reluctant

to buy from those farmers in that area now because they haven't

got that steady flow of product. So, the whole of the

reliability of the area is being jeopardized because of the

need for adequate drainage, which is in fact urgent at this

time. It doesn't require short-term solutions; it requires

long-term solutions to the problem, and as quickly as

possible.

Last summer there were, as I mentioned, very heavy rains in

that area. Probably the most intensive storm we've ever had at

that time of year happened just at the time that harvesting was

getting under way. All of the vegetable crops in that area were

flooded. Crops in other areas suffered as well because of the

inability of drainage ditches to handle run-off water from the

uplands.

What happened was that the water stood in the fields for

five or six days and that then sealed of the oxygen from the

soil and once again another reason for heavy crop losses.

The total losses, just for the record, Mr. Chairman, were a

$1.5 million and that's out of a total crop of only about $3

million — so you can see that 50 per cent of the crop in that

area was effectively lost. Annual losses in that area, even

without that kind of heavy and unusual rainstorm in the middle

of the summer, average about $160,000 a year which represents

about $65 an acre for the vegetable lands in that area. Similar

losses occur on pasture lands although these generally come in

the winter and the fall months, rather than in summer.

It could, Mr. Chairman, with proper drainage in that area… There have been some projections given from the Cloverdale

Lettuce and Vegetable Cooperative which sees that by 1980, with

the proper kind of drainage in that area, we could be seeing

crops of almost $4 million being produced there; by 1990, up to

$5 million; by the year 2000, up to $6 million — on the same

land with just an adequate drainage programme. So I think that

just from those statements it is vitally important that we do

get on with some kind of a programme in that area.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to ask — I realize there has

never been a policy here — but the government has a policy for

compensation for crop losses to farmers in certain conditions

with varying

[ Page 1822 ]

methods of arriving at those losses and the amount of the

compensation. Nevertheless, we do have that policy.

I would like to ask the Minister, Mr. Chairman, to consider

the possibility of also developing a policy for those

individuals who suffer losses from floods in their areas. I am

thinking of the individual homeowner. The last flood in the

Surrey area, for instance, caused untold damage probably

running up into the millions of dollars for such things as

flooded basements and flooded furnaces and flooded farm areas

of their own, garden areas, damage to private property.

I wonder why we don't treat those people exactly the same as

we do the farmers for their crop losses and why we couldn't —

and I've mentioned this in the House before — why we couldn't

set up some kind of receiving centres throughout the flooded

areas, so that the people who have suffered substantial losses

could come into these receiving or information centres and

detail their losses.

The department could then investigate those losses to find

out if they're valid and perhaps make some kind of compensation

settlement with those people. Insurance generally doesn't cover

those kind of losses. In fact it hardly ever does as I

understand it.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move on to some problems with

regard to pollution control at this time.

I mentioned during the estimates of the highway department a

particular problem we have at Trinity Western College in Fort

Langley. It has had a pollution sewage disposal problem for

some time and they've worked very hard to come up with an

acceptable solution to that problem, We feel that they have now

come up with that acceptable solution. Not only will they be

getting rid of their sewage disposal problem but they will, in

the process, be developing a park area around there in

cooperation with the municipality.

We seem to have run into a bit of a stumbling block with the

highways department who want to run a road through there and

aren't going to allow Trinity Western and the municipality to

proceed with that solution which we felt — a lot of us felt —

was an ideal solution.

Perhaps there's been more study on that since that time. I

haven't been home for a while. But I understand it is still a

problem in the community. A bit of criticism, Mr. Chairman, in

that a letter was sent to Victoria from the municipality asking

for a meeting with the Minister. The Minister's reply was that

the Minister could find no real advantage in a meeting at this

time.

That's really, Mr. Chairman, not the kind of reply that a municipal council

would expect from a Minister of the Crown. I think they would expect at least

to be given the courtesy to meet with him and to talk about their problems and

perhaps come up with some acceptable solution — not, "I can see no advantage

to a meeting at this time." That is certainly not the kind of answer that we

need or expect from the Minister.

There was an application recently, in the month of January I

believe, Mr. Chairman, from a private concern in the Aldergrove

area to dump as much as 1.8 million gallons of untreated human

sewage on a piece of land in the Aldergrove area. On Highway 13 — the Bellingham Highway — right adjacent to the highway on a

piece of private land there, the application was that the

people who empty septic tanks in the area would then dump the

wastes from these septic tanks on this property — as much as

1.8 million gallons a year.

Now the farmers in that area can't even dump that kind of

waste on their own property from their own cattle operations.

They have to haul their waste away somewhere else because if

they were allowed to dump that much on the land there would be

a serious pollution problem.

The residents in that area have expressed extreme concern

about this much untreated human waste going on that property

for a number of reasons: first, because of the possibility of

severe land pollution in that area; secondly, its proximity to

a rather major public highway leading from the United States

and to the United States, to a border crossing in that area;

also, because of the possibility of pollution of a creek that

runs right through that property and then runs through a school

property on the other side of the road.

The danger, it would seem to me, of hepatitis with this kind

of situation occurring would be severe. For that reason the

people in that area are terribly concerned about this problem.

Not only are they concerned about this problem but there is, I

suppose, the minor problem of the stench that will obviously be

created in the hot summer months. I realize that isn't a health

problem, but it certainly could get uncomfortable at times.

Now, I know that the Minister and the Pollution Control Branch have heard about

this problem on a number of occasions. I believe that this application constitutes

a potential health hazard. The name of the brook, incidentally, that, we are

talking about is Chard Brook — C-H-A-R-D. The school is the Patricia School.

I was a little concerned Mr. Chairman. I sent a letter to the Pollution Control

Branch outlining my concern about this as the MLA for the area — which I think

is perfectly within my rights and certainly in my duties, and I'd be negligent

of my duties, I think, if I hadn't done this — particularly once I'd received

the concern of the people in the area. I got a letter back, or a form letter,

from the Pollution Control Branch addressed to me making reference to the application

saying it wasn't really my business to be

[ Page

1823 ]

prying into this matter because I didn't live next door.

Any person, it says, who qualifies as an objector under the

Pollution Control Act may file with the director an objection

in writing to the granting of a permit stating the manner in

which he is affected.

The way that you qualify as an objector: it's not good

enough to just live in the area or be a citizen of the

municipality or be an MLA representative in the area; you have

to hold a proprietary right in any land in which the discharge

takes place or in that land on which a portion or all of the

works are located; or be the applicant for or the holder of a

permit or a license issued under the Pollution Control Act 1967

or the Water Act and who claims that any interest under such

permit or license would be affected by the granting of a

permit.

The letter goes on to say: "It should be noted that unless

you qualify as indicated above, the director of pollution

control has no authority to accept your letter as an

objection." Mr. Chairman, I found that objectionable. I felt

that as an MLA in the area I certainly had the duty to bring

the concerns of the many people in that area to the attention

of the Pollution Control Branch.

I also felt that those people who have children going to

that school certainly should have had the right to bring their

concerns to the director of the Pollution Control Branch. If

that's the case, if that is the way that the branch operates

and if those are the rules under which the branch operates I'd

certainly like to see them changed.

I think that any person who lives in the area or has a

direct concern or, in fact, is only concerned in protecting a

natural environment, should have the right to make their voice

known not only in the newspapers or on the radio or anywhere

else, but also to make their representations to the Pollution

Control Branch and to have those representations heard, which

is most important.

If the Pollution Control Branch will only listen to the

people who are making the application or who are living next

door, they are not getting a very wide representation from the

community. That's what I'd like to see; if that's the way the

branch operates, I'd like to see its operation changed in the

future.

Mr. Chairman, another question with regard to an application

for a permit, under the Pollution Control Act, has to do with

the Semiahmoo Bay outfall which was applied for by the city of

White Rock. I know that here too there have been

representations to the Minister and to the Attorney General as

a matter of fact on a point of legality.

I've been informed that, while the original point from the Attorney General's

department was well taken, because of the posting that was made for this permit

on the location that was in question was legally wrong, there had been another

permit applied for and posted.

I'm also told from the people in that community that that

permit is just as legally wrong as the other one. I would

suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister could perhaps confer

again with the Attorney General just to check into that

problem.

I wonder whether one of the departments of government is not

trying to advise the City of White Rock about the proper

procedure for them to go so that they may post a legal

application for permit rather than looking into the problem of

whether that application should be considered at all.

Once again, here we have an application for sewage treated,

I'll admit, to be dumped into a major recreation area without

asking that city to at least have a look at better ways,

because most of the municipalities in that area now have joined

the greater Vancouver sewage district. It seems to me that with

that kind of cooperative action we can come up with a solution

to our pollution problems a whole lot faster than we can by

going away on our own — particularly applying for a permit to

expand what in some people's minds is an outdated sewage

treatment plant at the best of times, and certainly a treatment

plant that doesn't have the capacity to take any more

sewage.

Once again, Mr. Chairman, the people in that community are

extremely concerned. In White Rock, which is not a large area,

1,400 of them have signed a petition to the effect that they'd

like the B.C. Pollution Control Board to hold a public hearing

on this application.

Just for the interest of the Minister, the request was

initiated by the SPEC people for whom I know the Minister has a

great deal of respect.

They are concerned; 1,400 people in that community are

concerned enough to go to a meeting, sign a petition and ask

that the Pollution Control Board ask the city to hold a public

hearing first at least.

This sewage outfall, Mr. Chairman, will go right through

Semiahmoo Park out to deep water. The present outfall is into

Campbell River, which is another thing we've got to eliminate

as quickly as possible. The new outfall would be in water,

according to the application at least, 25 feet below tide.

However, Mr. Chairman, the White Rock residents say that the

effluent from the plant floats and it doesn't matter how deep

the outfall is — the effluent is still going to end up on top

of the water in that area.

They don't want to see this treatment plant expanded. They

want to see the whole plant phased out and to have the city

join the Greater Vancouver Regional Sewerage and Drainage

District.

The president of the local SPEC unit, Mr. Chairman, has been

quoted as saying that a 20 to 1 dilution of sewage is required

in that area. He says that isn't possible in Campbell River.

The sewage does get secondary treatment but considerable

amounts of

[ Page 1824 ]

storm sewer water reach the system and this is a problem in

many areas. In periods of heavy rainfall the water rushes

through so fast that solids which should have settled are

rushed through into the discharge pipe.

Apparently, Mr. Chairman, they had a man from Environment

Canada visit that area. He came out and had a look at the whole

situation and saw what was happening at the discharge pipe. It

wasn't only, incidentally, during heavy rainfall, but it was

also at normal peak periods at the outfall during the day when

more water is used in the households themselves. I would

imagine that those would be periods when washing or dishes are

being done.

He claims that the treatment plant just is not working

satisfactorily right now, regardless of any future use and

expansion of use. He says that the whole area stinks of sewage,

and as far away as Crescent Beach it stinks of sewage from that

same outfall.

He also says there is evidence of raw sewage right on the

beach at White Rock in many periods. That, Mr. Chairman, is one

of our major recreational areas, one which all of the members

of the Greater Vancouver Regional District and the other

regional districts in the lower mainland are vitally concerned

about saving.

I won't go into the problems about the illegality of the

posting again, but I would just ask that the Minister confer

with the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) just to make

sure that the City of White Rock is conforming to the law, at

least in posting their applications for a pollution control

permit.

The other question with regard to pollution, Mr. Chairman,

has to do with the Annacis Island treatment plant. Because the

Minister ordered the Greater Vancouver Regional District to go

into secondary treatment at that plant immediately, the Greater

Vancouver Regional District has some serious fears that that's

going to delay the opening of the treatment plant. If that's

the effect of the order to go to secondary treatment right now,

then the people in the Greater Vancouver Regional District and

others outside the district who are also members of the sewage

board are going to be in terrible trouble. Those areas have

been gearing all of the future of their sewage disposal to

joining of the Annacis Island treatment plant.

I'd just like to refer, Mr. Chairman, to a newsletter from

the Greater Vancouver Regional District in which, on a split

vote I must admit, the district approved a motion that it

appeal the provincial government requirement to provide

secondary treatment at this time and go back to the original

suggestion, which was to get the plant built for primary

treatment and go into secondary immediately, but at least get

the plant into operation.

Tenders are already out and are returnable this month

for that plant. The director of the operations for the sewage board says there

aren't any technical reasons for requiring secondary treatment at this time.

The additional cost is going to be about $5 million a year and they're already

in the middle of what is an $80 million programme and certainly will be for

more than $80 million if the plant is delayed, simply because of the inflationary

effects.

There are powerful arguments for secondary treatment, Mr.

Chairman, no doubt about that; but there are also powerful

arguments for getting that plant on the road right now so that

all of the areas who are making plans to join in with that

system will be able to do it as quickly as possible.

The plant is supposed to be open by January 1, 1975. The

areas which are now feeding sewage into streams all over the

Fraser Valley have been told that they can no longer do this,

that by 1975 they must cease. Some of the areas farther east in

the Fraser Valley have elected to go the route of building

expensive pipelines right to the Fraser River. However, the

City of Langley, for instance, and some other areas giving

consideration to it, have joined the Greater Vancouver Sewerage

and Drainage District at a considerable cost to the community

and have a commitment to join up with that treatment facility

by 1975.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, all we ask is your assurance that

they'll be able to by 1975, Mr. Minister. The GVRD seems to

think that if it has to provide secondary treatment before it

opens, that it won't get that thing on

schedule until 1977, and

that's a further two-year delay.

So I just ask, Mr. Chairman, that we get some kind of

assurance from the Minister that those municipalities which are

waiting to come on stream with the facility in 1975 will be

able to — or will have somewhere to go with their sewage.

The Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, Mr.

Chairman, once again — and I'll refer to a letter sent to all of

its members — says that, "We have an undertaking to have primary

treatment at Annacis in operation by the end of 1974. Our

present

schedule to meet this requires that we advertise" — which has been done — "in 1973." It's going to take about 21

months to construct the plant. So there's a timetable here

that's important to recognize. I really think that a two-year

delay is going to be a severe hardship on some of the

municipalities in the lower mainland.

Mr. Chairman, we have asked questions at other times about

the Green Belt Protection Fund, whether it's in operation or

out of operation or what it's doing. I'd like to ask just a

couple of other questions since the Minister has responsibility

for that fund at

[ Page 1825 ]

this time.

First of all, with regard to the Environment and Land Use

Committee, I'd like to ask if that committee is active at this

time and whether or not that committee has been hearing

applications from either individuals or local municipalities or

regional districts who have been asking for relief from the

effects of the freeze, particularly in those areas in which

community plans are in effect, or in areas where marginal

farmland is in question, or in areas, Mr. Chairman, where it

can't be totally proved that substantial commencement on a

particular development had taken place prior to December but

that there is enough evidence that work had gone into that

development, that the municipal council had passed the

development, that it was obvious that the development was given

all of the proper approvals through the regional district and

the municipal level of government. Have there been

applications? Have there been rulings on those applications?

Have there been any easements to the restrictive freeze that is

in effect at the moment?

The Minister of Agriculture, (Hon. Mr. Stupich) Mr.

Chairman, on March 9 in a newspaper story in the Vancouver

Province indicated that there was no farmland exempted

from the land freeze.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: What date was that?

MR. McCLELLAND: March 9. He denied a report that a family in

the Surrey area had been exempted from the provisions by a

cabinet order-in-council. He said the department has dealt with

all kinds of individual cases but in no instance did it exempt

any farmland from the freeze. The question again is: has any

land been exempted from the freeze by the Environment and Land

Use Committee? Now I am not asking this of the Minister of

Agriculture because it wouldn't be within his jurisdiction, I

don't think, to exempt at any rate.

However, the Minister went on to say in this

article that

the Government has purchased a farm for a total of $104,500

under the Green Belt Protection Fund Act because the

owners were trapped in an unfavourable position. He names the

owners — Mr. and Mrs. Leonard Kercher, who own a dairy farm in

the Matsqui area. They had agreed to an offer by a developer

for sale of the land.

Mr. Chairman, in the throne speech debate. I brought this

particular problem to the attention of the Government and

related the special circumstance that these people and many

others found themselves in because of the arbitrary freeze

imposed by order-in-council by this Government. The Kerchers,

of course, had made a commitment at that time to buy a larger

farm. They had committed themselves to quite a large loan at

the bank, both for the farm and for a milk quota. They were

really up against it.

What happened, of course, was that because of the delay they

couldn't get approval through their local government and they

couldn't get approval through the provincial government. The

developer who had been going to buy backed out. The Kerchers

found themselves in an unfortunate position. However, the

Government did agree that they would help them out of this

bind, one way or another. Now, as I refer to the story in the

Vancouver Province , the Minister of Agriculture said on

March 9 that the farmland had been purchased.

However, that wasn't correct, Mr. Chairman, because the

farmland had not been purchased at that time. The order to

purchase, as I understand it, was sitting on the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources' desk.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Not true.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, yes it is. Mr. Chairman, I say that

that's the case. I was informed of that by a member of his

Government, who said that it was all ready to be approved but

it wasn't approved because it was still sitting on the

Minister's desk.

All of this time, Mr. Chairman, these people were in a near

panic condition because they could see their option on the new

farm — and I'd like to just point out again what the problem

here was. Here was a family who didn't want to go out of

farming; here was a family that wanted to go into farming in a

bigger way and bring their son into that farming operation.

They were stymied from doing that because of the actions of

this Government.

I refer again, Mr. Chairman, to the statement that that farm

was bought. On March 9 that statement came out. I don't know

whether the farm has been bought yet or not. I'd like to ask

the Minister whether it has, under the Environment and Land Use

Committee. If it hasn't, when is it going to be bought. Why was

the statement made on March 9 that the farm had been bought,

when it clearly hadn't? Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't like to say

that the Minister was misleading the House. I'll let the House

decide for itself whether we were being misled or not.

Another question, Mr. Chairman, comes up in relation to that

same article. The price mentioned in that

article — I'll read

it exactly so that there's no misunderstanding and so that I

don't misquote:

"However, the Minister said the Government has purchased the farm for a total cost of $104,500 under the Green Belt Protection Fund Act . "

The other question that I have, Mr. Chairman, is this. The

developers who originally intended to buy this property from

this family had offered this family $110,000, and $1,000 had

been paid to seal the agreement. Now, the government is buying

that land

[ Page 1826 ]

— or at least the Minister says that the government is

buying that land — for $104,000. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, why is

the government giving this family less money for their property

than the private developers offered for that property and for

which a deal had been struck and agreed upon?

It seems to me that this is part of the problem that we've

been afraid of on this side of the House ever since this freeze

went into effect — that there would be some kind of forced

sale; that a person would have to accept the government's price

rather than a negotiated price which would be fair to the

parties involved. I'd like to see some answers about the

discrepancy in price here between $104,500 and $110,000.

[Ms. Young in the Chair]

Also, I've been having trouble getting through on the phone

to, not this Minister, but the Minister of Agriculture's

Deputy, who has been negotiating with the family in question.

I'd like to ask, Madam Chairman, if the Minister could assure

me that this farm has been bought. If it hasn't been bought

yet, I'd like an answer to the question: why was it announced

that it was bought? And I'd like an answer to the question:

when will it be bought?

Certainly I do know that there's another deadline coming up

if the farm hasn't been purchased. That deadline is April 1.

Those people will find themselves in a serious amount of

trouble if they haven't got some answers at that time.

Madam Chairman, there's also some serious evidence in my

mind, from the phone calls I get from municipal leaders

throughout the lower mainland, that this Minister has, in

effect, been in seclusion since election day. He doesn't answer

his mail. He doesn't answer his telephone calls. He doesn't

talk to the municipal leaders. Not one single municipal leader

that I've talked to has had any success in meeting with this

Minister.

Madam Chairman, when I talk about a municipal leader, I'm

talking about mayors, aldermen — any of the elected officials

that this Government seems to consider unnecessary to the

democratic process any longer. I get calls from them at least

once a week saying, "How can we get in to see the Minister?

We've tried and we've tried and we've tried." We get answers

like the one I related earlier: "I see no point in a meeting at

this time; I see no advantage to a meeting at this time." Those

people have a right to meet with the Minister and find out the

directions in which he's going. I know that there have been

many…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) tells

me that he has three letters sitting right on his desk

right now that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources and Recreation

and Conservation has refused to answer. We'd like to know why he won't answer

these people, and why they can't get a meeting with him to talk about their

problems.

I've problems and I know other people in my constituency

have had problems trying to get answers about the very thing I

was talking about earlier, the Environment and Land Use

Act and the Environment and Land Use Committee. What are

they doing? Who are they? Are they hearing anybody? What is the

future of that department? Once again there's a total vacuum

there. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of any attention

to the day-by-day operations of that Minister's department.

Because he has been in seclusion since August 30, hiding

behind that land use curtain of his, and because he hasn't been

paying any attention to the pleas of the municipal officials in

British Columbia, I'd like to move, Madam Chairman, that vote

131 be reduced by $1 to read $23,999.

MS. CHAIRMAN: It is moved that vote 131 be reduced by $1 to

read $23,999. All those in favour?

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Speaking to the motion,

I would hope that we will be permitted to do that before you

call the question on the motion. Thank you.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: Madam Chairman, in speaking to the motion before

the House to reduce the salary of the Minister by $1, we show

in the traditional manner the displeasure we have in the

official Opposition with the Department of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources under the chief administrative person of that

department, the Minister.

Since the election in August and the appointment of this man

as a Minister of the Crown to administer the forest resources

of our province, we have found in that office the most

uncommunicative person imaginable. This is not only to other

Members of the Legislature, but also to every person within or

without the forest industry who has tried to communicate with

him about matters of importance.

For instance, the personnel in the Department of Lands are

being subject to some sort of forces that prevent them from

properly performing their duties. Not one person who has a land

problem in the process or has questions to ask about leases,

intended purchases or matters that should be a routine matter

to deal with, has been able to get an answer.

I don't think, Madam Chairman, that it's because of any…

[ Page 1827 ]

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, Hon. Member. Would you come to order,

please? I must rule this amendment out of order, inasmuch as we

read that "vote 131 be reduced by $1 to read $23,999." The vote

is $64,032. Therefore I must rule it out of order.

MR. SMITH: In that case, Madam Chairman, I'll move a

sub-amendment to the amendment. (Laughter).

MS. CHAIRMAN: This motion is out, Hon. Member. You would

have to submit another amendment.

MR. SMITH: Madam Chairman, surely within the framework of

this motion can move a sub-amendment which refers specifically

to the Minister's salary.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The chief Clerk advises me under the

circumstances that you cannot. You would have to submit a new

amendment.

MR. SMITH: Then I'm prepared to do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the slogan, "Count on us?"

MR. SMITH: I'm prepared to yield the floor in the meantime to someone

else if they still want to speak on the Minister's vote. Certainly.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Madam Chairman, I have one or

two questions on the vote which were raised on March 19 when

this vote first came up. They were questions dealing with the

purchase of Ocean Falls.

I checked the record as closely as I can, Madam Chairman,

and I find that there is a good number of questions which

weren't answered at that time; although as I said at the time,

I did appreciate the Minister's speech. It was a good

speech.

Unfortunately in his reply to my questioning, I gleaned very

little. In checking the record afterwards, I gleaned even less.

So I wonder whether he could give us some information on Ocean

Falls.

Specifically, at what level in the price of paper does the

Minister regard this as a break-even operation? He has talked

about the fact it'll be break-even, it probably won't make

money, but it's going to be a viable operation and break even

because of the very low capitalization as far as the Government

is concerned. If he's capable of coming to that conclusion, he

must have based it on a certain price of paper. I can't see any

other way of coming to that conclusion. I wonder whether he

would give us that information.

This is not a criticism but rather a request for

information.

The other questions I asked — on which the public and

Members of this House deserve some information — concerned what

other major expenditures might be required in future years, say

in the next one, two or three years. Newspaper articles, for

example, indicated, apparently erroneously, that there would

have to be substantial improvements to the single men's hotel

which is in the town. I believe these are incorrect, but

perhaps the Minister would like to provide the House with

information which is more reliable than the information I

have.

I wonder if the Minister would indicate the state of the

machinery itself, since it was put in in 1917, I understand,

which is some time ago; although there is existing in North

America as well as in Europe, machinery still producing paper

which is substantially older than that — I believe some 15

years older than that. In any event, perhaps the Minister would

comment on the state of what we purchased. Have we purchased a

broken down jalopy or have we purchased something which is

running very well?

I am particularly conscious of the age of machinery, Madam

Chairman, because I just took my fine 1962 Golden Hawk

Studebaker in for repairs this morning and it's probably going

to set me back a fortune.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister drives a Hornet. He

understands my problem.

This is the type of thing, though, that I'd like some

comment upon. We are not buying up-to-date machinery for which

replacement machinery can be obtained very easily.

These questions I feel are in order and I would like some

comment.

I would also like comment on the work force, and perhaps it

would be easier to give it now after we've had the passage of

another 10 days. The Minister gave interesting remarks

previously about the number of men who want to stay on. I

wonder now with the passage of more than 10 days whether he

could indicate whether or not the new Crown corporation yet to

be passed by this House has been successful in attracting

previous residents back to Ocean Falls.

On this particular question of the work force, he might want

to indicate to us why there was such an apparently enormous

turnover in the work force previously when Crown Zellerbach ran

Ocean Falls. I'm using figures from Press statements, but I

read that 90 per cent of the work force would be likely to turn

over in any two-year period. People went to Ocean Falls and

they got washed out of there by the rains. They came back down

south somewhere else. Whether this is true or not, I don't

know. I'm just

[ Page 1828 ]

wondering, though, what success the company is having in

keeping a work force going at Ocean Falls.

And my final point before I sit down is: what information does he have and

what can he provide this House with respect to the effect of the continued operations

of Ocean Falls on expansion plans of other companies?

In Friday's business page of the Vancouver Province

there was an excellent

article — or at least it was an

interesting article; I can't judge the quality of what was said

but I did find it most interesting in terms of the fact that

continuing Ocean Falls in operation does mean that expansion

plans of mills elsewhere will be affected. That seems logical.

No one I'm sure would criticize a company for making a change

of policy resulting from the continued operation of Ocean

Falls.

I wonder too if the Minister, when he is commenting upon

that, could give us further information on what steps he thinks

the government corporation can take to expand the overall

markets of B.C. pulp and paper so that instead of simply having

all the companies plus the new government company sharing the

same size pie, what plans might there be for expanding the pie

itself. I said that was the last point, but I've thought of

another one.

With respect to source of supply, we understand that Crown

Zellerbach will continue to supply raw material until 1975. Now

I wonder, without revealing any great secrets of how you are

leaning on Crown Zellerbach or on any other company, whether

you would like to indicate what happens in 1976, or whether or

not you have other arrangements for supplying this mill with

raw material in future years.

There isn't a tremendous variety of sources of the raw

material. I'm interested to know whether or not the limitations

on raw material will affect the operations at Ocean Falls; or

alternatively, whether it's going to be necessary to lean on

companies and perhaps offer concessions elsewhere to insist

that they continue to supply Ocean Falls. Because if that's the

case, perhaps we're making a buck at Ocean Falls and losing a

buck or two bucks somewhere else. I wonder whether the Minister

would like to give some comment on this, because undoubtedly

it's a matter which has been in his mind quite frequently

during these negotiations.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I might deal

with Ocean Falls first as it's just now been raised.

The question of paper price essentially rests on industrial projections with

respect to paper prices. So that has been the base there. But the other factors

in the cost end, of course, in terms of the viability or the

profitability, whether it's a marginal operation or not, we're finding now,

after 10 days or two weeks, that the management costs will be significantly

less than we anticipated. That's rather encouraging. So that will be a factor

as well in the equation.

On the question of capital costs at this stage, we see no

significant capital costs, with possibly one exception, and

that might be in terms of a sorting operation with respect to

logs. But that too is fairly modest.

As to the residential areas, I think they've all been kept

to a good standard. I don't believe there's any problem

whatsoever with respect to the residential property at Ocean

Falls.

We had a team investigate and review all of the machinery

prior to the decision to acquire Ocean Falls. The reports we

had were satisfactory. So I don't think we're really just

buying a jalopy. I think it's a little better, maybe, than the

Hon. Member's vehicle. I wouldn't call this a classic car but I

think it's going to work fairly well.

The work force. I think the last figures I had were

something in the category of 125 in terms of local people

staying working directly in the operation. There are 125

families that formerly lived in Ocean Falls that are now

interested in returning. And that's encouraging.

The top management team has all been assembled. The

assistant manager is an extremely well-qualified person. I am

sure he will be most helpful in terms of keeping up the kind of

activity that has in fact taken place in the last 10 days. The

fact that we expect to be in production April 3 is an

indication, I think, of the quality of the management that we

have been able to assemble in an incredibly short time. It must

be encouraging for all of those who think that public

enterprise has a role and those who think that the people of

the community have a role to play in terms of keeping the

community alive.

The turnover problem in the north is a fundamental problem

for the whole northern region and one to which we intend to

address ourselves to a considerable extent, both in the

recreation sphere and elsewhere. It's clear that there's not to

be a better urban base and a richer living experience in the

north beyond what is possible now. I'm sure that other

programmes will be related to that question, not only in

relation to Ocean Falls but other northern communities.

The question of expansion elsewhere: I read the same

article

the Member read. I would be surprised if this were really a

major factor in any other decision by a company in British

Columbia. However, the Member asked a question earlier which

was, in effect: were these new jobs? I don't think there's much

doubt that these are new jobs. That is, these are jobs that

would not exist had the Province not decided to take the action

it did. So we

[ Page 1829 ]

are assured of this job base and of probably gross sales in

the $12 million category at Ocean Falls and all that that will

generate during this time period when there is

unemployment.

So there is no doubt about its beneficial effect on the

economy. It may well be that the impact might be in other

jurisdictions, in terms of some programmes in Washington State,

for example. We may, in fact, be benefiting British Columbia in

this interim period by maintaining this production at a time of

needed production in North America. I think those are the main

points.

Regarding the earlier points made by the Hon Member for

Langley (Mr. McClelland), who's now not here, the $12.5 million

for dykes available from the federal government will be matched

by the Province of British Columbia. The municipal share

generally is roughly 10 per cent.

The Hon. Member raised the question of the

Nicomekl-Serpentine area at Mud Bay. That is an area that we're

finding difficult to make a final decision on. It might

interest the Members to know that because of the long perimeter

of the farmlands in that area — what with both the rivers and

the ocean being a factor — the costs of dyking are about $1,400

to $1,500 an acre. The value of the land as farmland is $2,700

an acre. So we're talking about a very significant contribution

from the two senior governments on farmland that is only twice

the value of the cost of the dyke. So one does have to ask the

question about an optimum solution in areas like that.

There have been numerous discussions over the last couple of

years with respect to wetlands in the lower mainland. Studies

carried out jointly by the Fish and Wildlife people here and by

federal environment people have indicated that certain areas

are probably prime areas for wetland management. One of these

happens to be in the Mud Bay area. Si nce the two senior

governments would be spending this amount on the dyke, the

question is: might the best use of the land finally be in terms

of wetland management? That has to be resolved quite

quickly.

To that end there's a tri-level governmental meeting in

Vancouver on Saturday morning. The Minister of Transport, the

Minister of Urban Affairs, the Minister of the Environment,

plus Ministers from this Government will discuss that question,

among others. I hope that we can resolve a policy with respect

to wetlands, so that a decision is made fairly quickly

regarding the area around Boundary Bay. It's not my intent to

see the matter hang. A decision will be made one way or the

other fairly quickly.

The question of flood losses in the Surrey-Langley area: we are looking at

the insurance question. Some of our staff have looked at this in an initial

manner As the Members are aware, there's an insurance statute before the House.

It may well be that that might have a role in the future with respect to this

problem. The expenditures to date in this last year have been something

in the neighbourhood of $12 million with respect to drains on the major disaster

fund.

That's a fairly significant drain in one year. It's clear

that that really isn't an adequate approach in itself. It's

going to have to be a combination of public works and the

disaster fund and an insurance fund as well. The Americans have

established such an insurance system at the federal level in

their own country.

The Aldergrove application that the Member raised: I should

make it clear that under present standards and regulations, it

would not be possible to allow untreated sewage to be disposed

of in such a manner. We'll investigate that. In terms of any

volume such as that, as we see it, untreated sewage could not

be handled in such a manner. We'll investigate that,

certainly.

The question of the attitude of the Pollution Control Board:

well, I suppose old attitudes die hard. The Pollution Control

Board was founded by the former administration. I suppose part

of it represents the former Minister's attitude with respect to

that board. It also reflects the legislation that was brought

in by the Social Credit administration.

I've said that these policies will be changed. That is so

that interested parties, in fact, can have a say with respect

to decisions that affect pollution and the environment. Our

policy direction, while not finally nailed down, is becoming

clear. We're moving away from the policy that the former

Minister and the former administration had. We will be pleased

to hear from other parties.

With respect to White Rock and the proposed outfall there:

there will be a hearing, as far as this Ministry is concerned.

It's clear that there's great concern and great interest. We

intend to see that there is a hearing.

Regarding Annacis Island, secondary treatment: it was again

the concern of the Members of this House, Members from Richmond

and elsewhere, that I think brought this matter most

dramatically to my attention. As a result of their concern and

the concern of other groups in the region, including fishermen,

the decision was made. It's very clear that the federal

government was not overly concerned about the fishery resource

or the particular problem that exists at this part of the

Fraser River, where the tide meets the river in a major way and

where you get a kind of holding action in the river itself.

That's why the decision was made. We had this concern that

the federal government would not exercise the kinds of

authority that they have. However, we still would be pleased to

meet with representatives from the Greater Vancouver Regional

District and discuss the question of interim activity pending

the building of the secondary treatment plant. I understand

contracts have already been let

[ Page 1830 ]

with respect to the primary treatment facility. Everything

is proceeding as it would have normally in any case. Certainly

we're prepared to discuss some interim solution with the board.

But in terms of basic direction and basic policy with respect

to secondary treatment of Annacis there's going to be no

change.

With respect to the Green Belt Fund, the Environment and

Land Use Committee is now meeting on a regular basis. The Green

Belt Fund has been used, not in quite the kind of beautiful,

scatter-yon-way along the highways that the former

administration carried on. Greenbelts being little patches

along the highway doesn't really strike me as a kind of grand

It seems to me something like an election gimmick, in terms of

having signs along the highway saying that the old

administration is alive and well. Well, that turned out not to

be the case.

There really was a lack of any overall concept with respect

to the Green Belt Fund. As a result, expenditures did not

continue on the same frantic pace that they continued prior to

August 30. I might say that the major acquisitions under the

Green Belt Fund since August were with respect to holdings at

Thell on the northern island of the Queen Charlotte Islands.

That will become part of a major provincial park. We saw

greenbelt acquisition as something more than a single-shot stab

at one particular piece of property. We saw it more as

something that could be a catalyst in getting something better

going.

The other major acquisition was the farm east of Grand Forks

on the Kettle River. That was the Boothman property, which was

acquired for something like…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MS. CHAIRMAN: … therefore it's out of order.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, I'm sorry. It was the Dunes Fishing

Club property anyway. I may be out of order.

At any rate, we saw these questions as ones in which we

might achieve something better. The Second Century Fund agreed

with us. As a result, we have a major significant intensive

wildlife management area near Grand Forks. I'm rather proud of

that small achievement. I think those are the main questions

raised.

Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, the farm. I wasn't aware of the March 9 statements that

the Member raised. He never was, as I understand it, in the Department of Finance.

The problem may have been that nothing ever did get to my desk. That, as I understand

it, was a matter of review by the Department of Finance. The land has been acquired.

I simply assume that the price was one acceptable to all parties and the difference,

which seemed to me — and I'm not familiar since the negotiations

took place outside my Department — the difference which seemed to me, just from

a cursory look at the figures, would be the difference between a real estate

commission and not having a real estate commission. But, that would remain to

be seen.

The question of requests of the Environment and Land Use

Committee with respect to withdrawing the freeze in particular

instances is a matter that the committee has reviewed. A staff

committee with several departmental groups involved — Highways

who have some experience in this area, Municipal Affairs, who

have some experience in this area, Agriculture and my own

department through the present staff of the ELUC — have been

involved in reviewing these matters.

As I recall, some seven requests from municipal

jurisdictions were received as of about a week ago by the

Environment and Land Use Committee. Six of the requests from

such organizations, that is municipalities or regional

districts, were in fact approved by the Environment and Land

Use Committee. In numerous other instances the private

applications that were before the committee were referred back

to the municipal or regional jurisdiction involved for their

recommendation prior to a decision by the Environment and Land

Use Committee.

So a process has already begun in terms of cooperating with

the municipalities and with the regional districts in relation

to their own regional plans and their own municipal plans. I'm

sure that process will continue and develop and will prove out

the legislation that this House has been considering for some

time.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Thank you,

Madam Chairman. In the past in the discussion of the estimates

of this department I think I've joined with some pleasure with

the present Minister in criticism of his predecessor and the

policies of his predecessor. I think perhaps, Madam Chairman,

that it's a little early for major criticism of the new

Minister — I said major criticism. But, I think there are some

specific points we should raise and ask clarification from

him.

I want first of all to raise the matter of the Skagit Valley

with him. There has been no statement, Madam Chairman, in this

House regarding the Government's policy — but a number of

statements outside the House.

I said early in the debates of this session that I thought

it was very important that the Government, within this chamber

make a major, forthright and very strong statement of their

policy with regard to the flooding of the Skagit.

I might say, Madam Chairman, that listening to the

[ Page 1831 ]

Premier a couple of nights ago, I began to have a real

suspicion as to the knowledge of the Government regarding the

matter of the Skagit Valley; perhaps a suspicion even of their

sincerity in talking about preventing that flooding because the

Premier made some comment about…that he was accusing myself

of going around British Columbia recommending the breaking of a

treaty. Madam Chairman, I'm sure you're aware, if the

Government is not, that this is precisely the same nonsense

that the former Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) used to talk about.

This was the breaking of a federal treaty and therefore was no

responsibility in any way of this government.

I want to make it very, very clear the treaty is the

Boundary Waters Treaty that goes back to 1909. Under that

treaty, there is an agreement signed by the Province and the

City of Seattle.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): You wouldn't even

break a social engagement.

MR. BROUSSON: It would depend what it was for.

But the fact is, Madam Chairman, this is a provincial

agreement, signed by the former Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources and the mayor of Seattle. That's the agreement

that I have suggested on countless times needs to be

renegotiated and discussed in many ways and in many forms. I

think the Minister is well aware of this.

Earlier in the session, I spoke and explained the story of

the Federal Power Commission hearings in the United States,

which are scheduled for this fall. As you know, the Ross

Committee and myself are individually listed as interveners

before that Federal Power Commission and those hearings. I

showed the Legislature the stack of books that was the Seattle

City Light brief to those Federal Power Commission hearings. I

showed that to try to demonstrate just how much effort and how

much work and how much money the Seattle City Light is still,

in early 1973, putting into this attempt to continue to raise

High Ross Dam.

The problem is, Madam Chairman, that if the Federal Power

Commission should approve the Seattle City Light application,

it will make it that much more difficult for this renegotiation

to take place. And the financial costs to Canada and to British

Columbia are going to be that much higher. Seattle will have

that much more to claim as potential compensation. Whether that

compensation is justified or not I am not prepared to say but

they will have that much more of a claim.

Our problem here is, can we count on the Federal Power

Commission to give this a full and complete hearing? To give

any attention, for instance, to the Canadian or the British

Columbia position?

The general counsel, or the assistant general counsel

of the American FPC told me personally in his office that, "Oh yes, we're going

to give full consideration, we'll listen to everything the Canadians have to

say and we'll give them equal time and equal consideration." Well I find that

very hard to put any trust in, Madam Chairman, because basically the Federal

Power Commission is charged in the United States with looking after American

interests; and second, they're in the business of approving power projects.

I have very little confidence in their ability to say "no" regardless of the

reasons. It appears to me that we've got this very serious problem developing

with the FPC hearings in Washington in this coming fall.

I want to read a letter. It was sent on March 6 from the

Ross Committee to the provincial Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams), and also to the federal

Minister of the Environment (Hon. Jack Davis). They both

received identical letters. The Ross Committee has not received

any answers from either Minister. I think, Madam Chairman, that

some answer is necessary. This is dated March 6.

"Dear Sir:

"The Ross Committee was formed in 1969 to prevent the

flooding of the Skagit Valley by Seattle City Light. And in the

course of its opposition, Ross became registered with the

Federal Power Commission as an intervener in City Light's

application to the FPC.

"Following the announcement by the federal and provincial

governments that they will cooperate to prevent the flooding of

the valley, the committee has considered its position and has

decided that its aims have been fulfilled and as a result, the

committee will not prepare evidence for submission to the

FPC.

"It is realized that the main problem is now one of agreeing

compensation. The committee considers that if the FPC hearings

take place, and if Seattle's misleading testimony is not

challenged, then there is every likelihood of Seattle's

application being successful. A successful application will, of

course, add much credibility to their claim for

compensation.

"Therefore it appears that if the negotiations for

settlement with Seattle become protracted and extend beyond the

start of the FPC hearings, then it will be in Canada's

interests to present evidence at the FPC hearings to counter

the misleading testimony on the Canadian Skagit offered by

Seattle.

"The committee wishes to advise you that if the FPC hearings

do take place, and if the federal and provincial governments

desire a Canadian intervention to correct misleading testimony

and if they are not prepared to intervene themselves, then the

Ross Committee will prepare testimony,

[ Page 1832 ]

provided it is given notice of this requirement prior to May

1, 1973, and that adequate funds, information and manpower are made available

by the federal and provincial governments to the committee.

"The cost of such an intervention by the Ross Committee would of course be much less than the extra

compensation that Seattle might expect to receive if their

application to the FPC was successful.

"The Committee thanks you for your efforts to prevent the flooding of this valuable recreation area."

That, Madam Chairman, was sent both to the provincial

Minister and to the federal Minister of the Environment —

identical letters.

My point here is simply that apart from at least a private

answer to those letters, that this Minister, on behalf of this

Government should make a major policy statement within this

House to spell out exactly where we are going as far as the

government is concerned in the flooding of the Skagit

Valley.

I want to talk briefly about some of the logging policies of

the department in the area. Last June, under the former

Minister, we found that major logging was taking place in the

area which was scheduled to be flooded. At that time it was

found that this was a major cottonwood sale, basically to a

contractor, Allwood Contractors, which is an associate or a

subsidiary of Scott Paper — logging cottonwood for Scott Paper

actually.

After I raised this publicly last June, I learned that the

Department of Recreation and Conservation, the experts on that

side of the government, had given their advice that cottonwood

logging should not be done, and that if it was going to be

done, they said certain special guidelines should be followed.

But the forestry department at that time proceeded.

When I raised the matter publicly, the Minister, Mr.

Williston, investigated, and my understanding was that he

announced that the logging would be allowed to go forward but

that it would be done under very special and careful guidelines

which would make sure that it was only small areas, I believe,

in perhaps five acre enclaves with a number of other

regulations as to how it should be done. A further major sale

that was pending at that time was cancelled or put off. That

was the situation with the previous government early last

summer.

This fall, Madam Chairman, this new government advertised a

very small sale that was adjoining the class A Skagit

Provincial Park. Despite protests by myself, a number of

recreational groups and the ROSS Committee, considering the

sensitivity of the whole area, its possibilities for many

things, this sale was still allowed to go ahead. It was a small

sale, granted, and out of this flooded area.

Now just recently I raised a question with the Minister as

to logging that appears to be going on in the valley right now.

He didn't answer at that time, he took it as notice, and said

he would look into it. There has been no answer from the

Minister of course. Since then I have gotten further

information in regard to that logging, and I think other

Members of the House have perhaps been in the valley and seen

exactly what is going on within the last two weeks. It is still

cottonwood logging. I don't think there is any conifer logging,

which is the suspicion that I raised not knowing the facts, Mr.

Minister. But it is cottonwood logging that is going on at

present, I agree.

But I think, Madam Chairman, it is fair to say it is being

done in a very rough manner. You know, there is neat logging

and rough logging, and I don't have to define that for Members

of this House, I am sure. It is being done carelessly; logs

have been dragged through the stream.

I have told the House at great length before. The Minister

of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) knows what a fine spawning

and fishing stream this is. It is suitable for canoeing and

many other water sports of that sort. It is a very special kind

of a river bottom, and here we have large logs and logging

machinery actually being dragged across the river destroying

some of the potential spawning areas and so on.

This is maybe not of major importance in many people's eyes,

but this is not within the terms of the guidelines that in my

understanding were laid down by the former Minister, and

certainly this is not good logging practice in an area that has

become a very sensitive area. Surely, if we are as careless as

that about it, we are just giving fuel to the people in Seattle

who say, "Well, let's flood it anyway."

Of course, Madam Chairman, I would personally protest any of

the cottonwood logging because while the cottonwood is not

perhaps a very valuable tree from many points of view, one of

the problems, particularly if it is done carelessly, is what

grows back afterwards. So often it is nothing but alder and

willow and that sort of thing, and you don't have a very

satisfactory situation from the point of view of long-term

recreation in this kind of area which I think everyone in B.C.

is aware now has some potential.

And further, Madam Chairman, it is my understanding that

there is shortly to be advertised, by the Forest Service

another cottonwood sale — the one postponed by Mr. Williston

last June or July. This other sale is now about to be

advertised at the request of our friends, Scott Paper and

Allwood Contractors. Well, this particular area is just

adjoining the meadows at the south end of the valley, and one

of the prettier areas for recreational purposes.

Madam Chairman, this whole area adjoining Manning Park on the east, adjoining

the North Cascades National Park to the south in the United

[ Page

1833 ]

States, has never really been studied for its park and

recreation facilities by this government. The Parks Branch has

just never had time to get at it. I think they'd like to take a

look at it. The former government dedicated this tiny little

class A park which was really designed to be a little campsite — that was about all. But because of the potential in that area,

we have suggested repeatedly — myself and many other groups —

of the possibilities of an international park across the border

between the North Cascades and Manning.

Now, adjoining this area to the west is another valley where

there are some problems that have still not been clarified —

the Chilliwack Valley. Now the Chilliwack is a very beautiful

valley, a very beautiful lake, and it has been an excellent

source of logs for the industry. But there are new streams, new

creeks where harvesting plans are about to be approved, I

understand — Centre Creek, Foley Creek — and the information

that I have been given, Madam Chairman, says that these new

harvesting plans that are about to be approved in the

Chilliwack Valley don't really meet the guidelines recently

published by the department in terms of fish protection,

spawning protection, elevation of logging and so on.

Immediately at the south end of Chilliwack Lake is a small

area that I talked to this House about previously; I've told

the story of Sapper Park. Well, Sapper Park doesn't exist. Two

years ago now, a campsite, a campground and some other

buildings and bridges were put up by a contingent of sappers

who came all the way from Great Britain — British Army sappers.

Sapper Park was dedicated two years ago; it was a centennial

project for British Columbia.

Well, two years have gone by, Madam Chairman, and the Parks

Branch and the Forest Service have still not been able to agree

on the boundaries of this park that was dedicated two years

ago. It just almost adjoins the international border, and it is

a very, very beautiful campground at the south end of

Chilliwack Lake.

So with all of these things in this area, we are still going

ahead with logging which appears to be unsatisfactory in areas

that are politically sensitive and definitely have not been

examined by the parks people as to their potential for either a

provincial park or as the great international playground — park — recreational area that many of us have suggested. It would be

within only two hours or an hour-and-a-half of downtown

Vancouver.

There are some other problems that are still around, Madam

Chairman, that I have raised with the former Minister on which

we have heard no pronouncements by the new Minister. I think

these are policy matters that he should make an announcement

on.

One of the major things that I raised the last two years with the former Minister

was the matter of the Nitinat Triangle — the Tsusiat-Hobiton-Squalicum

watershed — and the desirability of its inclusion in Pacific Rim National

Park. Buried away in all of the things that were going on during the election

last August was a quiet little announcement from Mr. Williston — most people

I don't think even noticed — which said that the government had made the decision

to include part of the Nitinat Triangle in Pacific Rim National Park. I haven't

heard another single word, either from that former Minister or from the present

Minister, with regard to the policy in that regard.

I am not going to go all through it now, but in the last

speech I made in the estimates of this department I spelled out

at great length the reasons why the Tsusiat-Hobiton-Squalicum

watershed should be included in the Pacific Rim National Park.

We arranged for slides and movie and pictures and so on to be

shown across the hall in one of the committee rooms, and many

of the Members saw those pictures and slides and movies.

I suggested a specific proposal to use some of the

unsatisfactorily restocked areas in the lower coastal forest on

Vancouver Island and the lower mainland where, from the

evidence that I can accumulate, there is room for a serious

negotiation between the government and the forest industry to

arrange for reasonable compensation to them for the timber they

would lose, and perhaps more importantly, for the future timber

they would lose so that this could be negotiated.

We have never been able to learn whether anything has been

done on this. The whole thing has gone into limbo, of course,

with the change of government. So I ask this Minister to spell

out the policy of his Government in this regard.

I think finally, Madam Chairman, my concern would be that

61/2 months have now gone by since this Minister took office

with, from the point of view of industry and employment in

British Columbia perhaps the most important portfolio in the

Government.

[Mr. Dent in the chair]

This is the industry that claims 50 cents of every dollar in

British Columbia is developed from its activities. We know that

throughout the forest industry there is a feeling of

uncertainty, a feeling of fear, without question because of

bills that are in this House. In the mining industry, the

investment industry there is a feeling of fear; they know

what's being done to them.

Mr. Chairman, the forest industry simply doesn't

[ Page 1834 ]

know what's going to happen. There is certainly no track

record so far and there's no performance that we can spend a

lot of time criticizing. But I think my major criticism is that

we've gone 61/2 months with this Minister in the Government and

we've gone through two months in this session of the

Legislature and there has been no major policy pronouncements

as to the forest industry from this Minister.

I think the Minister has a responsibility to present those

policies to this House and to British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want

to say a few things here today on the different jurisdictions

of this Minister. First of all, to go back to his statement

about the northwest part of the province. When he spoke earlier

in his estimates that they pledge help for that area, I would

like to congratulate him on that. They certainly do need help

in the northwest part.

There has been a recent development, Mr. Chairman, and I

wonder whether the help has been directed in the right way. It

came to a head in Smithers where the highly-respected mayor

there resigned along with one of his aldermen to get the

community feeling apparently. The mayor has been re-elected by

acclamation. It's all over the establishment, as I understand

it, of a veneer plant in that area. Some people are opposed to

it but obviously a majority are in favour of it.

My question to the Minister is: what is going to happen

there? Are you negotiating with the companies that are

interested to go in there and, if you are, what stage are you

at?

I believe that community certainly needs something. You said

earlier you'd look after the northwest part of the province

overall. I think you've got a chance here. I am wondering, in

other words, whether this company has applied for timber, where

you are at with them and so on.

The forest industry the last speaker said, was responsible

for 50 cents of every dollar of our economy. That's correct; I

guess it is the most important part of the economy of the

Province of British Columbia. Overall, I think the industry has

done a fairly good job.

While there have been some failures — and the Minister was quite fast to show

them — I'd like to relate some successes in the industry that have happened

right in my own riding of Cariboo. I might say that 50 per cent of the economy

of the Cariboo riding is certainly derived from forestry.

I think we have something to be very proud of. We have

sawmills, plywood plants, planer mills and a pulp mill. They

are using the log in the right manner; the log goes through the

sawmill, on to the planer mill or the veneer plant and the

waste from these operations is then consumed in the new pulp

mill at Quesnel which, by the way, is now on stream and up to

full capacity in short order. There is very little smell from

it, Mr. Chairman. Everybody is fairly happy with it and it

employs a lot of people.

The other thing that has happened with this integrated

industry — and I think that this is what's wrong where they've

had the trouble in Prince Rupert, for instance, and still have

trouble. I don't think they'll ever be economic there until

they build a new, modern pulp mill. I hope, Mr. Chairman,

through you to the Minister, that the Government realizes that

until they get a mill that can exist on waste from the product

of the sawmill or plywood plant or both, I don't think they can

afford the economics of using round logs, taking them 400 and

500 miles as they're doing there and then converting them into

chips. It seems to be that a far better use of the raw product

could be made than that. And back into the Cariboo, that is

exactly what's happening.

The other point concerns the operations in my hometown of

Quesnel which have been successful. Last August 31, the beehive

burners there went out of existence because the sawmills put

hoggers in their operations and this hog fuel is now going to

the pulp mill and they're generating their own steam and

electricity from this other waste product from the trees. My

question to the Minister — and this is one of the other hats

that he wears — is what is the overall policy on beehive

burners to phase them out wherever they might be in the

Province of British Columbia?

In Quesnel, they've been phased out because there's no

longer any need for them, but there are problems at Williams

Lake,100 Mile House, and I don't think the citizens should

have to put up with these too much longer. I want to know how

much longer this is going to go on.

Some companies are upgrading their standards and others

aren't. I think it's about time, if it hasn't already been

done, that there should be some guidelines. Do you have a

burner that will meet the guidelines for pollution control? I

believe there is, but I would like to hear what you intend to

do.

In the case of the Cariboo, we can't put hoggers on the mills at Williams Lake

and take the hog fuel to Quesnel because it's just not economic to haul this

hog fuel that far. It's all right where the mills are near

[ Page

1835 ]

the pulp mill but not that far away. This is something that

I think we should move on a little faster.

I'd like now to go into grazing, which comes under the

Forest Service. We have a lot of grazing problems in Cariboo

and, I think, wherever there are cattle on Crown land. I

attend many grazing meetings where they discuss their problems.

Some things you hear you like and some you don't, but in some

cases there seems to be overgrazing.

Lately we've had a lot of publicity about a large ranch in

my riding, the Gang Ranch. There's an apparent conflict there

over wildlife — but I believe it's properly discussed under the

grazing division of the forestry. The Gang Ranch has some 8,000

head of cattle with 827,000 acres under lease for grazing.

In that general area they have this unique band of big horn

sheep. Whether or not the cattle are eating their forage, I

don't know, but I really think something should be done in

there. The forestry division should get together with the

wildlife and get the range back for the sheep so they can be

properly looked after without too much effect on the ranch

operation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Lacking coordination between government

departments.

MR. FRASER: Yes. I think two government departments there

should coordinate more, quit their squabbling and fighting and

settle this local problem.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Attacking each other in

the Press.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: Do you call that a sham battle?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. FRASER: As I said earlier, the Gang Ranch has under

lease 827,000 acres of Crown land for grazing. But in the

general area that was written up in the newspaper, it wasn't

told that there is a further 3,679,000 of Crown land. So the

Gang Ranch, while they have large holdings, are certainly only

part of a very large area — that is the point I am trying to

bring out. I think in view of this, through you Mr. Minister,

we can get this problem resolved about the abuse — if there is

abuse — of the Crown range. I doubt that there is.

Still on grazing, I heard something that I didn't like to hear going to cattlemen's

grazing meetings — and the Forest Service people I might say are very good at

attending these meetings. In the Cariboo, the forest rangers announced last

fall to the cattlemen all over the riding that they would no longer come to

meetings called on weekends and that they would even

look dimly on going to evening meetings. I would like to tell the Minister that

I don't think these forest rangers should be telling the people who pay their

wages this sort of thing. I was wondering if this had been brought to your attention

before.

It is most inconvenient for cattlemen to go to meetings in

the daytime. They're working hard, they drive maybe 100 miles

to go to a meeting and it's most convenient for them to go to

evening meetings. But this word has been passed all over the

Cariboo: "You arrange your annual meetings and meetings where

the grazing permits are issued at the convenience of the forest

ranger, not the citizen." I would like you to comment. Maybe

you'll have to issue instructions, but I think that the

procedure should be reversed. Maybe you don't know about

it.

There's something that I'd like to discuss in the lands

department. We always have a lot of land problems in the

Cariboo that are different from the lower mainland. I'm talking

about the disposal of Crown lands for any purposes.

It was recently brought to my attention that the land

inspectors at Williams Lake are telling the citizens that we

only have a straight lease policy for disposition of

agricultural Crown land.

I realize there has been a policy change for industrial and

commercial lands to straight lease, but this is being confused

again by land inspectors. I would like to see, Mr. Minister,

that this is clarified through the department that the citizen

is given the proper information that the lease to purchase

still exists where agricultural Crown land is involved.

I would like now to discuss a couple of smaller items but

important to my riding. It isn't all milk and honey in the

forest division of the Cariboo — I refer to the closing of a

planer mill at Hixson. Hixson is the most northerly community

in my riding and supports around 400 citizens. A large company,

Netherlands Overseas, has timber rights in that area. They have

built a large planer mill at Prince George and now instead of

the lumber being planed in Hixson they have decided it is more

economical to take the lumber to Prince George.

I will say that the company has said that no jobs will be

lost. I think that is correct — they mean that. But who wants

to commute 45 miles every day to work and back? That is what

they would have to do to work in a planer mill at Prince

George. I think that planer mill is still there, and I am

wondering if the forestry department would see that this is

re-opened, in view of the fact they hold the timber in the

immediate area of this small community of Hixson.

The other community that is in trouble over different things

going on is the community of Clinton, which doesn't have much

of a payroll. There have been some closures there by operators

that shouldn't be allowed to get away with what they did. I

would like to hear from the Minister whether the

[ Page 1836 ]

forestry department is doing anything about that. This

community of Clinton certainly needs the employment. The timber

from that area has not left the area, but I would like to know

if the forestry department is encouraging operators to get in

there and put in a plant to cut it before somebody gets the

bright idea that they can truck it 100 miles to another community that maybe doesn't need the uplift that

old Clinton needs.

The last speaker said that the forest industry were upset

and had fear. I am not so sure that that is correct, but I

would like to hear, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister,

that there have been very few forest policy changes. I am

wondering if he is ready to announce any new ones, and I think

that that is what is concerning the industry — policy changes

in the way they dispose of timber. There are several ways that

timber is being disposed of, but I am just wondering if there

are going to be any policy changes on how they do dispose of

timber. It is now on a quota system and so on. I'm talking

about the larger level. Are you contemplating a change in

policy through disposition of this timber or not?

I think, Mr. Chairman, that timber is certainly contributing

its share now to the coffers. I know you people — the new

Government — are concerned with what we are getting out of it,

but I see you have $100 million out of stumpage in 1972. 1

think that is quite adequate. That's good, that's fine, I hope

it goes up more this year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Could we have a little more

quiet in the House, please?

MR. FRASER: I really think that the timber industry

generally is certainly paying its right and just price for the

resource as maybe other natural resources are not. I really

think the timber industry is certainly paying theirs.

We hear a lot about reforestation. I think, Mr. Chairman,

that some of the citizens of the province think that no

reforestation is going on in our province at all. This, of

course, has not been the case. Maybe it can be stepped up — I

hope it is.

I have a

schedule in front of me — I don't intend to read it — on reforestation. In 1940 there were 3 million seedlings

planted, covering 4,000 acres. In 1972 the number of seedlings

has gone to 48 million and 111,000 acres. It is projected to go

up almost double that again in the next three or four years.

Between the natural reseeding and what has been done by

industry and government, certainly it is not all completely a

rip-off, with the forest forgotten about, as they tried to

convince the public was the case.

While I am on the subject of reseeding and so on — the forest service side —

I would like to hear from the Minister whether university people will be hired

as they were in the past under the stepped-up reforestation

programme, because a lot of young people enjoy this outdoor work and they are,

I think, excellent working people.

I have asked you a few questions now so I will sit down and

see how you answer those.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Maybe we can

start at the end and work back. On the question of employment

of students this coming summer, it is our expectation — these

are young people, generally — that we will be employing 1,000

young people this summer to work in this sector in the forest

service.

With respect to the question of Hixson in the northern end

of the Cariboo riding, the sawmill will certainly remain.

Pretty well everything else was in motion some time ago. I have

been contacted by the Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler)

regarding the same problem and there is every expectation that

the sawmill will continue. That employment base, at least, will

remain.

As to the question of policy with respect to agricultural

lands, if the inspector in the area indicates that leasehold

only is the policy, then he is incorrect. The policy will allow

indefeasible title to such agricultural lands as are acquired.

The title, however, from here on in, I think — a release was

made yesterday or might have been processed today — in effect

will align with the Land Commission Act. As a result the

title to those lands will be affected in the sense that the use

shall be for agricultural purposes. So, in effect, the

development rights beyond agricultural use will remain with the

Province of British Columbia.

The question of the Gang Ranch and grazing: The differences

expressed in public by some of the civil servants is a kind of

change in this province. You never used to hear it before. Some

of the young biologists and so on who have been concerned about

inadequate practices of the past have kept their mouths shut in

the past. They are not afraid to speak now, so I am not

disturbed. I think it is a fairly healthy interim

situation.

They are a group on the whole that I think have been

repressed in the past and I think they have had a real input to

make in terms of integrated resource management plans. They

haven't really in the past had a chance of having an input. We

are changing that, we are increasing the staffing in that

section, we think, to the point where we are hiring as many as

we can assimilate in a year. I think there are limitations in

terms of assimilation.

I am a little disappointed that that particular one was

raised because the whole question was in motion.

[ Page 1837 ]

We have had inquiries with respect to the Gang Ranch as to

whether there would be any new policies with respect to

transfer of the Crown leases and permits with respect to the

ranch. We have reviewed the question and had determined a

policy which we announced a week or so ago, with respect to

transfer of these assets to non-resident non-nationals. We

indicated that we would not approve the transfer of these major

land assets to non-resident non-nationals.

Beyond that, the staff were again working jointly with the

Fish and Wildlife people and the Lands Branch regarding some

kind of rationalization of the situation. As a result, right in

process, and it has been for a couple of months, is a proposed

programme of shifting the land ownership or lease ownership

pattern. The key lands that are used by the sheep would, in

fact, be separated and would become an area of management for

wildlife purposes. That has never been attempted before that I

am aware of in these situations. It is a rationalizing of the

situation.

What is anticipated at this stage is a 7,000 acre trade.

That is, some of the Crown's holdings in the northerly part of

the ranch would be shifted. The sheep area to the south and the

west would, in fact, become an intensive management area for

that purpose. A 7,000 acre tract would be preserved along the

river, in the higher elevations in the canyon for that purpose.

I think that's a major, worthwhile step, carried out again by

staff in a couple of departments getting together and working

out a good solution.

I frankly think that it will be a good solution for the

ranchers too. I think we'll end up with some smaller ranches.

I'm not convinced that bigness is automatically better. Maybe

three ranches or whatever as presently proposed — the northerly

one is Risky Creek, is it? That might well be a smaller ranch

and might be a viable and useful ranching unit, as well as

other parts of the Gang Ranch. So we might well have a good

integrated solution in terms of ranching and wildlife

management. I commend the staff for their work in that

regard.

The question of north-western British Columbia is one that

concerns us very much. I indicated that when we started on the

estimates eight days ago or something like that. I think the

major study that the Forest Service has carried out under my

jurisdiction, at least as I see it, is with respect to

northwestern British Columbia and the resource base. That's

essentially the resource along the Canadian National Railroad

line between Prince George and Prince Rupert.

As I indicated earlier, throughout the last six months we've looked at this

area quite intensively.The Forest Service report is only now complete. I think

it's an excellent piece of work and a base for new policy and decision-making

in the immediate or near future. Indelibly intertwined is the whole question

of transportation. I think the previous administration really proved that out,

in terms of linking B.C. Rail policy with respect to resource policy. They really

have to be looked at together.

The problem in north-western B.C. has been that there hasn't

been quite that approach with respect to the Canadian National

Rail line. That doesn't mean to say that that in itself will

solve the problems of that area, but it's a beginning. I'm

hopeful that, again in the reasonably near future, some

announcements can be made with respect to changes in policy by

Canadian National with respect to the forest resource.

The question of Smithers and the Richmond Plywood proposal

with respect to a veneer plant initially: I think the firm

feasibility study and proposal was received about two weeks

ago. I'm not close to the internal politics of Smithers. I've

received communications from various people in the community.

The decision will be made with respect to Richmond Plywood,

along with other applications in the area, in relation to this

overall study that has been carried out by the Forest Service.

We hope to resolve most of these questions soon after the

session prorogues or earlier, depending on the session of

course.

The problems of the mills in Prince Rupert and Kitimat are

similar. The need for residual supply for the mills at Watson

Island and in Kitimat is a major problem for the north-west.

There's no question that sawmill capacity along the Canadian

National line has to be increased substantially, so that there

is a substantially increased residual supply for the mills in

those two communities.

There's no question that the future of those mills is

entirely dependent upon residual supply and transportation

improvements in the region. If those two things don't go hand

in hand, the mills in both locations are in trouble. I think

that's been apparent for some time. It's unfortunate that the

problem was not perceived at an earlier stage. It is

appreciated as one of the major problems facing this

administration and it's one that we intend to pursue seriously

and take action on, again in the immediate and near future.

The future of those towns and that region is dependent upon

action by this Government, the federal government and the

companies involved, including the national railway. It's a kind

of grand problem and one in which all the pieces have to be

linked. I hope that it can be resolved in the reasonably near

future. It's extremely serious and the future of those towns is

dependent upon a bold plan of action for the northwest.

The question of beehive burners — this is sort of a laundry

list — the standards have been established. The date for the

new standards is 1975. There are burners that can meet the

standards. That's the programme that's underway.

The question of hog fuel is a difficult one. I'm

[ Page 1838 ]

aware that it's a real concern among the Cariboo lumbermen.

It's one that I certainly want to spend some time on, again in

the reasonably near future. B.C. Hydro have carried out some

studies of their own with respect to the use of hog fuel as a

power source on Vancouver Island. All studies to date have

indicated that it's not economic. I think further study would

be worthwhile. Some questioning of the assumptions and other

policies of Hydro might well be deserved in this area, so that

we might jointly solve the problem. But I see that as taking a

period of time.

The question of the Nitinat Triangle raised by the Hon.

Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson): I don't

think there's much disagreement about the park potential of the

lake basin at the southern end of the Pacific Rim National

Park. However, it is complex and there are tenures and tree

farm licenses in the area, as the Member knows. We're not

prepared, therefore, to move right in on that particular

question. However, we want to keep the option open. The matter

will be reviewed pretty closely, I think, in the fall.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The deadline has been extended one year,

as a matter of fact. There was a deadline of this spring. I

believe that the deadline has either been extended or is in the

process of being extended. So I think we have some leeway, and

I appreciate the concern with respect to that particular

wilderness area so close to this part of Vancouver Island.

The question of the Chilliwack Valley that the Member

raised: at the south end of Chilliwack Lake — those are simply

company proposals. They have not been reviewed by the Forest

Service staff. We'll certainly keep our eye on that area. I'm

familiar with the north end of Chilliwack Lake and appreciate

the quality of the area.

With respect to the Sapper Park: it was established, I

understand, by the army engineers at Chilliwack. I was

unfamiliar with it until the Member raised it. It's something

I'll check into further.

The question of Skagit Valley: there's no question, Mr.

Chairman, that we're most serious about the decisions made to

date by this Government. We're determined to see that the

Skagit is preserved from flooding. I think it must be fairly

clear to all Members that these decisions aren't made lightly.

The decision was made and the announcement was made. It was

when this House was not in session but I would reaffirm

everything that has been said outside this House by the Members

of this administration. We have no intent of changing our

position with respect to added flooding of the Skagit.

With respect to the ROSS Committee letter: I hadn't seen the letter till the

Member raised it. I will pursue it and see that we respond to it. Of course,

discussions are still going on with our own federal government with respect

to the Skagit. They will continue and I'm rather optimistic regarding our relationship

with the federal government.

The point is that this Government is serious about the

question. The kind of compensation that was acceptable in the

past by the former administration for the destruction of

valleys such as this shows it up, I think, for what it really

is, when you hear the kind of talk by some parties in the

United States at this time. That is that compensation to

British Columbia for the flooding of the valley was acceptable

at a $32,000 a year figure. Yet, some Americans are talking

about — now, this is not looking at the legalities involved, in

terms of the agreement, which we have some doubts about, as we

indicated earlier — but some Americans are saying the

compensation should be in the realm of $10 million to $40

million. Yet the deal made by the former Minister and the

former administration was $32,000 a year. That's the kind of

slick horse trader that that former administration had.

Compensation of $32,000 a year, and yet Americans talking about

$10 million to $40 million in terms of the assets.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, but they're businessmen.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, that's it. You know, it's an

indication I think, Mr. Chairman, of the kind of colonial

cooperation that the former administration was willing to live

with. This administration will not tolerate that kind of

colonial cooperation. I think those are the main things.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I will stifle any thoughts I might have of answering the

Minister's last comments because I want to get on with the

future.

I would like to again bring to the Minister's attention, and

ask him some questions with regard to the Youngstrom property

acquisition in the North Okanagan. This land, which was

acquired by a person of considerable concern to the people —

and that isn't really relevant in the debate — but has caused a

lot of concern.

This land is 230 acres of what is considered by the

Minister's department to be some to the prime winter grazing

land in the whole of the Okanagan. It's on the Shuswap River,

between Shuswap and about 10 miles down the road. It's right in

the centre of what they call the Byers Range which runs from

Shuswap up past Cherryville, just off Highway 6, in behind

Lumby.

It's a piece of land, this particular 320 acres, part

[ Page

1839 ]

of which was cleared a number of years ago as a farm. It's prime grouse area,

and as I mentioned, it's prime winter feeding area for deer. About three years

ago there was one piece of Crown land in that area which the Department of Conservation

recommended be declared winter grazing for deer and this was done.

This land adjoins that and forms part of another major area

well over 1,000 acres which would, I believe, be recommended by

the Minister's department as a reserve for winter grazing of

deer.

The land itself has changed hands twice in the last few

years; out of an estate into other hands and is now in the

hands of an individual who may not even be allowed into

Canada.

But the point is, the amount of money that we're discussing

is between $35,000 and $40,000. I understand that the parties

involved would be amenable to negotiation.

My question to the Minister is: would he, or would he

designate some member of his department or the greenbelt

protection committee to at least examine

(1) The Department of

Conservation's recommendation as to the advisability of this

piece of land as a winter grazing area.

(2) If they

substantiate what I said very briefly in this House, would the

Minister consider entering into negotiations with a view to

acquiring that land for this purpose, taking one more step into

the preservation of one of the most ideal winter grazing areas

in British Columbia?

I'm sure that the Minister is aware that in the Okanagan

we're moving up the mountainsides — very much so — bordering on

our forestry areas and our park areas. And as such, the deer

are moving further and further into the back lands and the

problem of winter grazing is becoming increasingly

difficult.

There is more acreage right in the Byers Range which is for

sale, but this is a matter which I'm sure those people can

discuss individually with the Minister's department.

There is conflict around this purchase. The Minister himself

has said that he is going to take action regarding the

acquisition of lands in British Columbia on a large basis. As I

mentioned before, I think some consideration should be given to

whether or not people with an indictable offence against them —

who are aliens and who may not even be allowed into the country — should have the right to purchase lands in British Columbia,

particularly agricultural or grazing lands. I would ask if he

would take this matter under advisement if he is drafting

legislation.

It takes five years to become a Canadian citizen and that is

certainly a very suitable time for someone who moves to British

Columbia or Canada to declare their intention of being a good

citizen or not, as the case may be.

Another matter that I would like to ask the Minister about — with regard to

the Green Belt Protection Fund — and that's in relation to the

exceptions that have been made to the land freeze in British Columbia.

It involves a piece of property known as the Kawana

property, in the area of Winfield, which was agricultural land.

It was prime fruit production land and this man had subdivided

before the freeze came on, or he had undertaken a lot of

work.

As I understand it, an exception was made and I wonder if

these pieces of land did come before the multi-land-use

committee, or whatever committee is designated to handle the

Green Belt Fund. And was any consideration given to purchasing

this land on a fair basis?

His costs had been established before the freeze took place

and a fair and equitable settlement could have been made to

preserve this land. If it did come before, and it was turned

down, would the Minister please give the reasons as to why it

was turned down as a possible purchase under the Green Belt

Protection Fund, and kept in agriculture?

I'd like to talk to the Minister about an area which I think

he knows very well. It's involved in the Coldstream Ranch, and

it's Cousins Bay. I've tried to contact the Minister on this on

several occasions and have not been successful. This is a

unique piece of property in British Columbia. It's

approximately 2,000 acres of some of the most extraordinary

dryland in B.C. It has a vast volume of bird species and