1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 2, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2911 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Vancouver arson investigation. Mr. Phillips — 2911

Testimony of Professor Tussing before Energy Commission. Mr. D.A. Anderson

— 2911

Statements regarding Dominion Bridge Co. Ltd. Mr. Wallace — 2912

Oil refinery in Surrey. Mr. McClelland — 2912

Use of ferry system by government vehicles. Mr. Curtis — 2913

Refusal of JP to lay charge. MT. D.A. Anderson — 2913

Committee on provision of services to children. Mr. Phillips — 2913

PWA head office relocation. Mr. Gibson — 2914

Guidelines for debt collection agency. Mr. Wallace — 2914

Formation of B.C. Steamships, 1975, Ltd. Mr. Curtis — 2914

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

On vote 126.

Mr. Fraser — 2915

Appendix — 2947

MONDAY, JUNE 2, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, seated

in the gallery today in their crimson blazers are 65 students

from Trafalgar Junior-Senior Secondary school band. They are

accompanied by their teacher Dave Glackin and also by Currie

Chapman and by Margaret Hornby, one of the parents. I ask the

House to give them all a very warm welcome.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the press gallery

will be smoking cigars today because one of their members, Mr.

Mike Hughes, and his wife are the proud parents of an 8-lb.,

15-oz. boy. They are calling him Gregory Robert and it's Mike's

second son.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I ask the House today

to welcome a delegation from Malaysia. The leader of the

delegation, Mr. Yap is the senior officer in the Ministry of

Culture, Youth and Sport in Malaysia. He has with him four

regional youth officers, Mr. Mohammed, Mr. Shaari, Mr. Suffion

and Mr. Zacharia. They are here on a study tour of Canada in

preparation for 35 young people coming from Malaysia under the

Canada World Youth programme this fall. I ask the House to bid

them welcome.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, in Victoria

today and hopefully in the gallery a little later are some

students from Aldergrove Secondary School accompanied by their

teachers, Paul Esposito and Ed Nercessian. I would like the

House to make them welcome.

Oral questions.

VANCOUVER ARSON INVESTIGATION

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

direct my question to the Attorney-General. With regard to the

investigation which the Attorney-General promised me he would

carry out surrounding the rash of arson fires in the Vancouver

area, has this investigation been carried out?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): I spoke with the

fire marshal. He is investigating these fires but he is not

ready to make a report.

MR. PHILLIPS: Was there a special investigation carried out by any person

other than the provincial fire marshal himself? Was there somebody appointed

to carry out such an investigation?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I only know that the fire marshal's

office, as is done with all fires of a serious nature, is

making an investigation. There may be somebody else, too, but I

don't know. Probably the municipal fire departments involved

would make their own investigation also.

MR. PHILLIPS: A further supplementary. Would the

Attorney-General advise me when the report will be available? I

see that there have been more arson fires reported

recently.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, it's a serious problem. I

don't want to undertake right away to make the report public,

because sometimes it is based on information, belief, rumours

and things of that kind that might even involve the reputation

and even involve a potential court case. I have no objection to

sharing with the Hon. Member the information I received from

the fire marshal's office.

TESTIMONY OF PROFESSOR TUSSING

BEFORE ENERGY COMMISSION

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Premier, Mr. Speaker.

May I ask the Premier whether he has discussed with Professor

Arlon Tussing of the University of Alaska his proposal to have

all mineral and hydrocarbon exploration carried out by a Crown

corporation?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not specifically, Mr. Speaker, although I

met Mr. Tussing in New York.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: At the dinner. Yes, he was there at the

dinner. I thought he was a moss-backed Tory, but I was

incorrect. He's further ahead than most of us.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Premier then

whether Professor Tussing came to British Columbia to testify

before the B.C. Energy Commission at his suggestion?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sorry?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Whether Professor Tussing came to testify

before the B.C. Energy Commission at the suggestion of the

Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, not at my suggestion. As a matter of fact, I didn't

know he was going to be there testifying.

[ Page 2912 ]

STATEMENT REGARDING

DOMINION BRIDGE CO. LTD.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the

Minister of Economic Development with regard to his statement

about the decision by Dominion Bridge Co. Ltd. to pull out of

the fabricated steel market in B.C. and his comments about

using the B.C. Development Corp. to provide low interest rates...?

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I haven't got to the question yet.

Do the Minister's statements and actions on this issue

represent the policy of his department to use the B.C.

Development Corp. as a political tool to coerce the business

sector of the economy in this province?

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): Mr.

Speaker, the development corporation has been asked to review

the number of fabricators in the province and see if they need

special assistance. We do not propose to encourage fabricated

steel being fabricated in Alberta for use in B.C. If that can

be avoided. That's the gist of my comments.

In addition to that, with respect to the 300 families that

will not have their breadwinners employed, we're going to take

every measure possible through this government to ensure that

they find other employment.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In the light of

some of the statements attributed to the Minister, including

his statement that Dominion Bridge Co. Ltd. had blamed the

present glut to steel on the market on the NDP government, has

the Minister any evidence to back up his statement that

Dominion Bridge Co. Ltd. took the position that it was all the

fault of the NDP government that there is a glut of fabricated

steel product?

HON. MR. LAUK: I'll take the question as notice, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): On a

supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since the Minister doesn't appear

to know the answer to that one, does he still intend to carry

out his reprisal threats against the company whose major sin

appears to have been telling the truth about what's happening

to investment in this province under the NDP?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR: J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Supplementary, Mr.

Speaker. In view of the Minister's intemperate threat to

Dominion Bridge Co. Ltd., I was wondering if he will shortly be

taking punitive action against the owners of the 15 major ore

bodies that are not being developed in this province because of

excessive royalty demands by the government.

HON. MR. LAUK: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

OIL REFINERY IN SURREY

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier

concerning the picking up of the options by the B.C. Petroleum

Corp. over the weekend on the land in Surrey. The president of

the B.C. Petroleum Corp., James Rhodes, said over the weekend

that Surrey would be the ideal choice for the proposed

refinery. I wonder if the Premier could tell the House on what

studies that comment by the president of the corporation was

made.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The chairman of the petroleum corporation

informed me this morning that his statement was to the effect

that all three locations now considered in the running the

ideal locations — all three.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. Would the

Premier tell us whether or not all of the studies will be made

available to Surrey council, and whether they will be made

available in open council meetings, and whether or not public

hearings will be held on the results of these studies?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, through you, the refinery

will not be built in any location where the council is not in

agreement with the material and the method they want to handle

the material — the method they want to handle the material. The

council itself.

MR. McCLELLAND: That's not what I asked.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sorry?

MR. McCLELLAND: That's not what I asked.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The council will determine that; I'm not

going to determine that for the council, Mr. Member. That would

be undue interference by the government.

MR. McCLELLAND: Supplementary, Mr.

[ Page 2913 ]

Speaker. Will the Premier tell us, if council decides they

want to have the studies discussed in open public meetings, and

if the council decides that it wishes to have public hearings

on the results of those studies, will the government then agree

to that proposal?

MR. SPEAKER: A question cannot be hypothetical. I think the

Hon. Member knows that.

HON. MR, BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I can't answer that until the

council makes those requests.

MR. McCLELLAND: Do you agree to that or not?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't be silly.

MR. SPEAKER: According to our authorities, it says that

questions must not be hypothetical. Now if that isn't

hypothetical, I don't know what the word "hypo" means.

USE OF FERRY SYSTEM

BY GOVERNMENT VEHICLES

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Minister

of Transport and Communications on the subject of B.C. Ferries:

can the Minister inform the House if instructions have been

issued, verbally or in writing, to most or all provincial

government departments prohibiting or discouraging the

transportation of government vehicles on B.C. Ferries routes,

and if the instruction has been issued that such employees who

must travel in the course of their ordinary duties are to use

aircraft instead?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and

Communications) : I would have to check that one out.

REFUSAL OF JP TO LAY CHARGE

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): May I ask the Attorney-General

whether he has ordered an inquiry into the refusal of a justice

of the peace in the Victoria area to pursue a charge laid by a

private citizen, one Michael Roach, who I believe was in touch

with the Attorney-General both last week and this week as

well?

HON. MR, MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I understand a charge was

issued in that case, but I am making informal inquiries so I

will be fully informed about the situation.

COMMITTEE ON PROVISION

OF SERVICES TO CHILDREN

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to direct my question to the Hon.

Premier. With regard to the committee announced in the budget

speech on Friday, February 28, to decide what basic services

should be provided and how they should be provided to all

children, regardless of where they are educated, will the

Premier advise the House who is the chairman of this

committee?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs.

Dailly) is the chairman.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the

Minister advise me how many meetings the committee has

held?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'd ask you to ask the Minister in

charge.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister in

charge, but I would have thought the Premier would have done

his homework before going to talk to 500 schools. I don't want

to be argumentative. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, no. The Minister responsible will give

you the reply that there have been several preliminary

meetings, plus two formal meetings of the committee, and all

further information you would like from the Minister.

(Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to ask the Premier — and he can get the

information from the Minister of Education if he desires — has

the committee appointed any representatives from those groups

which are directly affected or involved, such as the Federation

of Independent Schools or the B.C. School Trustees

Association?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I suggest you ask the Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: You must ask the Minister responsible for a

particular jurisdiction.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, with all due

respect, it was the Premier who announced the committee and he

did speak to 500 school children on Friday last about this

particular situation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

[ Page 2914 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Then I'll ask the Minister of Education. Have

any appointments been made from these other groups, Madam

Minister?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): There have been

several preliminary meetings of the cabinet members alone, and

there has been consultation informally with the Independent

Schools Association and the trustees.

MR. PHILLIPS: But you haven't appointed anybody.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No, but representation from those groups

will be taking place very shortly.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just one final supplementary question. Will

there be a preliminary report released prior to the final

report on August 1, as called for in the budget speech?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No decision has been made on that.

PWA HEAD OFFICE RELOCATION

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier on a

subject I've asked him questions about before. In view of the

fact that at the annual meeting of PWA the chairman made only a

very conditional guarantee about the head office remaining in

Vancouver — he said for at least 12 months — is the government

now prepared to intervene in the Canadian Transport Commission

hearings which will discuss the takeover of this airline by

Alberta?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm confused. Are you

suggesting that we threaten PWA if they move their office out

of B.C.?

MR. GIBSON: No, I'm suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that the office

should stay in B.C. and the government should do something

about that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, if that includes threats, Mr.

Member, I'm not quite sure. It appears to me that there is some

confusion within the 15 minutes of the question period.

However, I will take your request to threaten the company under

notice.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, there was

no suggestion of threatening. My question was whether the

government was going to intervene. The Premier is an expert at

that.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're still leader, David.

He just blew that one.

GUIDELINES FOR

DEBT COLLECTION AGENCY

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General. With

regard to the new debt collection agency staffed by ex-RCMP

officers and established to deal with persons who don't pay

their provincial fines, what specific guidelines do the members

of this enforcement agency have in order to decide which

individuals should be taken before the small debts court, which

then of course has the opportunity to jail the offenders for 10

days?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: All fines unpaid will be within the

purview of the enforcement officer. I would think they would

not come back to the small claims court. They might in some

cases, if a civil judgment can be collected there easily — I

suppose that is one route to go — but basically they come back

before the provincial judge in the regular provincial

court.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In light of the

fact that the chief enforcement officer, Mr. Newson says there

are unpaid bylaw fines in Vancouver of only $ 1,000, and since

he has said that numerous man-hours will be spent to collect

very small fines, can the Minister tell the House the estimated

costs of this agency and the estimated total of unpaid

fines?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Not right away, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WALLACE: Will you take that as notice?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll take it as notice. I'll make a

statement on the office.

FORMATION OF B.C. STEAMSHIPS, 1975, LTD.

MR. CURTIS: To the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources: many hundreds of British Columbians travelled on and

enjoyed the newest government acquisition this weekend.

However, it would appear on the basis of a variety of printed

material that we were guests, or at least passengers, of a

non-existent company — that is, the British Columbia steamship

company.

Legislation is coming forward, the Minister indicated.

Interjection.

MR. CURTIS: No, the question is directed to the Minister,

not to Captain Crunch.

[ Page 2915 ]

Would the Minister indicate if at this time and pending the

introduction of legislation the employees on the vessel and

shore side are the employees of your department, or employees

of a company that is not yet approved by the Legislature?

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

Mr. Speaker, the last charge that we had the Titanic came from the leader of

the Liberals, and we made $70 million subsequent to that public investment.

At any rate, the company is British Columbia Steamships, 1975, Ltd. In terms

of federal transport regulations, that is in fact in existence. In addition,

the legislation will be forthcoming shortly. I thank you for your compliments.

Orders of the day.

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

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

this afternoon's sitting.

Leave granted.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF LANDS,

FORESTS AND WATER RESOURCES

(continued)

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

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I am happy to take my place in

this debate of the salary of the Minister of Lands....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. FRASER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That will help a little

bit.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): For five minutes.

MR. FRASER: For a while, yes. Four minutes.

I said that I was happy to take

part in the debate of the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources. He is also the Minister in charge of B.C. Hydro;

chairman of the Environment and Land Use Committee, with the awesome powers

they have; in charge of the PNE, the takeover of the PNE at Exhibition Park

in Vancouver; and, of course, in charge of the Princess Marguerite, whose first

sailing many people have just enjoyed. So he is, indeed, a very important Minister

of the Crown, I feel he's probably the most important Minister of the Crown

for the simple reason that this Minister, whatever he decides to do, controls

the destiny of over 50 per cent of the citizens of British Columbia. He has

very large responsibilities and frightening power.

In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, he also controls the New

Democratic Party which is the government of the Province of

British Columbia. He controls its policies; he controls the NDP

Premier of British Columbia.

I would now like to deal briefly with land policies that

come under this Minister's jurisdiction and, more specifically,

with the disposal of Crown lands. There are several ways to

alienate Crown land.

AN HON. MEMBER: Here we go again.

MR. FRASER: The fact that the Crown owns 95 per cent of the

land in the province shows the power and responsibility this

Minister has. But I would like to deal with the disposition of

the various types of Crown land, and make a few

observations.

I would like to know if all future Crown land is going to be

disposed by leasehold only, or is it going to be as the policy

exists today — that is, residential Crown land by leasehold,

and agricultural Crown land, when classified as such, leasehold

to purchase?

The other thing I would like to mention is the fact that I

know there has been a reorganization in the Lands department. I

hope that it has some help in speeding up land applications. I

hope that was why this reorganization was done. Mr. Chairman,

the citizens of this province, rightly or wrongly, feel that

their applications are delayed.

I have had innumerable requests from the people in my

riding, and I have had this problem for five to six years —

through the prior administration as well as this one. It

appears to me that residential land for alienation takes a

minimum of 18 months to be processed — a straightforward

application. It becomes a lot more complicated on an

agricultural-designated Crown land application. You are looking

at a minimum of 24 months before a decision is arrived at — yes

or no. I think this process should be shortened up

considerably, cut in half at least. I am aware of the fact that

input has to be asked from innumerable government departments

and local officials such as regional districts, the provincial

fish and wild life branch and so on, but surely we can speed up

the disposal of Crown land. All the people want to know is an

answer. Sometimes they get an answer of no after waiting two

years and it's very upsetting, to say the least.

I know that the Department of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources has just recently been restructured at the Victoria

level and out in the regional level. I wonder whether the

Minister thinks this will speed up the applications for Crown

land.

[ Page 2916 ]

The Minister also made an announcement last November, in

dealing with Crown lands, that 5,000 residential lots would be

created in the Province of British Columbia this year to

alleviate the shortage of housing lots, These were to be

created from Crown lands and would have helped the 1975

building season. Well, the 1975 building season is here and I

think it was just paper talk because it is my knowledge that

not one is available at the present time and, of course, we are

now in the midst of the building season for 1975. I would like

to know from the Minister what the holdup is. There is a

definite shortage of residential lots at a reasonable price in

the Province of British Columbia. There are privately owned

lots available, but at an average price of $10,000 and $15,000

each. If these Crown lots could be developed, they would be

below that price. I would really like to know from the Minister

when he thinks that this good programme would get off the

ground and become a reality. I consider it a good

programme.

I would like to speak of another thing that has recently

happened in the conflict in this Minister's department. I

assure you, Mr. Chairman, there is no end of it — the conflict

between the bureaucracy in his departments. I refer to the

Department of Lands, the Department of Forests and the

Department of Water Resources. One department is going one way,

one the other and so on. They do not correlate what they are

doing and it's causing the citizens of this province no end of

delay and indecision. I will give you one specific instance on

the disposal of designated agricultural land by the Department

of Lands.

In prior years this timber has gone to the applicant for

that agricultural land at a nominal price to help open up

agricultural land in this province. In other words, the timber

from it is sold by the applicant for the land. With the

clearing of this land, some timber is obtained, sold and the

money put back into the development of the land to get it

cultivated so that it can grow crops.

Only recently Forestry has moved in and said that the

applicants for agricultural Crown land can no longer have this

timber; it has to go to the forestry quota holder in that area.

Now, Mr. Chairman, this is a very important item and this is a

change of policy. I don't think the Minister even knows about

it and that's why I am bringing it up here.

We have the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) doing all he can to

encourage the development of agriculture, and here we have the Department of

Forestry coming along and saying that people who are applying for the designated

agricultural land the Lands department agrees that it's agricultural can't have

the timber on it. Consequently, how are we going to get the land developed by

the individual citizens who rely on some funds from that?

As far as the quota holder is concerned, in the forestry

working circles of this province, that timber, no matter who

takes it off, is going to end up in a quota holder's sawmill.

So somebody is becoming pretty greedy here and I suggest it's

the Forest Service itself. I repeat that timber will go to the

quota holder's sawmill. It really boils down to who is going to

log it; that is the point at issue.

As for clearing land for agricultural purposes, if you think

a logger can log that timber and have that land suitable for

clearing, you have another think coming, because they go in

there with large bulldozers with shears on them, cut the trees

off at ground level, and then the clearing of the land is a

really costly item. Apart from helping the development of

agriculture, it only increases the financial problems of

developing this land. I have letters from responsible forest

officials saying that in no way will the timber on this

agricultural land go to the person who has applied for the

land. I would like to hear the Minister speak on that if he

knows anything about it.

Now I would like to deal with the Forest Service, which

comes under the jurisdiction of this Minister, and say that I

and those all over Canada have had the highest regard for the

efficient B.C. Forest Service that we used to have in British

Columbia.

But I am amazed to find now that all the decisions on final

forest policy are not made by the Forest Service; they're made

by a Mr., Headley. I understand he comes from Vancouver East

and he doesn't know the difference, Mr. Chairman, between a

spruce and a fir tree. I think this is an appalling,

disgraceful condition. Where the Forest Service professionals

make recommendations, he makes the final decision. I would like

to hear from the Minister what he has to say about this.

AN HON, MEMBER: He's an old school board buddy.

MR. FRASER: Yes, I understand he's a school board buddy and

I believe he's also an NDP cardholder, and that is his chief

qualification, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to now go on and talk about the Woody Woodchip

timber bill we discussed here last November and put into law

which gave this Minister the authority to set the price of

chips. We had a lot of discussion on that bill at that time and

we gave a lot of warnings. The Minister went on and carried out

the law as it is provided in that bill and set the price of

chips at $35 per unit. I think, Mr. Chairman, we could now

review the situation today and what this legislation has

done.

We now have sawmills, Mr. Chairman, in the interior burning

woodchips. Yes, burning them — and

[ Page 2917 ]

not getting one nickel for them.

AN HON. MEMBER: And using them for landfill, too.

MR. FRASER: And using them for landfill. I'd like to hear

from the Minister what he thinks about that policy.

The Premier of this province went into the interior, I

believe within the Cariboo, and announced that they would look

into an export contract for surplus woodchips. I have asked

questions on the floor and they have been referred to this

Minister. He was still looking into the export of

woodchips.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the Minister: don't waste

your time. The Premier knew when he said it and this Minister

knew when he said it that there is no export market available

for chips because of the surplus of chips in the United States,

in Germany and Japan. So why fool the sawmill operators and the

public of this province by saying that they will look into

export of chips? And even if they did find an export market for

the surplus chips that are a real problem today, Mr. Chairman,

I'd suggest they have no way to transport them. They wouldn't

get any chip cars on the BCR because most of its operations are

derailments. They never have any cars when the shippers want

them for lumber or any other product.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: They did manufacture one car here last week and,

believe me, that won't put many surplus chips on the world

market, I'll tell you.

AN HON. MEMBER: It isn't painted yet.

MR. FRASER: Well, get it out. Don't bother painting it; just

get it rolling. But I heard that they tried it out the other

day, this one car, Mr. Chairman. It had flat wheels and ran

backwards down the track instead of tracking behind the

locey.

But, Mr. Chairman, on the real problem of surplus chips,

there is a market for chips right next door to us in the

Province of Alberta — limited market, but a market. They will

pay $18 a unit for these chips, Mr. Chairman, but our B.C.

mills can't sell them because they'll be breaking the law. The

law provides a setup by the timber Act, setting the price at

$35. The law says they must get $35. I'd like the Minister to

reply here today. If they sell at $18, are they going to jail?

If they are, for how many years? Are they breaking the law? It

appears to me they are.

So much for that. But while I'm on the Forest Service, as I said at the start,

Mr. Chairman, I have high regard for the Forest Service we had. But there's

one

section of that department I have no regard for at all

because they're straight dictators. I refer to the grazing

division of the Forest Service.

I want to relate an experience that's going on in this

province right today, Mr. Chairman, to prove my point. I want

to give the experience of a young married man who has built a

herd of cattle up of 100 head. He worked 20 years to get to

this point. From there on I have to do some quoting. His name

is Lloyd Bennett. There's nothing to hide. He has nothing to

hide and neither have I. I just want to relate the facts of the

persecution going on by this individual in the interior of

British Columbia, In 1974 he asked and asked for a turnout date from the

grazing division for turning his cattle out on the Crown open

range. The grazing division will recall, Mr. Chairman, we had a

tough winter in 1973-4. Everybody was out of hay and it was

high priced. But finally, Mr. Chairman, the cattle went out on

Crown range. I believe the cattle went out on May 21, was the

normal turnout date, but the forest bureaucracy hadn't time to

write the permit out. On May 24 the Gestapo moved in and laid a

charge against Lloyd Bennett for trespass on Crown range.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bennett appeared in the court of our land,

the provincial court at Quesnel, on September 16, 1974, and the

charge was as follows: "....did unlawfully pasture animals

owned or controlled by you upon Crown range when said animals

were not covered by a permit issued there for." I might say

that Mr. Bennett's operation is 80 miles west of Quesnel in the

Blackwater River country.

This man went to court, and the verdict against the charge

was not guilty of trespass on Crown lands. At that court case,

after the adjournment of it, Mr. Bennett went to the officer in

charge of the grazing division of the Cariboo forest district

and said: "I would now like to have a meeting with you and I'd

like my MLA at the meeting."

I want you to get this, Mr. Chairman, because I feel quite

strongly about this: this public servant turned to Mr. Bennett

and said: "I haven't got any time for you or any god-damned

politician."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon.

Member that it is improper in parliament to make specific

charges in estimates against civil servants. This should be

done by a substantive motion on the order paper.

MR. FRASER: Well, this is a policy item, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. However, I am....

Interjections.

[ Page 2918 ]

MR. FRASER: I'm talking about the administration of

policy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are considering the

administrative responsibilities of the Minister in this

department, and while....

MR. FRASER: Well, this certainly....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! While it is quite correct to discuss

matters that you have raised, I would make the point that in

order to make a specific charge against any civil servant, as

against a Minister, it should be done by a substantive

motion.

MR. FRASER: Anyway, so much for that, Mr. Chairman.

I want a public apology from this public servant, and I want

the Minister to get it because it reflects on every MLA in this

House. And that, in my opinion, is the way the grazing officers

of the Forest Service feel about the elected people in this

province. It is time things changed. That Minister, I'm sure,

will look into it.

Following this episode, no further meetings were held with

that kind of a response, and Mr. Bennett applied for his 1975

grazing permit on January 29. He still hasn't received an

answer. The turnout date this year is June 1, 1975, and he has

no feed. He has his cattle, at this day, ranging on his hay

meadows which means, as you know, Mr. Chairman, that he will

have no hay next winter. He has had no answer at all from the

permit he asked for in writing on January 29.

Mr. Bennett contacted me in April to find out why he had not

received a reply. I wrote to the chief of the grazing division

in Victoria, Mr. Pendray, asking why he had not. I asked the

question why Mr. Bennett hadn't had a reply. Mr. Pendray

replied to me on April 18. This is the reply and the way it is

to date: "In reply to yours of April 7 regarding the

disallowance of a grazing permit application submitted by Mr.

Lloyd Bennett, we would advise that this matter is under review

at the present time." That's where it still is — under review

at the present time.

In the meantime, Mr. Chairman — and this is the real part of

the story — the Gestapo got all organized. It is very difficult

to keep beef cattle inside a fence, and they had reason to

believe — the grazing division of the Forest Service — that Mr.

Bennett's cattle were in fact on Crown range last week.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I do not wish to be part of a kangaroo

court trying civil servants. I would ask the Hon. Member to remember that we

are in Committee of Supply and we are questioning the Minister on his administrative

responsibilities, not trying civil servants. I think that it is quite correct

to state facts, but I think one should be careful in the choice of language

such as "Gestapo" and so on.

MR. FRASER: Thank you.

On May 23, 1974, Mr. Bennett was warned by letter that there

could be a trespass going on by his cattle. I might say, Mr.

Chairman, that the letter was delivered to Mr. Bennett's wife

by helicopter and three forestry officials. I'd like to know

what that cost — a helicopter from Quesnel with three forestry

officers to deliver a letter.

Then on Sunday, May 25, six riders from 100 Mile House,

hired by the grazing division — six riders from 200 miles away — arrived on Mr. Bennett's ranch area with instructions to

round up cattle that were supposedly trespassing on Crown

range. The horses and riders were accompanied — and get this,

Mr. Chairman, — by eight government vehicles and 14 Forest

Service employees, also one Jetranger helicopter and pilot and

two RCMP officers in their four-wheel drive. I won't use that

word "Gestapo" Mr. Chairman...

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Statism.

MR. FRASER: ...but how would anyone feel with this

onslaught of thousands of dollars worth of equipment and men

over a few cows trespassing on Crown lands? I'd like to know

from the Minister how much that exercise cost.

On the arrival in this wilderness area, the 14 Forest

Service employees mentioned earlier proceeded to cut trees and

build a holding corral after the cattle were rounded up.

Mr. Chairman, these Forest Service employees cut trees down

in a provincial park on the north bank of the Blackwater River

and with these trees constructed a holding corral on this

provincial park. Mr. Chairman, these forest officials should be

charged immediately with damaging a provincial park. All B.C.

citizens want to preserve the parks they have. We pay these

officials to see that they are preserved. But, lo and behold,

what are they doing? I just told you what they did on Sunday,

May 25, 1975.

After all this organization and thousands of dollars of

public money spent, do you know what happened? This army of men

and machines found one poor old milk cow and impounded her,

(Laughter.) They then paid a cattle-hauling company $132 to

haul this poor old milk cow to Quesnel where she is presently

today impounded and will be sold at public auction on June 11

to recover some of the wasted public money that was spent on

rounding her up. I intend to be at that public auction, Mr.

Chairman, and buy that cow so it can go back to its rightful

owner.

MRS. JORDAN: Harassment of citizens!

[ Page

2919 ]

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, Lloyd Bennett, the farmer, is a

young married man with two children, aged three and seven. The

100 head of cattle and the farm he has are all his family has.

He has worked for 20 years to get to this point. By rounding up

the only milk cow he has — that is what this great army of men

and machines paid for by the public purse has done — they have

deprived Mr. Bennett's children of the milk so badly needed for

their health. They are now drinking water, Mr. Chairman,

because of the brave actions of this large army of men and

machines paid for by the citizens of British Columbia.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, to have taken so much of the

Legislature's time about this case, but Mr. Bennett has done

everything he can to abide by the law. As his MLA, I have done

all I can do with the grazing division of the B.C. Forest

Service. I now want the Minister to intervene in this

miscarriage of justice and, under the Forest Service, issue Mr.

Bennett the grazing permit he is entitled to as a Canadian

citizen so he can continue to farm and make an honest living

and not end up on welfare.

I have never seen a case, Mr. Chairman, in 25 years of

public life of more harassment, vindictiveness and spite like

this. The grazing division of the Forest Service, because they

lost the court case last September, made up their minds they

would get even with Mr. Bennett. Mr. Bennett was found not

guilty of the trespass charge by a properly constituted court

of this province. Do these forest officers think they are a

higher authority than our courts, Mr. Chairman? They certainly

do, and this is a terrible state of affairs.

I know the Minister will be alarmed about this and will

immediately see that Mr. Bennett is issued his grazing permit

forthwith so he can continue to make a living for himself and

his family. If the Minister doesn't do this, Mr. Bennett is

bankrupt tomorrow — not next month, not next year, but tomorrow.

These cattle must be turned out or he will have no forage for

the winter feeding of them. They are eating that now as green

grass.

Another point of fact. The range where these cattle normally

range hasn't got one cow on it, not one cow. There is room

there for 400 and all Mr. Bennett wants to put out. There are

ample feed supplies in this area.

I would like to know, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, if the

Minister will arrange a meeting for Mr. Bennett today or

tomorrow. He is in Victoria; he is in the gallery of this

Legislature at the present time. It is his last resort. I will

gladly attend the meeting with the Minister if he'll arrange

it.

I want to close by saying that the Department of Agriculture of this government

has done everything possible to encourage agriculture. Here we have another

government department saying that the raising of beef will come to a halt. I'll

go back to something that was said here by myself a couple of years ago. We'll

go back to eating grizzly bear and porcupine pie, because that's all that will

be left to eat. That's all the grazing officials really want to see grazing

on our Crown lands.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the

Minister is going to answer on the Bennett case. Before the

vote passes, I think he might want to say a word.

While I am on my feet, I would just like to say that I was

unable to attend his great ferry christening. I sincerely

regret that I had a cold and was unable to be on board. I would

like confirmed that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources is now going to become responsible for everything

that floats — all the other ferries as well — because he did

such a fine job. I would like to congratulate him. He did a

fine job and I think that his cabinet colleagues should take

note, especially the other two of them who run ferries.

While I am on my feet, I would like to suggest to the

Minister that he might give us some statement on the status of

the Skagit at the present time. Some time ago, last August, the

Minister issued a press release in which he put forward the

letters that he had sent to Mayor Uhlman of Seattle. He

proposed in that that the Skagit issue be settled by turning

the British Columbia area of the unflooded Skagit Valley, the

area that would be flooded if the dam is raised, into a

provincial park, paying back Seattle for the value of the

agreement. He proposed a price — I won't go into the details of

it now — based essentially on the 1967 formula. He went on to

say that the Seattle energy question might well be — I have to

phrase this delicately — improved by some discussion of a

possible power export on a short-term basis.

I wonder whether he could now report to the Legislature

about his success with Major Uhlman, because as far as I know

this matter is still carrying on. The FPC is still holding

their ridiculous hearings. I remember attending one a little

over a year ago to put forward a submission. It seems that

there are a whole series of administrative wheels spinning and

very little happening. All this, of course, is costing a lot of

money. Every day we delay on the Skagit settlement means that

it costs more. I think the Minister might well, at this stage,

bring us up to date with the information he has and, in

particular, the state of his discussions with Mayor Uhlman and

Seattle City Light. Perhaps he could do that and we could take

up another matter a little later in his estimates.

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

Dealing with the various points raised by the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser)

and the Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson), with respect to the lands serviced

there is not a limitation to leasehold; only development, with the

[ Page 2920 ]

exception of major industrial or commercial lands, so there

has been no basic change in this past year in that regard. The

lease-to-purchase arrangements and other various arrangements

that were in force continue to be in force. In some specific

sites we designate maybe critical shoreline areas, say on a

river bank, for leasehold development only with interior sites

available on a fee simple basis. So there's really a full range

that's still available to those interested in purchasing Crown

land.

The reorganization is intended to speed up processing and

much of it has been on an aerial basis regionally so that in

Victoria now we have regional desks for the northwest,

northeast and so on, That has helped and I think it has

developed more of an esprit de corps: I think the branch is

livelier now than it's ever been in its history and there is

actually a kind of competition going on within the branch in

terms of performance. We are extremely pleased, because the

lands branch probably has changed less through the decades than

any other department of government. We inherited a lands

department that was essentially the same as its early

forerunners in the days of pre-emption at the turn of the

century. One of the things I am particularly proud of is the

reorganization of the branch and making it a more effective

land management agency than it has been in the past.

That's not to say that we are satisfied. The regional

inspectors in the various regions have done a lot of

preliminary work in terms of trying to get Crown land open and

available across the counter. That is definitely our goal:

there should be land availability across the counter so that a

citizen could come in and ask where the Crown land was in a

particular region and he could be shown on a map and told what

the price would be. We are a way from that but that's

definitely the goal.

Our main problem at the moment is the regional districts themselves which,

in my judgment, have taken a very narrow view of the question of rural settlement.

It's my own view and I think the government's view that there should be a greater

availability of land in rural areas for our citizens. As we see it now, the

greatest frustration in terms of making that land available is within the regional

districts, who really have a very narrow perspective in terms of limiting development

to the towns themselves, British Columbia just wouldn't be the kind of place

it is today if that had been the approach from the beginning. As a person with

some planning background I am disappointed in my own profession, because I am

genuinely convinced that they are taking too narrow a view of his human problem.

In a province as rich as we are in terms of land, it may mean that we will have

to face up to the regional districts where we are convinced they are being unreasonable

and not open enough and proceed regardless in terms of making rural land available. I would be interested in

hearing the Member's ideas in that regard with respect to his own region, where

it is also a problem.

With respect to cutting and quota, that is something I am

prepared to look at in more detail. It is my understanding that

that is taking place within the special sale area in

Quesnel-Prince George, but that was in fact written within the

pulp harvesting agreement which was signed by the former

government. There may be some administrative differences but

the contractual agreements and rights were in fact signed by

the Social Credit government when the pulp harvesting

agreements were made.

Regarding the timber products bill, we are going to continue

to look at our options in the immediate future and see what

opportunities we have. I am not entirely convinced by the

Member's argument about no demand and at what we might consider

decent prices. That is something we are currently looking at

and may have some decisions on shortly.

Regarding the specific case of Mr. Bennett and the

Blackwater River, I am not familiar with the case. It is

unfortunate that the problems Mr. Bennett appears to have had

were not raised earlier directly with myself. We would have

been quite willing to meet at an earlier stage regarding these

problems.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will you meet now?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Not while the House is sitting, but

certainly if the estimates move along quickly, I would be very

happy to. If the estimates are over shortly I would be more

than pleased to meet with Mr. Bennett — and the Member, if he

so wishes — after that.

We generally find that things aren't black and white. While

the Member has given a forceful speech, I would like to say

that there is enforcement of regulations where there hasn't

been in the past. I am not going to apologize for that. There

has been a real need for enforcement. Certainly the lack of

enforcement in the past has meant the destruction of the

grasslands of British Columbia on far too great a scale.

Turnout dates and trespassing and effects on the grass resource

are something we regard as serious. Many individuals may not

regard these matters as seriously as we do.

I should say that we are anxious to see the grazing division

enhanced and developed to a greater extent with senior people.

We will shortly be hiring an outstanding range manager on a

short-term contract basis in terms of restructuring the

organization and in terms of strengthening it and developing

much better range management in British Columbia in the long

haul.

The question of the Skagit was raised by the Member for

Victoria. I don't think there is anything

[ Page 2921 ]

more I can report at this stage other than that we have an

excellent committee working on this matter. I suppose the

important question is: has it flooded or has it not? It has

not. We are continuing in that vein to see that it is not

flooded. We will be proceeding with the discussions with the

people in Seattle.

MR. FRASER: I just want to thank the Minister very much for

the answers he has given. I appreciate what has happened in

regionalizing the Lands department and I hope that it does speed up applications for Crown land.

As for the remark he made regarding the timber on

agricultural land going to the pulp companies, I am very well

aware of that agreement made in a special sales area to get

pulp mills to move into the interior of the province to give an

assured supply. But what has been going on actually until only

recently when the Cariboo district forester came in with his

iron boots is that they contacted the pulp company and they

gave up their rights to this timber. Now the Cariboo district

forester is saying that even if they do so, he is going to turn

around and give it to the sawmill quota holder. The applicant

for the land is no longer going to have a kick at the cat in

any shape or form, even at an auction sale. Mr. Minister, this

is what I am after. I would like to see the applicant for

agricultural Crown land be given the right. The district

forester certainly put the timber up for auction, but the least

we could do is not to exclude the applicant for that land from

bidding. Let him bid along with any other citizen of this

province. That is what has happened there and what is causing

trouble.

The last remark that I have on this

section of the

Minister's responsibilities, Mr. Chairman, is regarding his

remarks regarding the grazing division. There was enforcement

in the past, Mr. Minister; don't give us a snow job like that.

The Forest Service would every once in a while get into an

exercise of drugstore cowboying. It ends up costing thousands

of dollars, which comes out of your various departments, hiring

helicopters and horses and building corrals.

I want to say on this grazing that the whole beef industry is alarmed about

this. I used one case, but the whole industry in this province is alarmed about

how the grazing division is playing tinkertoy with the applicants. Who do they

think they are? They applied in January. Your form says that they must have

it in by February. Why can't these owners of beef cattle in this province have

a reasonable answer from these people in the grazing division prior to turnout

date? They want to know in advance. That's only good management. But the grazing

division is not giving them out; that's what they're mad about. They will accept

what they are given. They are afraid to answer questions for fear they won't

get any grazing permits. It is all over the province. It's in Yale-Lillooet

riding where they raise a lot of beef; it's in Kamloops; it's in Cariboo; it's

wherever there is a beef industry. That's what's wrong. They're behaving just

like arrogant people, and they resent that.

Those people have big investments, millions of dollars, and

their investments depend on some use of Crown ranges. They've

had it for 30 years. They've had their notices in advance on

what they can turn out, where and when. Now they can't get this

information, and that is not fair or just to Mr. Bennett or

hundreds of other people who raise cattle in this province.

But I do thank you, and I am going to do my best to arrange

a meeting, Mr. Chairman, with the Minister and Mr. Bennett. I

appreciate the fact the Minister didn't know about this case.

This is not something I have kept in a file. This only happened

over this last weekend, and it is coming to a crisis on June

11. It's been a crisis every day now because these cattle are

penned up on private land. Those helicopters are flying steady,

Mr. Chairman, from dawn to dusk to make sure they don't get

out. If they do, they go right into the hoosegow right now.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We should get at least one thing

straight, Mr. Chairman. Between the lines one continues to get

from Social Credit that the public lands are the preserve of

special groups. They're not. They have to be managed for all

the people of the province, not just one group or another

group. There has been an assumption underlying most of what I

seem to hear from those ranks that this is the special,

privileged area for a few. This is not so. These are public

Crown lands; they will be managed for the full benefit of all

of the public and not just one group.

This between-the-lines point of view that we get from the

Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), in terms of always

seeing to it that year-to-year leases continue forever in the

hands of one single individual or one group, is all wrong. It

is not something that this party will accept at all.

As I indicated, of course we are prepared to meet with

individual citizens. If they have some of the difficulties —

even some — that the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) is talking

about, then we should be meeting with them and discussing these

matters.

I have in front of me now a wire, again in relation to some

earlier activities of Mr. Bennett in the Cariboo, and this is

from the wildlife federation. This is what they say at the same

time. This is not a black-and-white situation at all. These

lands have not been managed on a multiple basis in terms of

protecting the wildlife interests that the Minister for

Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Radford) is protecting now. At long

last we have a proper staff of biologists working in the field,

beginning to do the homework which should have been done 20

years ago, that was never done. It's a change in direction and

a basic change that I am proud of and one I think the

people

[ Page 2922 ]

of British Columbia are proud of.

This is the kind of wire we got in response to some of the

Member's earlier statements. They state:

WE URGE YOU TO FULLY SUPPORT THE ACTIONS OF YOUR RANGE MANAGEMENT

STAFF IN CANCELLING CROWN LAND GRAZING PRIVILEGES OF RANCHER LLOYD BENNETT.

This is dated April 18.

IF STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO MLA ALEX FRASER ARE QUOTED CORRECTLY

IN THIS MATTER, THEY DESERVE NO CONSIDERATION, BEING TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE IN

OUR OPINION. HE APPEARS TO BE RECOMMENDING A RETURN TO MANAGEMENT OF OUR NATURAL

RESOURCES ON A BASIS OF POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY. WE WOULD REMIND YOU THAT THIS

IS WHAT PUT OUR RANGES IN THE SAD STATE THEY ARE IN TODAY. YOUR STAFF NEEDS

AND DESERVES YOUR FULLEST SUPPORT IN THIS MATTER. THEY HAVE OURS.

Signed, Bill Otway, executive director, B.C. Wildlife Federation. Another major

interest group that is interested in proper management of the resources, and,

of course, they have a special interest in terms of the wildlife resources of

the province. That's a pretty broad special interest in terms of protecting

the land that all of us hold in this province.

Now on the further matter that the Member raised regarding

the PHAs in terms of bidding, on principle I am certainly not

adverse to a bidding process. That's something that we would be

prepared to follow up further.

MR. FRASER: I just want to reply to the snow job of the

Minister. He's been fairly reasonable until that last effort he

put on — the snow job where he brings in the B.C. Wildlife

Federation end of this discussion on this individual

problem.

I would like the Minister to ask the B.C. Wildlife

Federation if they know anything about that country at all that

they are talking about. Let them get out of their ivory-towered

offices in downtown Vancouver and go to Poplar Mountain. I've

been there; I know what's there. There are moose and deer there

with cattle. I'm aware of that; cattlemen are aware of multiple

use. They don't want the area to themselves.

I am saying, Mr. Minister, that this area is thousands of

square miles, and there is room for moose and deer and even the

officials of B.C. Wildlife Federation, if they would get out of

their ivory towers and get up there and take a look.

Go today! Get in one of those forest helicopters they've got patrolling Lloyd

Bennett's cattle. They'll find out. I don't buy that snow job from an organized,

paid group. I'm supporting these people who are trying to make a living producing

cattle and keeping off the rolls of your colleague, the Minister of Human Resources

(Hon. Mr. Levi). Those kind of people, the B.C. Wildlife Federation, will just

put this man right on the welfare rolls. That's the only place he's got left

to go!

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Would you speak up a

little, Alex? (Laughter.)

MR. FRASER: The others involved here, are they prepared to

hire him, give him a job? Oh, no! We get a lot of twists from

these power mainland people who know all about the interior.

Get them out there to take a look at it. Look there right today

and they'll find out the conditions.

HON. MR. KING: Could you speak up, Alex?

MR. FRASER: Fine. You're entitled to listen to their opinion

and mine both, but there are two sides to this story. It's

really interesting, and I took forward to the meeting we're

going to have.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I just want to speak in favour of

the position taken by my colleague from the Cariboo. I must say

that I was astonished to hear the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources — that architect of the policy of this

government in order to see that its master control of the land

is undertaken correctly in the true socialist sense — label the

producers of this province "special groups." Only an airy-fairy

social planner from the lower mainland city district who's

never really worked a day in his life, who's never had his

fingernails dirty, who's never got up at 10 or 20 or 30 below

zero in the morning to feed cattle, could label the producers

of this province a "special interest group." The way he sneers

out the words "special interest group" makes it very clear that

he's trying to paint a pretty picture of producers in this

province being well-to-do, well-dressed, well-entertained

people such as the Minister himself. He's trying to make the

people in the lower mainland and, yes, the people in the

federation of wildlife, believe that the producers of this

province, and in this instance the cattle producers, live a

life of luxury when in fact they live a life of extreme

hardship compared to the majority of people in society today

and- in this province.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that that Minister go

to work on a cattle ranch for a while. I'd suggest that that

Minister takes some money, some of the $50,000 he's earning as

a fat-cat Minister of this government, and invest it in trying

to produce food for this province, trying to make a living as

the cattle ranchers anywhere in Canada are trying to do — not

with other people's money, not with other people's ideas but

with the sweat of their brow and with their own dollars.

My colleague has expressed very clearly the problems they

have in securing proper turnout time

[ Page 2923 ]

in advance so that they can plan. To hear this Minister

talk, you'd think you could get up in the morning, press a

button and move a steer 50 miles into the mountains. And some

of them go further than 50 miles. You can't move a herd of

cattle in 20 minutes to a grazing land or the grazing area. It

takes days and weeks of planning to organize it, and it takes a

good deal of time to carry it out.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): The single-use concept;

that's all he believes in.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, he does. The single-use concept by the

elite of society, when in fact land is for people. And food

happens to be for people, or should be.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's very good.

MRS. JORDAN: Everybody on this side of the House is

interested in multi-use of land. This Minister needn't try to

smear, and paint an ugly picture, because multi-use-of-land

studies were going on long before he got to be a Minister of

the Crown, and the Kamloops district was one of the very active

areas. It really has not progressed that much under this

Minister because of the grave difficulty they have in getting a

decision from him.

But, Mr. Chairman, everyone wants to see multi-use. I'm sure most

British Columbians want to indeed see wildlife on our land. I suggest

that those British Columbians must also know, in making their decisions

on multi-use of land and the best use of land, what it costs to produce

this wildlife. We know what it costs to produce a head of steer — last

year a minimum of 54 cents a pound. That money isn't put up by the

government; it isn't put up by anyone but the producer himself. He's

solely responsible for finding it, for operating his unit and for

trying to secure a reasonable return and a profit. What does it cost to

raise one head of deer or elk or moose? What is the cost of the

production of ungulates in this province? A head of deer that's sold

for a pittance of a licence to one individual to go out and shoot, and

recreation by shooting is a legitimate form of recreation — hunting....

But should the public of British Columbia, Mr. Minister, be subsidizing

approximately $400 of table meat for one individual? The Minister seems

to be putting that table meat, subsidized by the province, in a more

favourable position than beef, which is being produced by an individual

producer in this province.

When we talk about the preservation of wildlife, which, indeed, we all want

to see preserved, Mr. Chairman, don't you think it's important that there should

be some figures attached to this cost so that the public of British Columbia

know what they're basing a decision upon? Where are we going to draw the line

between visual appreciation of animals and the food that is put on the tables

of the people in British Columbia?

I'm sure this Minister, when he's sneering at the cattle

producers and trying to label them an elite group in this

province, likes to eat beef. I rather suspect that hamburger's

not in his diet very much. There are a lot of people in this

province who need hamburger, roast and steaks. They like to

have them produced in British Columbia, and the only way that's

going to happen is for the producers to have a fair share of

the grazing lands in this province, for them to have reasonable

help in the management of these lands and for them to have

answers at a reasonable time so that they can plan the

management of their production units.

Mr. Chairman, I think it's important that this Minister

stand up and apologize for trying to paint the cattle producers

as an elitist group. I also feel that it's important that the

confusion coming from his department, because of his lack of

leadership, be cleared up. I believe the grazing branch has a

very important function to perform in this province, and a

great contribution to make. I do believe that they have to have

a knowledgeable say in the management of land, but it should be

on a co-operative basis...

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

For the first time.

MRS. JORDAN: ...not on a holier-than-thou basis. There are

some very knowledgeable men in this department — and women, I

hope, soon to be, when we get more women agrologists trained.

But those knowledgeable ones and those who are most effective

have been effective because of their ability to talk with the

producer and with the wildlife people, not through dictating. I

must agree with my colleague from the Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) —

there are many fine men in the grazing division, knowledgeable

people — and they get along well, But there are some who

shouldn't be there because of their inability, no matter how

knowledgeable they are technically, to communicate with the

person who has their life's work, their life's money and the

whole future of this province in their hands and on the line

when it comes to food production here.

We have a Minister of Agriculture earmarking millions of

taxpayers' dollars to try and provide stability for the

production of cattle in this province. Yet we have another

Minister who's hiding his head in the sand and not facing any

reality in terms of the practical application of grazing, nor

the cost of the raising of wildlife in this province, and not

making those figures public.

I would ask the Minister to please advise the House who the

authority is that will be hired by this department as a

consultant to the grazing division. If

[ Page 2924 ]

it's a name not common to this House, would he please advise

us what his qualifications are, what his previous employment is

and what country he's coming from.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I often have trouble

following the Hon. Member for North Okanagan, because on one

hand I'm supposed to be all-pervasive and directing a zillion

things, and the next minute I'm being attacked for not making a

decision on anything.

MRS. JORDAN: No, you're just supposed to tell the truth.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's the schizophrenic attacks from the

Hon. Member that leave me confused in terms of which side of

the Member to follow.

MRS. JORDAN: What is your policy?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I should at least consider one aspect of

the statement that I do consider serious — the question of

looking more closely at costs and benefits of various resource

sectors. That really hasn't been done in the past on the scale

that should be done.

The environment and land use secretariat, with their staff

working with the Forest Service, the fish and wildlife branch

and other staff agencies, are carrying out an excellent

experimental, analytical programme in the East Kootenays in

this regard.

While I am especially proud of the increased staff and the

work of the staff of the fish and wildlife branch and other

departments, it does seem clear that there is, in fact, a need

for more careful analysis of these various resources and the

cost and benefits of various management techniques in relation

to them. Until we established the environment and land use

secretariat, we really didn't have the professional expertise,

the knowledge or the talent to do just that kind of work. It's

only in the last couple of years in staffing the secretariat

group that we have had the means in terms of talent to work out

these questions and get these agencies working together and

understanding each other's talents, limitations and so on.

The work in the East Kootenays that is currently underway will establish a

kind of benchmark for different agencies. It will mean, in fact, that the disciplines

we have added and have here now will be enriched by this process: the fish and

wildlife staff will have a greater understanding of economic constraints or

economic realities, and that will really make them better biologists in terms

of serving the people of this province, just as the foresters will have a better

picture of the problems of the fish and wildlife staff and will become better

foresters in the service of the province.

This just wasn't possible before because we did have a

government with blinkers on that never saw these questions in a

broad enough perspective, that was so penurious that they

wouldn't provide the staff. We kept losing these people to

Ottawa and the United States. At long last, with the change of

government, we have at last had this kind of talent to do

exactly the kind of serious work the Member was suggesting.

MRS. JORDAN: In regard to who the new consultant will be to

the grazing division, when the Minister is talking so much

about all this talent that he is importing, it's unfortunate

that they haven't imported more talent in the cabinet. I would

suggest, Mr. Minister, leaving aside your usual political

ramblings, that had there been any discussions by yourself or

by those in your department with the University of British

Columbia — I repeat, discussions, not dictates — and with BCIT,

in the training areas of the various disciplines of wildlife

biologists, agrologists, foresters....

The problem is not, as the Minister outlines it, that the

former administration had blinkers on and was blind at all. The

problem is worldwide in that in the training of these

disciplines they are too interrelated; there has never anywhere

been enough cross-discussion between those who are studying the

biologies in wildlife, those who are studying the agriculture

and those who are studying in the discipline of forestry. So it

takes them 10 years, once they get into the area where they

must work in a multidisciplined atmosphere, to have any

appreciation or respect for the other disciplines. The route to

go is at the training level so that they have an understanding

of the problems, the interests and the objectives of wildlife

if they are a forester; and agriculture if they are wildlife

biologists or in the wildlife conservation field. I would ask

the Minister if, particularly at BCIT.... But I know myself —

I have discussed it with university people at UBC and received

a very strong response — that it also takes a good deal of

liaison with the departments themselves before this type of

practical cross-relationship can be developed.

Who is going to be the new consultant?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Minister may answer

either one at a time or after two or three have spoken, at his

discretion.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Following up my previous comments about

the Skagit, I listened with interest to the remarkably sparse

information provided by the Minister. I would now like to be,

as perhaps I should have been in the first place, more

specific. Are we

[ Page 2925 ]

continuing the approach via the IJC? Some time ago the

Minister wrote to Professor Maxwell Cohen, the chairman of the

Canadian

section of the International Joint Commission, and he

talked about the province wishing to go ahead to make

application to the commission for further order with respect to

Skagit Valley. Correspondence last year at about this time from

the Minister to Cohen was made public, but I have no knowledge

of any replies. I would like to know whether or not that avenue

has been abandoned, whether or not the Minister's legal advice,

I believe provided by Mr. Goldie in Vancouver, indicated that

this was a dead end, I would like to find out whether Mr.

Goldie is still in his employ or still on retainer and whether

or not this avenue is still being pursued. That's point

one.

The next point I would like to know is whether or not the

direct approach to Mayor Uhlman of Seattle and to Seattle City

Light is being pursued. Has there been any further

correspondence following up the press release that I mentioned

to the Minister — the one that he himself issued almost a year

ago, on September 27, 1974? The press release was dated

September 27, but the material it covered was a letter dated

August 9, 1974, giving a three-point proposal of direct contact

between Uhlman and Mr. Williams, the Minister who signed the

letter, the Minister whose estimates are up today. So I would

like to know what results, if any, there have been from that

direct approach of August 9, 1974, which we learned about in

September. I wonder whether he would indicate whether or not

there is any information on that at the present time.

The third avenue which I know about — perhaps there are more — which I would like information on is the provisions of the

1967 agreement signed by the former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett,

and former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, Mr.

Williston. This agreement was signed by both those gentlemen

and in that agreement there was provision for a board of

arbitration of some sort. I don't know the correct term as I

don't have the details of the agreement at the moment, but I do

know that each of the parties could name, in case of dispute,

an arbitrator, and there could be a chairman named by the two

arbitrators and any dispute under that 1967 subsidiary

agreement was meant to be determined in that manner. I wonder

whether we have appointed an arbitrator for the purposes of

activating that arbitration committee in terms of dispute.

So sticking strictly with Skagit, Mr. Chairman, and in being more specific

than I was in my first questioning, could I ask the Minister whether all these

three avenues are being explored still, whether there are lawyers still hired

— Mr. Goldie — for the IJC submission, whether Marvin Durning, Seattle attorney,

is still under retainer for the approaches to Uhlman and Seattle City Light,

and, finally, whether the third avenue of the arbitration board is being activated

or will be activated? I wonder if the Minister could give me a little more information

at this time than he did last time, which was close to zero.

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

for North Okanagan, the consultant question is not finally

resolved, so an announcement cannot be made. We do have in mind

an outstanding person with great background in this field.

There is a serious problem, or at least there has been one in

the past, in terms of training for people in this field. We

haven't done so in Canada. As a result, most of the more highly

qualified people in this field are products of the United

States universities father than our own, unfortunately. But

changes have been taking place at the University of British

Columbia and there have been additional courses in this field

so that we are changing the direction, at UBC at least, to some

extent.

[Mr. Kelly in the chair.]

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, that remains to be seen. My own

belief is that there is a very serious need at the university

level. There may well be at the technical level, but we have a

huge gap at the university level as well, as we see it.

MRS. JORDAN: It's a little easier for you to operate at the

technical level at BCIT because it is a government

institute.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, it depends. We are starting to get

into extremely complex questions in terms of land management.

We do need more people at the professional level for

starters, as we see it. That gap just hasn't been bridged.

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That is the Member's opinion. You have

to start somewhere. They never started anywhere.

On the question of the International Joint Commission, it is

my understanding that the actions of the IJC are being held,

pending the discussions with Seattle, so that option still is

there, one might argue.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: With permission, I wonder whether the

Minister could indicate what the reply is from Prof. Cohen of

the Canadian section?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The matter is simply

[ Page 2926 ]

held, pending discussions with Seattle at this stage. So the

commission is aware of our actions in this other area with

respect to legal counsel. Mr. Goldie is still available to us

on a retainer basis with respect to this matter, I am not free to comment regarding Seattle per se at this

time. The question of arbitration in our opinion and on legal

advice is contrary to the boundary waters treaty, which we

regard as very important, needless to say.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Just a quick follow-up on that. The

Minister this time provided a very, very small amount of

information about the IJC and said it was pending the outcome

of direct negotiations with Seattle. He skipped extremely

lightly — in fact, he didn't say a word — about the

negotiations with Seattle. He admits that; he shakes his head

up and down saying, yes, he said nothing about his negotiations

with Seattle.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Right.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, could he say something now?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He shakes his head the other way and says

no. Why? You have made public, Mr. Minister, documents, or at

least a letter dated August 9 of last year. Surely it could be

possible to at least have some indication from you at this

time as to whether this is a fruitful avenue, whether we are

getting somewhere with our discussions with Seattle City Light,

or whether this charade that is going on of Federal Power

Commission hearings will continue and ultimately determine the

question of Skagit. The people of British Columbia would like

to know why the FPC carries on if indeed this government is

really taking up the matter with Seattle City Light. I wonder

if we could have a word or two more about negotiations with

Uhlman and Seattle City Light.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, I said I have no comment regarding negotiations,

and that is it. No comment. The actions of a regulatory agency in the United

States are entirely up to them as a sovereign nation. I have no comment about

that either

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I just want to

compliment the Minister very briefly on the excellent service that was inaugurated

yesterday. There have been nothing but good comments. I would like to ask the

Minister whether Admiral Gorst was on the bridge...

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes.

MR. McGEER: ...when it made that stately landing at low

tide. There was some problem with the right rudder there in

trying to get the ship straightened out.

MRS. JORDAN: Left rudder.

MR. McGEER: No, it's too weak in the right engine — doesn't

have enough horsepower. It can't pull around. But in any event,

Mr. Minister, people have complimented you and the government

on that particular service, and I didn't want to let the moment

pass by without throwing you a bouquet.

Now, Mr. Minister, I'd like to ask about another question

where it's a little more difficult to pay you a compliment.

This was with regard to commitments made by the provincial

government on property in the City of Vancouver. I want

specifically to refer to Jericho, first of all, because this is

a battle that goes back over 11 years and which, at the last

moment, is being thwarted by you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Looking for another job?

MR. McGEER: The first speech I made on this was in May,

1964, when we began to put pressure on governments to turn an

area of beautiful waterfront that had been denied the people of

the City of Vancouver for, then, almost 20 years, in creating a

proper park. There were no complaints about giving that area to

the military, of course, during the Second World War, but when

the war was over, and nothing happened, and nothing happened,

we began to get restless with the government.

I'd just like to indicate the degree of progress that had to

be made. I have a letter, dated June 17, 1964, from the then

Associate Minister of National Defence, outlining reasons why

that Jericho property could not be made into a park.

He said in his letter that it would be costly and difficult

to relocate such facilities — and he goes through the

facilities: the RCE office, stores and workshop; the RCEME

workshop; the RCOC depot; petroleum, oil and lubricant station;

the guard house; the central heating plant; the men's barracks;

the men's mess-hall; the munitions units; the sports field; the

miniature range; and so on.

He concludes by saying:

"Under these circumstances, I hesitate to agree with your

suggestion that we discuss this matter, as I can see no

likelihood of any part of the Jericho Beach property being

released by this department in the foreseeable future. The

interest of Vancouver residents in the development of a park at

Jericho Beach is well appreciated, but I regret that I am

unable to assist in this matter."

Some of us worked very hard on the federal

[ Page 2927 ]

government for many years to break down the prejudices that

were preventing the people of Vancouver from enjoying this area

as parkland. Interestingly enough, the best progress that was

made was made with the provincial government. It took only two

and a half years to get a commitment from then Minister of

Lands and Forests, Ray Williston, with regard to the two

parcels of land, blocks 4565 and 5098 of group 1.

It was a commitment from the provincial government to turn

that over into a park. It was on the basis of this commitment

from the provincial government that myself and many others were

able to go to the federal government and say: "See, this has

been taken away from the people of Vancouver. One level of

government is willing to turn it back to them for a park — why

can't you do the same?" We'd been at it then for nearly three

years but we had been successful in getting a commitment from

the provincial government.

Then, several more years passed. Much negotiation between

the City of Vancouver and the federal government — and I can't

tell to what extent the provincial government was involved in

these negotiations. But finally, on March 30, 1973 — nine years

after the battle was first commenced — that property, belonging

to the federal government, was officially turned over to the

City of Vancouver. After a wait of 28 years, the people were to

have their waterfront park.

On that date, Mr. Chairman, March 30, 1973, the mayor of the

City of Vancouver wrote to the Hon. Robert Williams,

stating:

"Today at 10:30 a.m., the City of Vancouver received the

remaining part of parcel 2 and all of parcel 3 at Jericho

Beach, Vancouver, British Columbia, from the Government of

Canada.

"Pursuant to the letter sent to the mayor of Vancouver by

the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources on November

26, 1966, the City of Vancouver is now formally applying for

lots 4565 and 5098, group 1, New Westminster district, situated

south of Jericho Beach, to be used for park purposes, as well

as the adjacent water lot, 7030. We have been informed that all

three lots have been released by the federal government to the

province as of April 1, 1973."

The final sentence: "We would appreciate your prompt

action."

March 30, 1973 — 26 months ago. No answers.

MRS. JORDAN: Maybe he had his blinkers on.

MR. McGEER: He can't answer a letter in 26 months. The

Minister can't answer a letter from the mayor of the largest city in British

Columbia in 26 months. April 18, 1974, to the Hon. Robert A. Williams — a little

over one year later.

"Dear Sir:

"Re: Jericho Beach Lands.

"On March 30, 1973, the mayor wrote to you applying for lots

4565 and 5098, group 1, New Westminster district, situated

south of Jericho Beach, to be used for park purposes together

with adjacent water lot 7030. I have been asked by the mayor to

follow up this matter by requesting that the city be permitted

to take possession of these lots and, if such permission is

granted, the terms upon which the city would be permitted to

occupy the same.

"I would appreciate hearing from you in respect of this

matter at your earliest convenience."

Fourteen months ago — no reply, Mr. Chairman, on May 26, 1975 — one year later the mayor of

Vancouver writes to the Premier.

"Dear Dave:" — familiar —

"I was appalled at the comments Bob Williams made last

Friday about the Jericho Beach situation. He admitted there was

a written commitment from Ray Williston to turn over the seven

acres owned by the province to the city for a nominal lease.

However, he went on to say that the present government was

under no obligation to live up to commitments made by the

previous government. In this regard, I know that he was quoted

correctly in the newspapers because I saw him say it in person

on Channel 2 television,

"As I mentioned in my letter of April 10, I think this sort

of conduct is unbecoming of a government. I would appreciate

your confirmation that it is not your policy to disregard

commitments made by the previous government.

"I would also appreciate knowing your government's position

on the seven acres at Jericho about which I first wrote in

March, 1973. I have received no comment or acknowledgement to

my letter of March, 1973."

How often, Mr. Chairman, did we hear that Minister criticize

the former Premier for not answering his mail? His speeches are

still ringing in my ears, Mr. Chairman. Mind you, when the

former Premier didn't answer his mail, it was usually to

average citizens that wrote in to him asking for some little

favour. But he used to answer the mayor of Vancouver; he always

had time for that.

Mr. Chairman, I have an

article from the

Vancouver Sun of Friday, May 30: "Williams Ready to

Talk With Phillips."

"If Mayor Art Phillips wants to pick up his crying

towel and stop complaining to the press, Resources Minister Bob

Williams is willing to take with him."

My, Mr. Minister, that's very big of you. That's terribly

generous. What a poor sport the mayor of Vancouver was. Just

imagine! He writes a letter and there's no reply in two years

and he takes out his crying towel. He wrote after one year and

he still got no reply, and he pulled a dirty trick: he wrote

the boss and told him how you dealt with your mail.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's not my boss.

MR. McGEER: I agree with that, but he should be the boss,

shouldn't he?

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: He's going to find out when the next election is

over.

Yes, I suppose, Mr. Minister, it was really terribly poor

taste of the mayor to complain about the fact that you didn't

reply to the letters. Sniveling, wasn't it, of the mayor of

the City of Vancouver to write and object about a thing like

that, particularly, Mr. Chairman, since he and others had

worked for about seven years on the federal government to get

the property deeded over to the provincial government on the

strength of a letter saying it would be turned over for a

park.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: You're darned right the federal government

answered the mail. Mr. Chairman, do you know this? The federal

government saw that letter and the federal government believed

the provincial government and made a commitment. Wasn't that

silly of them? Innocence on the part of the federal government,

to turn that land over to the provincial government, thinking

that it was going to be a park. I'll tell you, you won't be

able to fool them again on a piece of land. They'll know

better. They'll never turn it over, because they believe that a

commitment is a commitment,

whereas the Minister said the

people don't seem to understand the NDP was elected to office.

That's what the Minister said: people couldn't understand that

the NDP had won the election in 1972. Of course that changes

everything. Maybe the federal government didn't realize that.

They thought a commitment was a commitment.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister: if that land is not to be turned

over to the City of Vancouver for park purposes at a nominal fee, as outlined

in the letter from the former Minister of Lands and Forests, does the Minister intend to give it back

to the federal government? Does he intend to write the federal

government and say: "I'm sorry that you gave it over. You

misunderstood. There was no commitment on our part."?

I don't know where it puts the City of Vancouver. I don't

know how they are going to explain to the federal government

and to all the people who worked hard to get that property back

for park purposes for all the people of Vancouver — the people

of Vancouver East, too. They use the beaches. It's the nicest

beach area in the whole of the city area. If it had been left

to you, Mr. Minister, it would still be in federal government

hands — either that or in some kind of housing project you

would have cooked up. But some people were trying to make it

into a park. You can see that doesn't interest the Minister at

all. I would like to move on to another area of interest

between the City of Vancouver and the Minister. This is with

respect to the downtown property that belongs to the provincial

government, and I refer to an

article of September 6, 1973:

"Industrial Development Minister Gary Lauk confirmed reports

that the government is prepared to donate the building and its

land to the city for a nominal price of $ 1."

We are referring to the provincial government building at

635 Burrard Street. Now here's a Minister of the Crown

confirming that the government is prepared to donate the

building and its land to the city for a nominal price of $

"Lauk said that the province will sit on the land for 100

years if necessary in order to preserve it for parkland and

prevent Vancouver developers from using it for high-rise

development. Peter Burkes wants to build a high-rise in that

area, and Lauk said 'no way.' " The Minister wasn't speaking

for himself. He was speaking for the government. On that basis

the City of Vancouver purchased the adjacent land. Not only

that, they soaked the surrounding property owners for the bulk

of the costs because they would be the ones to benefit from the

park.

Now the time comes for the provincial government to live up

to a commitment, publicly made, which resulted in decisive

action being taken by the City of Vancouver and property owners

being assessed extra taxes to pay for the creation of a park.

What happens when it comes time for the provincial government

to deliver up on its commitment? Yes, the Minister of Lands and

Forests welches. The government said yes, but the Minister said

no. Sure! The king of lands, forests and water resources said

no.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Aren't you

welching from the Liberal Party?

[ Page 2929 ]

MR. McGEER: Now, Mr. Chairman, I like to keep on the subject

and I don't want to get diverted over here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I am sure the Hon. Member won't

allow himself to be diverted much.

MR. McGEER: If you can preserve order, I'll keep to the

point. But he's really tempting me. He's tempting me, too, Mr.

Chairman.

But there's no question about this particular one. It wasn't

made by those nasty old Social Crediters. This was no

obligation of a former government. This was an obligation of

his own government. The Minister really doesn't care, when you

get down to it, Mr. Chairman, whether it was a former

government or whether it was the present government.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

If it suits the Minister's purposes, the answer is: "Yes, we

live up to a commitment." If it doesn't suit the Minister's

purposes today or the next day or the week after, "We don't

live up to our commitments." You don't know what a contract is,

Mr. Minister. You don't know what an obligation is or a

commitment or honour or anything else except the cheap partisan

purposes of you and your prejudices...

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Order!

MR. McGEER: ...and the misuse of power that has been placed

in your hands by misjudgment of the electorate. Nothing is

going to correct this little slip at the ballot boxes faster

than the kind of behaviour you've been showing since you took

office.

I would hope that we'll never have in our province again the

kind of government that doesn't understand what a contract is

or what a commitment is, because people undertake long-term

obligations not only, Mr. Chairman, in the private sphere. We

are not dealing with a contract here between some private

forest firm like MacMillan Bloedel that the Minister is always

trying to discredit, We're talking about obligations to federal

governments, to city governments, to parks boards, to property

taxpayers — these are the kinds of commitments that are

dismissed with contempt by that Minister, I don't know when we've had a Minister of the Crown with an

attitude like this before ever in office. I can't recall it.

But I think, Mr. Minister, it's time for your caucus and your

cabinet colleagues to remind you of some of the basic

obligations of government and for you to do a quick rethink on

your position and give some reassurance to the City of

Vancouver.

I just want to ask another couple of quick questions before I sit down. I would

like to ask the Minister how come he doesn't answer questions on the order paper.

The former Ministers always used to do that.

Specifically, I have asked a question about slash fires.

Ever since 1972 that question has gone unanswered on the order

paper, and I would like to ask why.

Secondly, the Minister used to make a great to-do about how

much was being done to clean up pollution in British Columbia

since he came to office. In one particular area, which is an

important recreational area for people in the area of

Vancouver–Howe Sound, I can see absolutely no improvement at

all. In fact, I think that the mess that's left behind up there

is considerably worse than it's ever been. I'd like to know

when those pulp mills and logging operations on Howe Sound are

going to be required to clean up in the interests of

anti-pollution and recreation in the lower mainland area.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It seems just a little ironic to have

the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey talk about rudderless

ships, since he seems to be part of the most rudderless ship in

the House at the moment.

It's kind of fascinating to hear his view of history and to

discuss these matters of parkland in Vancouver. I don't recall

the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey ever beating the drum in

terms of the area of real need of parkland in the city,

particularly the east side of the city which has never really

caught up with the rest of town in terms of park space, and

which has never had the kind of amenity or opportunity to enjoy

the waterfront that the western part of the city has. I think

it's to the discredit of all city administrations in recent

years that, in fact, waterfront open spaces have not been

created and developed east of Main Street where the need is by

far the greatest. The city has continued to pursue a policy of

Westside waterfront acquisition in areas like Point Grey Road —

hundreds of thousands of dollars a parcel in an area that is

already richly endowed in terms of recreation space and open

space. It's been a real disappointment for me, as a citizen of

Vancouver, to see that that didn't really change when

government changed in Vancouver from an NPA-dominated council

to a TEAM-dominated council. TEAM has done a fair number of

worthwhile things and has improved many aspects of civic

policy, but in terms of waterfront land acquisition, it just

hasn't happened.

I can't see these matters in isolation. The fact that the

Pacific National Exhibition, as asset — or what should be more

of an asset for the people on the east side of town — was run

basically by a downtown group for decades — a self-perpetuating

board of directors running that so-called park for decades,

[ Page 2930 ]

making no profit whatsoever, with a disinterested or

uninterested city council in the whole process. We changed that

and this large land area on the east side of town got at least

some kind of democratization in terms of its management in the

form of a board of directors with representatives from the

neighbourhood, with more representatives from city council,

parks board and the like. That was a considerable improvement

in terms of management of that "park" facility. That was an

improvement. As a result, lo and behold, the PNE, which has not

made money year after year because of various inadequate

arrangements in terms of leasing the land to others, suddenly

started making money with the new board of directors.

All of a sudden the city council took renewed interest in

the Pacific National Exhibition. At long last. The park on the

east side of town, an area that was short of parks, was looked

at in a different way by the city council and the mayor. All of

a sudden the idea that a park on the east side of town should

be available at a nominal price of $1 a year for the site

changed. The mayor said: "No, $1 million is more like it." That

didn't happen until he was frustrated in his attempts to become

the president of the Pacific National Exhibition. The board

didn't re-elect him president of the Pacific National

Exhibition, and it was then that the mayor decided there really

should be a higher fee for this park on the east side of town,

that the fee should suddenly change from $1 to $1 million a

year, that the idea of this park on the east side of town at $1

a year was too good. It just shouldn't continue, They should

have to pay $1 million annually for that land — land they

didn't care a whit about before this government came along.

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, the Member's former colleague,

Barrie Clark, certainly would be rather upset with the idea of

a rental transition from $1 a year to $1 million a year. The

rentalsman certainly wouldn't live with that one for very long.

But that's what the mayor of Vancouver wanted to do to the

citizens on the east side of town. He continued to pursue his

activity in terms of park expansion on the waterfront on the

west side of town.

The business of seeing to it that there is more open space

on the waterfront is a concern of mine as a Member from the

area and as a citizen who has been concerned about the question

for some time.

So the idea that the province should always give up its land owned by all the

people of the province for $1 to the city, when the city was prepared always,

again, even with a new administration to apply a double standard — "On the east

side of town you pay $1 million a year for parkland; on the west side of town,

we want it for free" — it doesn't add up. It just doesn't add up, Mr. Chairman.

I can understand the Member for Point Grey taking that point

of view. It's the kind of point of view that

Point-Grey-dominated councils in Vancouver have taken for far

too long. So the major asked one of his aldermen to contact me

to discuss the matter. I said: " Really, the more worthwhile

process would be for a meeting with the mayor." Instead, the

mayor chose to deal with the press at city hall; that's his

choice to make.

That land on the east side of the city is land that should

be improved. Now that the PNE is making money — $1.5 million a

year, almost the local Canadian Cellulose — they feel that that

should go into rent, that it shouldn't go into improvements in

the park itself. I'm sure that the majority of the board of

directors are of the opinion that those lands should be

improved as amenity space and that the first priority for the

profit from the operation of the exhibition should be in the

form of improvements in those grounds so that everybody who

uses those exhibition grounds gets the benefit and so that the

funds don't get lost in general revenue. But the mayor,

unfortunately, doesn't take that point of view.

The mayor was also concerned about the land on the south

side of False Creek. It's turned out that much of the reclaimed

land at the shoreline edge behind the new retaining wall is, in

fact, provincial Crown land. Again, the mayor feels that that

should simply be turned over directly for $1. He said when he

phoned me to discuss the matter that it was "simply a

draftsman's error" — just a draftsman's error — that they built

the sea wall on provincial land, and that therefore the land

again should be turned over for $ 1.

One might not dispute at all the idea that the Jericho land

should be available for parkland, nor that the south False

Creek land similarly should be available. But it's always the

double standard. When it came to the downtown area in the

three-block court house, land that the city bought for $1

million — a city block — which was originally intended to be a

city square, was sold in fact to the province for a price of

about $4.5 million.

In fact, much of that land is going to be downtown park: there will be a huge

landscaped area, there will be a skating rink, there will be a lake, there will

be waterfalls, there will be a major downtown amenity. In addition, the old

court house will become a major downtown amenity. Again, the province turns

over these facilities directly without charge to the city. But when the province

is acquiring from the city, we pay top dollar — $4.5 million for the land essentially

to put a downtown civic square, court and a provincial building complex on.

[ Page

2931 ]

The whole surface of the building will become a park;

virtually almost a block and a half downtown will become

open-space parkland — extremely valuable land. Again the double

standard: the province gives the land up for $1, for a nominal

fee, and the city charges $4.5 million for the land.

All right. But at some point the province has to consider equity in the situation.

It does seem, Mr. Chairman, that equity just hasn't been applied. It is the

double standard that's being applied, unfortunately. They want to charge $1

million a year for a park on the east side of town and they want the province

to give up valuable land for free on the west side. It's a double standard that

shouldn't be applied; it is being applied.

So there are matters for discussion. If the mayor will

decide to take the matter up in a rational way, as I think is

necessary in terms of face-to-face discussion, then I think it

can be resolved for the benefit of all the people of Vancouver,

not just the people on the west side but the people on the west

side and on the east side. That's the kind of attitude one

would hope and expect from a mayor of that city.

It does seem to me typical that a Member from the

roller-coaster group, or independentistes, or whatever they

call them these days, should say that the last election was

"misjudgment" — that it was a slip of the ballot box. It's

typical of the Liberals' lust for power, a feeling that they

are the only ones who should have the right to govern, to say

that the public made a mistake, that they didn't know what they

were doing. It's a typical attitude of the Point Grey Liberal

mind — that the people didn't know what they were doing and

that decisions are all wrong, that it was a slip.

AN HON. MEMBER: There are no Liberals left in Point

Grey.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That remains to be seen. The Member also

indicated his concern about Howe Sound and Woodfibre. I'd like

to advise the Member that pollution control standards are being

applied at Woodfibre. They must meet standards by the autumn of

this year with respect to emissions at Woodfibre, and that

should improve the situation considerably in that area.

MR. McGEER: Just a supplementary, Mr. Chairman. I don't think the Minister

really dealt with the question of commitments that were made by the provincial

government that were used by the city in their negotiations with the federal

government to have it turned over. As I understand what he said, the Minister

was unprepared to honour the provincial government commitment because he didn't

like the city's policy with respect to the PNE. He didn't say these words, but

the

interpretation I got was that he was using the Jericho lands as blackmail

over the City of Vancouver to have the City of Vancouver adopt the policy suitable

to him for East Vancouver.

At first I thought he wanted some kind of beach created down

by the grain elevators there under the Second Narrows Bridge.

But that wasn't it at all. He was talking about that park where

they have all the horseracing which the provincial government

collects revenue from. I don't know how many millions of

dollars they take out, but the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser)

contributes to those taxes. It isn't just the people from the

east side who play the ponies. So I don't know what the right

policy is with regard to the PNE, but I think it unfortunate

that the Minister would attempt to blackmail the City of

Vancouver. I don't see how his statements could be interpreted

in any other way than blackmail, Mr. Chairman. He can explain

if there is a different

interpretation.

But certainly when the mayor of Vancouver first wrote,

requesting that the provincial government honour the agreement,

that was in March of 1973 before the PNE question came up. I

assume that the Minister was holding back the agreement even

then with the expectation of blackmailing the City of Vancouver

at some future time over anything he happened to disagree

with.

It's very well to fight these class wars — and the Minister

has been doing it ever since he came to the House — but it

doesn't really help anybody. We don't want to be setting up

toll gates for every facility on the east side that the west

side people pay money to use, and we certainly wouldn't want to

set up toll gates on the west side so that people from the east

side would pay to use the beaches or something. What you try to

do is create beach parks where there's sand and where there are

beaches. You don't try to put a beach in in front of Wall

Street there in West Vancouver where the Minister lives. There

just isn't enough sand there. And there's the problem of where

the freighters dock.

On the other hand, it's an excellent place to build a

multi-million-dollar hockey arena to bring the Vancouver

Blazers and the Russians and the Vancouver Canucks. I don't

think people on the west side or anywhere else in Vancouver

complain about the federal government giving that expensive

colosseum which is very handy to the people of that area. It

just happens to be one of the advantages of one neighbourhood,

just like the fact that all the sandy beaches in another part

of town are an advantage to that neighbourhood. But surely we

don't want to set up a Berlin wall in the City of Vancouver,

saying this is mine and that's yours, and to be jealous of

everything that's over on the other side, and on the other hand

use what's on one side of the picket fence to blackmail the

City of Vancouver and to stand in the way of development of

[ Page 2932 ]

appropriate services.

With respect to Howe Sound, the Minister mentioned something

about Woodfibre, but he didn't say anything about the major

polluter of Howe Sound, which is the Port Mellon mill. It's

thrown a blight over the whole of Gambier Island, which was

once a very lovely recreational area. The reason why I raise

the question, Mr. Chairman, is that when I saw how bad the

pollution was outside that plant last summer, I had occasion to

call the pollution control branch and discovered they were

doing nothing at all about that mill. They didn't have any

intention of doing anything about it. So when I was speaking of

cleaning up Howe Sound, I was thinking of all the facilities on

Howe Sound, Mr. Chairman.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, this Minister has control of so

many things, and there are a few things I'd like to bring up

that haven't been touched on before. One item was touched on

before, and I got an answer but I'm not clear whether the

Minister understood.

Just since then I've received a letter regarding timber on

agricultural leased land, Crown land. I only want to read a

part of it, Mr. Chairman. It's from a citizen who has applied

for agricultural Crown land, classified as such by the Lands

department.

"To date I have not received any further reply as to the

disposition of the above-noted land. However, having spoken

recently to the district forester at Williams Lake, I feel an

injustice being done to the ranchers and farmers of the Cariboo

if Forestry is allowed to take over agricultural land as if it

were their own. If a rancher has timber on an agricultural

lease and wishes to log it off, it is usually over a long

period of time and more than likely the stumpage will rise as

the price of timber goes up. But if a logging outfit logs the

timber now over a short period of time while the stumpage is

low, the government is losing money.

"The district forester states that there is insufficient

timber in the SSA," — that's the special sales area —

"to support the established operators."

I want to make an observation here, Mr. Chairman. I think

this is at the root of the problem, Mr. Minister. There is a

shortage of timber in the SSA, so the Forestry department is

turning around and saying that they are going to get this

timber off this agricultural land and give it to the quota

holders.

I want to further suggest that the Indian land claims are

involved in this. In this particular area, I assure you that

the Narcosli forest district has had a road closed for over a

year. These operators in the Narcosli forests of the Cariboo

are all the same operators as in the special sales area. I am

referring to timber west of Nazko in the Narcosli forest

district.

As the Minister knows and the responsible forest officials

know, the natives of that area laid claim to that land a year

ago May, and no action has been taken, even if it is in the

Narcosli forest district and involves quota. So it could be

that this is where this can of worms is evolving. I appreciate

what the forestry officials are trying to do to maintain the

quota supply, but I suggest that the Indian land claims

question is definitely involved in this shortage of timber,

because they have part of the Narcosli force blocked off.

But really, regardless of who logs the timber off, is it not

still going to the established sawmills at Quesnel? I mentioned

that earlier.

"What chance has the rancher and farmer got if the timber

goes up for public auction after the established licensee has

finished taking the timber? All that the rancher has left is a

big mess to clean up. The cost to the rancher runs as high as

$200 an acre."

I think that's a conservative estimate, $200 an acre for

clearing.

"Since he has no income coming in from this land on which he

is paying an annual rent, and eventually after cleaning up is

allowed to buy 80 per cent of it, he has no alternative but to

borrow money to put this land into production.

"Taking as an example 160 acres, the total price for just

clearing could run as high as $30,000. For a young rancher just

starting out, this is a very discouraging blow when you

consider the ranchers' and farmers' economy of today.

"I can understand the problems that the Department of Lands

is having with the misuse of agricultural lease land, but I am

sure some solution to this problem could be worked out — such as

if the timber is included in agricultural lease land, the

rancher could log it off in only 40-acre lots. Then before

another 40-acre parcel is issued, he must clear the

above-mentioned land and have it ready for production."

I just read that off, further to my other remarks to the

Minister. I thought it was a good letter and it explains the

problem that when the Forestry comes and takes the timber, they

take the revenue.

Young people want to go farming, believe it or not,

regardless of the economy of agriculture today. Mr. Chairman,

there are a lot of them who want to get away from the concrete

jungles of Vancouver east and the lower mainland, Richmond,

Surrey, Delta and New Westminster. We welcome them up in the

interior where the biggest population we have is moose and

deer. I think this is stopping this migration, and I hope the

Minister now knows what is going on, will look into it and get

a report from the forest officials as to why this is happening

and, hopefully, get it stopped.

[ Page 2933 ]

I am not sure of this, Mr. Chairman, but I believe this

Minister now has the jurisdiction of the Litter Act. I would

like to know from the Minister who is in charge of the Litter

Act.... I am getting a lot of correspondence from citizens

saying that when they return cans, bottles and so on, they are

getting a real runaround from merchants. They won't accept

this, they won't accept that. Apparently there are a lot of

young students now going out and collecting for fund-raising

projects. The parents supervise, and they do a lot of hard work

to raise funds to take trips and so on. They take the bottles

and cans back to the various depots and are told that that can

is dented and this bottle is the wrong bottle; it's very

discouraging.

I'd like to know who is administering the Litter Act and

where I can find out the exact regulations and send them on,

because my correspondence all of a sudden has become very heavy

from the interior. I think, in other words, that a lot of the

merchants are just jacking around the citizens and are not

adhering to the Litter Art.

The other thing I would like to hear a report from the

Minister on is operation SAM. I forget what the initials stood

for originally, but I refer to the car-crushing plant — the

pick-up of these old cars, crushing them and shredding them. I

haven't seen or heard anything much about it lately. Is it

still in existence? How many vehicles did it crush last year?

What are the most up-to-date figures? Is it still in demand?

What kind of a staff is involved, and so on?

Last but not least, Mr. Chairman, nobody has talked today,

under this Minister's jurisdiction, about his title as really

senior director of B.C. Hydro and Power Authority. There are

two elected Ministers on this board, and they're the only real

input from the public. I assume this Minister is senior because

the other Minister has a junior portfolio and has the habit of

going to sleep. I don't think this Minister goes to sleep in

the meetings.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: What's wrong with that?

MR. FRASER: Well, there's nothing much wrong with going to sleep at

a meeting, but I wonder whether the senior management of Hydro can't give a

snow job, while you are sleeping, to the elected people. Therefore this Minister

becomes very important for this large monopoly — not monopoly but Crown corporation

— which has got $3 billion in debt, and we were told the other day it is going

to $6 billion. I'd like to hear a report from this Minister. More specifically,

I'd like to hear if he has carried out the directive the Premier gave him in

reply to me when he said inadequacy of the rural electrification policy would

be on the agenda of Hydro shortly. I am sure the Minister of Finance, who gives

$3 million a year to Hydro to extend rural power, would give $6 million if this

Minister would ask for it. Nobody has asked for it. This $3 million has been

the same since about 1968. I've said before in this House, Mr. Chairman, to

the Minister, that it's worth about $1 million today.

Quite frankly, Hydro extensions are almost at a stop. They

will continue to decline. I know that we had a report and that

700 were added to the system from rural, but what we

didn't get is how many have really applied, and how many

applications are in front of you now. I would suggest probably

7,000 are after power. That isn't much to ask. Why

can't our rural citizens have power when our urban citizens not

only have power but have transit? I don't deny them that, but

there is not equity here, where $3 million is all the

citizens in the interior get for power extensions. It doesn't

all apply to them either. I understand there are also problems

on Vancouver Island, close to some urban areas, because of the

lack of funding of rural electrification.

I would like to hear what the Minister has to say in

response to that, and I would like to ask him, as the director,

about the supervision of the Hydro and Power Authority. As I

said, the people of B.C. are now in debt to the tune of

$3 billion, and it is estimated it is going to

$6 billion, but in the last statement I have seen of

Hydro, as of March, 1974, in that year alone their

operating revenues were $384 million — take-in, go-out

$380-odd million dollars — and I'm quite concerned

that there is really not enough supervision there.

This Minister is a busy Minister, but I would like to hear

his concerns, as I have heard the Premier's, about this large

Crown corporation.

I would just like to report in my other capacity as chairman

of the public accounts committee that they don't even seem to

care. I just had a phone call. I had to leave the House half an

hour ago due to a letter I wrote to Mr. Cass-Beggs. I don't

know where he is. Is he skiing in Europe? We can't get any

response from him. This is the second letter. The second letter

has gone out. I got a phone call from a senior official of

Hydro, and he says that he's the only one who could attend a

public accounts meeting this Thursday. It was called in writing

and he has had the letter since Friday of last week.

These are things that concern me. There are a lot of senior

people over there, and it concerns members of the public

accounts committee. We can't even get them to the meetings to

question them on details. I'm very concerned, due to the large

amount of money that is involved.

I'm not implying in any way that the Minister is keeping

these people away, but I don't think that the Legislature or

any of its committees, when they give out written notice...I

think that should be a priority item with those senior people.

Wherever they are, they should drop what they are doing and

come

[ Page 2934 ]

to that meeting, given reasonable notice. That does not seem

to be the case, so how do we get into this large Crown

corporation and find out what is going on? I'll end my remarks

now and hope the Minister has a few answers. Thank you.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We are aware of some problems in the

question of the Litter Act and have been pursuing some aspects

of the difficulties the Member raises. In terms of details, it

is the Water Resources and it is the pollution control branch.

There is detailed information available from the PCB with

respect to the regulations. That would be readily

available.

Project SAM is also within Water Resources now, transferred

from Recreation and Conservation. SAM stands for salvage,

assembly and manufacture. The number of vehicles crushed in the

past year was 19,000, I believe. The number of staff is 15 in

the programme. The budget is $733,000, a considerable increase

from last year.

There are difficulties — many of them inherited, I am afraid — with respect to a long-term contract approved by the former

Minister in terms of delivering the compacted vehicles to the

Richmond salvage operator. The arrangement in terms of what the

province receives for the salvaged vehicles is most

unsatisfactory. We do not receive the real market value of the

material as a result of the contract that was signed by the

former Minister responsible, Mr. Kiernan. The contract was

entered into in 1972; it runs for a period of 10 years. It was

a most imprudent contract by the former government — one,

unfortunately, that we are stuck with. These things keep

popping up. That is one of the major difficulties with respect

to the SAM programme.

Regarding rural electrification, as the Premier indicated,

that is something we are certainly prepared to look at further.