[ Page 1851 ]

CONTENTS

Night Sitting

Routine Proceedings

Committee of supply: Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources estimates.

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1851

Mr. McGeer — 1851

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1852

Mr. McGeer — 1852

Mr. Phillips — 1852

Mr. Wallace — 1853

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1855

Mr. Wallace — 1857

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 1858

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1858

Mr. McClelland — 1858

Mr. Chabot — 1859

Mr. Morrison — 1860

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1860

Mr. Chabot — 1860

Mr. Morrison — 1861

Mr. Richter — 1861

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1862

Mr. Fraser — 1862

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1863

Mr. Fraser — 1863

Mr. Smith — 1863

Mr. Brousson — 1866

Mr. Chabot — 1869

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1869

Mr. Smith — 1869

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 1973

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF LANDS, FORESTS
AND WATER RESOURCES

(continued)

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I asked the Minister a number of questions before dinner. I wonder if he has had a chance to study them to give us a full and complete reply?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): I certainly had more than enough time to deal with the Hon. Member's questions, Mr. Chairman. The first area I think the Member was concerned about was the power development on Vancouver Island. The Treasury board in early September approved additional AC and DC cables to the southern end of Vancouver Island. Those cables from Delta and the lower mainland will provide the basic increase in energy on Vancouver Island up until 1980, as I am sure the Member is aware. In addition there are gas turbines that will meet some of the need in areas such as Port Hardy.

The Energy Board report dealt with the question of energy for Vancouver Island. The question of a nuclear plant, of course, was covered in that report as well as the other alternative of thermal supply for the island, essentially using Hat Creek coal. A further possibility was overhead transmission lines to the northerly part of the inlet from Hamathko or Bute Inlet. There was some difference among the members of the Energy Board in that regard. You may recall, Dr. Keenleyside had a minority position with respect to some of the questions involved.

At this stage we feel that the short-term needs are clearly covered by the cables and the gas turbines. We do have some breathing space in terms of looking at the alternatives and making a decision.

B.C. is lucky and I suppose richly blessed compared to other parts of the world in terms of energy potential with a considerable hydro electric potential still untapped — considerable thermal possibilities and our own coal, gas and oil. So that there is a range of choices in British Columbia.

The question of a firm decision in terms of a long run solution for Vancouver Island has not been made and we intend to use the time to look seriously and closely at all the possibilities and the problems in terms of the alternatives that we might choose.

With respect to the budget: the final budget for the next fiscal year of B.C. Hydro is not completely finalized but it is in the $330 million range.

The question of where funds will come from for B.C. Hydro: of course, part of the funds come from revenue — from charging the customers. Some funds come from borrowings which are essentially from the Province in the form of either Canada Pension Plan funds or our own superannuation funds. The additional funds within the overall budget — in the form of depreciation.

The question of returns on investment from different sectors of the utility: I haven't checked the actual figures, but I am sure the Member has. I think the range is something in terms of what he suggested.

I am sure that if the oil companies had an internal rate of return of 13.2 per cent they would feel they were starving. So the question of rates of return for B.C. Hydro are something that we think deserves further study by the new administration.

The question of rates and the internal breakdown of rates is something that is an on-going study as well. Clearly, the overall returns to the authority are hardly excessive in terms of the kind of services that are being performed for the people of the province.

I think those were the main questions, Mr. Chairman.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the Minister dealt very well, saying that all the matters that I raised were under study. I am very pleased to hear that.

I would like to ask first of all whether the B.C. Hydro will need to go to the open market this year to make up the capital budget. Of course, if they don't go to the open market it means that our pension funds and the Canada Pension Plan will not be able to cover all the capital requirements and we get into the mystery area of the budget that the Premier presented.

The other area that I would like the Minister to deal with, if he would, is that involving Ocean Falls — the consultant's report; the long range plans for Ocean Falls; and whether we are to have a box factory there, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: How could I have forgotten the box factory. The private market — that's really a matter for the Minister of Finance to consider. However, I wouldn't anticipate that it

[ Page 1852 ]

would be necessary to go to the private market with respect to capital borrowings for B.C. Hydro. That is the pension funds…

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): What about B.C. Railways?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That is an area for the Minister of Finance — to consider the options.

Ocean Falls: various people were involved with respect to Ocean Falls. Mr. De Saulnier was one of the advisors of the Government — Mr. Neil De Saulnier who has analyzed similar problems in the private sector. There was a staff review as well, internally, within the Forest Service and there was also a review by Crown Zellerbach itself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace River. O.K., one more supplementary.

MR. McGEER: I don't want to interfere with the other Member's rights to question the Minister. But, while we are on this topic of B.C. Hydro, Mr. Chairman, could I ask what the Minister and his Government might be doing with regard to the Columbia River Treaty?

Mr. Chairman, now that we have run out of the American funds, one of the very great drains on the people of British Columbia, if there is to be entirely internal borrowing for the capital developments, will be the making up the losses on the Columbia River Treaty.

I would like to know the current status; what we are doing with respect to laying the ground work for renegotiation of that treaty; and the possibility of obtaining further American funds to get us out of the hole.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, there are more studies, Mr. Chairman, although the Premier has been communicating with the Prime Minister in recent months in this regard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, I certainly don't wish to delay this debate. However, it always seems I am the last one to get up before the actual vote is passed. I guess that is because I am such a gentleman. But, I have a couple of points that I would like to bring up to the Minister.

I would like to know if the Minister would advise me what plan of action he intends to take; what his policy will be with regard to restoring river courses where they are changed due to floods?

We had a couple of cases in our area last year where the Pine and the Sukunka Rivers actually changed course. In one case, went right through one particular farm. I wrote the Minister back in September with regard to this one particular case. As to date, I haven't received a reply. I realize he is a very busy man.

But, what will the policy be? It may be fine where the course of the river is changed and it involves only Crown land. But, in this particular case, if something isn't done to barricade or restore a sandbar that used to prevent the river from flowing through this particular ranch…If something isn't done — why if this river ever decides to go on the rampage again, which it could — it doesn't do it often — this is the first time in about 20 years. But if we are going to have a similar situation and the government paid out some $17,000 in this particular claim — I am afraid we will be faced with doing the same thing again unless we do something.

The other thing I would like to ask the Minister: has he any intentions with regard to Imperial Lumber who are operating in the Moncton Pass area at the present time? The lumber out of this area is going to the Province of Alberta, which is fine. We ship a lot of lumber out of British Columbia, that's not the problem. But, it is being trucked out by Alberta trucks and the majority of the employees in that particular area are from Alberta. And I don't want the Minister to stand up and lecture me that the previous administration created this situation. What I am interested in, Mr. Minister, is…

AN HON. MEMBER: Even if it might be true.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, as I say, I am in a good mood tonight and I don't want to lecture the Minister, and we won't get involved in lecturing each other. I would like to know, Mr. Minister, if you have any plans to do something about the situation; we do have the boundary road now and it has been opened. I would hope that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources would get together with the Minister of Highways to provide year-round access to that area that I am talking about.

The other thing that I would like to ask the Minister — and I have asked the Premier and the Minister of Finance about this — is the power line to Lone Prairie. I don't want the Attorney General to send me a note and say, "Bury me not on the lone prairie." These people in Lone Prairie are in darkness and yet they are not many miles from that great W.A.C. Bennett Dam that ships power down here to the lower mainland. The residents of that area would like to, if they could, just put up some kind of a tower and tap some of that power.

The big problem with the present schedule that we have is that this line going to Lone Prairie has to go

[ Page 1853 ]

through about 6 1/2 miles of Crown land. If we use the existing formula, the residents of that area would have to pay this 6 1/2 miles through Crown Land and it shoves the price out of all reason to those people.

So if the Crown would pay for this 6 1/2 miles, we could get this power line down to Lone Prairie and those people wouldn't have to sing the blues to all of us any more. I have a petition here, and I'm sure the Minister has a petition, and it would be great to let the people of Lone Prairie become enlightened, particularly when the sun goes down.

The other thing that I would like to ask the Minister — and I know there is legislation before the House — but is it the policy of B.C. Hydro to not award contracts to non-union contractors? We had a case recently; and I had good cooperation, I thought, from the new manager of B.C. Hydro, but the thing seems to have backfired somehow and this particular contractor got bogged down. It was up north; and I think probably if he reminds the general manager, he could enlighten me, because I know that this Government and B.C. Hydro would not want to be prejudiced against any particular firm. This particular firm was negotiating in good faith to sign up its employees and we wouldn't want to make a case of that. Certainly not.

Now, Mr. Minister, one last point and that is that we know there is a growing need for hydro in the province. Do you have any plans to go ahead with Site 1 on the Peace River in the near future? It is an area that will cause very little problems, ecology-wise. It won't bother any fish runs and won't really hurt too much of the riverbed because the banks are mostly rock. Are there plans to go ahead with this?

Now I would appreciate it if the Minister would get up and give me some frank answers to this, and I'd be most pleased to vote on his salary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to make a few comments. I have been asked particularly by some of the residents of Enderby to raise the issue of the proposed four power lines, I believe, which have caused some real concern by the residents in that area. I really don't know, frankly, Mr. Chairman, why they wrote to me, but I am raising the matter at their request with a fair amount of detail which they have provided.

The situation is that they are very concerned basically about something which, with respect, Mr. Chairman, the Minister himself struggled very valiantly for when he was in the Opposition. That was that B.C. Hydro should not ride roughshod over the interests of local individuals or enter into programmes of hydropower line extension without the full consultation with the people in the neighbourhood. I am willing to accept the Minister's explanation if I am misinformed, but my information is that there has been tremendous pressure in a hasty fashion by B.C. Hydro to put in these power lines with very limited, if any, consultation with the people in the district.

Now the route which has been chosen, I understand, has some very definite detrimental effects in the area in addition to the fact that they would disfigure the scenic beauty of the Enderby cliffs, which to the people in that region are something which they prize somewhat in the way that we prize the beauty of the Malahat highway on this southern Vancouver Island.

I am told that the route which is proposed would damage the nesting areas of wild fowl. It would in fact intrude upon agriculture and alpine areas. The route would limit the future growth or the possible expansion of Enderby. It also goes through the city watershed with a real danger to the quality of the water supply.

Mr. Chairman, the real point which seems to anger the residents is the lack of consultation and the lack of opportunity for the local residents to discuss and exchange ideas with B.C. Hydro. I am quoting in the main, Mr. Edward Galstrom, who is the chairman of the Enderby and District Citizens' Association.

A meeting was held on February 28, I understand, to which I was invited and was unable to attend. But the complaint which they asked to be raised on the floor of this House is the fact that there is a tremendous sense of pressure and haste by B.C. Hydro that such plans must go ahead by a certain dateline, and by that dateline B.C. Hydro really has not either considered some of the better alternatives — better in the opinion of the residents — or there has been action taken already in the area. I understand there was a substation created at Ashton Creek and that some — I don't know if we could call them emergency powers — but the authorization to create that substation was gained in quite a hurry and in a limited number of weeks. Apparently this in itself ensures that the power line will at least have to involve Ashton Creek and this in turn limits the choices that are left in that area.

Mr. Chairman, I am in no way trying to suggest that I know very much about the Enderby area or this specific problem. I am raising an issue which embodies a very important principle, and it is the principle which this same Minister fought for — and I admired him when he did so — against the over-riding autocratic attitude of B.C. Hydro.

While I don't know much about Enderby, I certainly know something about this area. I know the kind of fight that Pat Codyre has fought against B.C. Hydro in the greater Victoria area, against the autocratic attitude which says, "We want this right-of-way, and by God, we are going to get it!"

There have been hardships and anger and the

[ Page 1854 ]

threat of violence in this area. I can sense in the letter that I received from Mr. Galstrom the same kind of resentment — that B.C. Hydro seems to place itself above the wishes and the respects and the honest, well-meaning intentions of people in a local area who feel that if a power line has to go through, then the very least that the residents are entitled to is full consultation and discussion, an exploration of alternatives, and the hope that the final route chosen will best serve all the interests concerned: the interests of ecology, of aesthetics and of the provision of power which is a rightful wish of the B.C. Hydro.

Since I've sat in this House and listened to the Minister defend the individual and his property against the ravages of B.C. Hydro, I would be most interested to have the Minister's comments on this issue which seems to be causing a great deal of concern in Enderby.

I missed the first part of the session sitting tonight — and the Minister may have answered the Member for Point Grey — but as a resident of Vancouver Island I would like to pursue a little further the whole question of the public debate which is continuing over the possibility of a nuclear plant on Vancouver Island.

I'm rather surprised that there's been so little discussion about the Energy Board report, which interestingly enough is dated August 31. I'll make no comment — I'll just quote the date.

The interesting thing about that report — and I read it in some detail — is the division of opinion between one of the Members and the remainder of the board. This refers to the very important deviation from the consultant's report by the board in relation to a proposed overhead line from the mainland to Vancouver Island. Among the remainder of the board, Dr. Keenleyside disagreed with the board, and saw the potential hazards of having the power line at 2,000 to 3,000 feet, and the fact that it could be out of action for a large part of the winter. The Energy Board felt that this was not a viable suggestion, yet it is one with which Dr. Keenleyside entered a separate report, disagreeing quite clearly with the majority board report.

Mr. Chairman, I would like the Minister's comment on that particular division of opinion on the board. But beyond and above that, I sense as I talk to people and as I listen to the Government, that there is this tremendous lack of information about the pros and cons of nuclear power. I think if we look back in history, whenever there was any new discovery or when Galileo looked through his telescope, or any other amount of examples we could quote, there's always a tremendous lag before people can overcome this tremendous apprehension about the unknown or the ill-understood.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: The Member quotes Medicare — he might be right.

If you read the scientists and the experts, I think there is little doubt that inevitably, whether it be 15 or 20 years, nuclear power unquestionably will be the source from which we derive our electrical power.

A Russian scientist just recently predicted that the whole question of harnessing thermo-nuclear power — in other words, the power of the hydrogen bomb — would not only provide us with endless amounts of energy, but apparently it would not pose us with the problem which concerns the Premier so badly, namely the dispersal of nuclear waste. I don't know this Russian by international reputation. The name is Golovin.

He predicts that the kind of reactor which we can look to in the not-too-distant future will not involve the emission of any combustion wastes into the atmosphere or into rivers. Moreover, by its very nature, the fusion reaction rules out the possibility of a nuclear accident. Therefore it is safer, and thermonuclear reactors can be built in the centre of cities where their waste heat can be used for industrial and domestic needs. Now, Mr. Chairman, I don't know what year he quotes, but at least we're not looking so far ahead that this Government should not perhaps take a very serious look at this kind of possibility.

The Member from Vancouver-Point. Grey has already touched on the undoubted fact that at present, in 1973, we're as far ahead as any other country in producing efficient, safe nuclear power energy. This kind of fear, which I think exists in our society about nuclear power per se, regardless of whether you're using natural uranium or enriched uranium, and the tremendous excitement that surrounds the fast breeder reactor which is a type of reactor — it provides energy and it provides more fuel as the process continues — but there is some difficulty or some concern about the dispersal of nuclear waste even for the fast breeder reactor.

The point I'm trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is that I have the feeling that in British Columbia we are just scared of nuclear power. We're not taking a rational, scientific, informed approach to nuclear power, because the great mass of us, 99.9 per cent of the people — myself included — cannot really understand it. When you're afraid of the unknown, there's a great tendency to avoid it or to pretend that it doesn't exist.

I just feel from the professional expert advice that you can derive from journals and newspapers and press clippings and so on, that there is a tremendous potential in nuclear power. When we're all concerned about the environment, about damming rivers and the pollution from burning coal and from the other thermal forms of power, I think that it would be a tragedy if, because this Government feels that we don't understand it adequately, we sit back and

[ Page 1855 ]

decide that all our policies shall be based on either hydro or thermal sources of electrical power.

I'd have to take issue with the Member for Point Grey who said that it is cheaper than thermal power. The Energy Board report makes it quite plain that the capital cost of a nuclear power plant exceeds the cost of a thermal power plant, and they're not sure that the operating costs might be more expensive also. Regardless, in terms of hydro power, the operating costs are much the same with nuclear, and it may be lower in thermal, but they certainly hedge the statement in the Energy Board report.

Another interesting point, Mr. Chairman — I'd like to ask the Minister a question in regard to the Energy Board report. One of the very interesting aspects that was turned down completely was a proposed dam on the Fraser River. I think we all would likely agree that any serious damage to the fish as a result of damming the Fraser River is something that we would regret. But one important thing — and again we're getting close to something the Premier spoke about year after year after year when he was in the Opposition — was adequate dyking, or adequate flood control. I can well remember the Premier, Mr. Chairman — it seemed that quite often about 11 o'clock at night he got on to his annual, or I should say perennial, speech about… But it isn't a humorous matter — one shouldn't joke about it.

I'd like to just quote the Energy Board report. It says:

"At the 1971 level of development, the estimated damages which would be caused by a flood today would be of the order of $200 million — quite apart from the hazard to human life…

"The board wishes to underline the seriousness of the present situation with respect to the extent of the flood which could occur and the possibility of its occurrence."

Then they go on to say there's a 1 in 200 chance that this kind of flood could occur.

"The board recommends most strongly that steps be taken to dispel any false sense of security which may prevail."

I omitted to say earlier on that they don't feel that the dyking system, as we presently have it, will restrain the kind of flood that they had in 1894 — which was a little before my time. If it occurred today it apparently would not be controlled by our dykes, and we could look to damage at least in the order of $200 million, in addition to human life being lost.

I respect the Premier's answer to one of my questions on the order paper, where the provincial federal board managing the dyke problem in the Fraser Valley had decided that an extra sum of some $12 million was required.

I'd like to know, Mr. Chairman, from the Minister if that amount of money merely covers plans that were already on the drawing boards. Or does this represent an additional programme to try and cope with the potential flood that I have just quoted from the Energy Board report? In other words — I can't remember the exact amount of money — but is that simply to carry out the work which was already planned? Or is this additional money to be available to provide the extra kind of protection which the Energy Board report is calling for?

As we all know too well, we've spent two weeks or more debating preservation of agricultural land. It really doesn't make too much sense if we've been made aware by these experts in the Energy Board report of the realistic danger in the Fraser Valley of tremendous flooding and we are not, in fact, taking the appropriate preventive measures to try and deal with such a flood if, in fact, it should occur.

The report also mentions that even as recently as last year, 1972, only the accident of unseasonably cool weather has intervened to prevent a disastrous flood in the Fraser Valley. These are some of the points that I think are important to the whole of the Province. Although I don't have a great deal of personal experience with the Fraser Valley, or feel that I am in a position to speak with authority, I think when you quote the kind of people who wrote that report, they certainly speak with authority. I wonder if the Minister would care to comment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the dyking programme on the Fraser River, there is a joint federal-provincial agreement. We will be matching all of the funds that the federal government provides or vice versa. The design level with respect to the dyking system, both in the lower mainland and in the upper reaches of the river, which will now be covered by an extension of the agreement, will be the 1894 flood level plus two feet, which is a 200-year flood standard with respect to the dyking system.

The real holdup, however, is within the municipal level. This does involve cooperation with the municipalities as well, who pay approximately 10 per cent of the capital cost under the agreement.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, that a matter of argument and the policy of the former administration was that and I think in that particular instance it wasn't too bad a policy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's certainly where a

[ Page 1856 ]

part of the problem lies. Clearly the benefits with respect to dyking do reflect on the land that's diked, needless to say. So the property owners are only being asked to meet 10 per cent of the cost for a system that essentially benefits them.

Now some of the municipalities have spread this particular load over a wider area — Chilliwack, for example. Chilliwack District Municipality spreads the cost of the system over the whole community because they feel the rest of the community benefits from the facility.

Many of the municipalities have refused to do that. In the Surrey example that was discussed earlier today, it's very clear that many of the problems of the lowlands are tied to the upland. The upland could very well share in some of this relatively modest part of the 10 per cent, so that the people in the lowland areas won't be faced with that kind of burden. The problem is from the whole community and not just from the area immediately affected.

I might say there's a history of forgiveness with respect to dykes in this province. Just in the last month, by order-in-council, we've forgiven earlier debts of the Dewdney dyking district and early debts of the Matsqui dyking district and so on.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's certainly sharing all right. I think that Chilliwack is able to pay its share of the new part of the dyking system out of taxes. In one year they're able to meet the local cost of that system. So it's clear in that case that it's not much of a burden to the community affected.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The maintenance costs do reside with the communities, that's correct.

The question of nuclear power: earlier this evening I did respond to the question from the Member for Point Grey and indicated that the additional cables at the south end of the island from the lower mainland, along with some gas turbines in locations like Port Hardy, would meet the energy needs of the island until 1980. So we do have some space in which to determine what the best policy might be and to consider all of the options that the Energy Board raised in their report of August 31.

On the question of nuclear power, however, there's no intent at this time to consider nuclear power generation on the island. I might say that that is despite the fact that I have an uncle at Canadian General Electric who sells nuclear power plants to the world and is just completing a facility in Karachi. So I would hesitate to really consider it in view of the problem the Member from West Vancouver raises.

On the question of the Enderby cliffs: the Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) has raised the matter with me at an earlier stage. The community is concerned. They regard the Enderby cliffs as an important asset in that part of the North Okanagan. I think they are, along with Hunter's Range, which is a fine alpine area nearby.

The question of the transmission line in that location is still under review by the authority. The authority did hold a public hearing in the area and has met with the regional district representatives. The whole matter is still being analyzed.

The Ashton Creek location farther east of Enderby ties in with a pass through from Lumby to the south. That tie-in of course avoids the main urban area, which is the City of Vernon and the district of Coldstream and the areas that were discussed earlier.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The link would be through the Monashee Pass and then north from Lumby over the small pass into the Shuswap, then to Ashton Creek and then across the north Okanagan. The location proposed was the Enderby Cliff location north of the village of Enderby.

I gather that there's new information in terms of the Indian Reserve lands to the south of Enderby, a location that would not be as harmful in terms of the visual or overall environment in that area. It's possible that the members of the Indian band would consider a right-of-way on reserve land. That's not settled yet, however.

To my mind, knowing the area, I would think that the southern location somewhere on or near the reserve might well be more suitable. But the staff of Hydro had thought at an earlier stage, their impression at least was, that the members of the band wouldn't agree to a location there. Now that may be a possibility.

So we appreciate the problem. The Member for Shuswap has raised it with us on a couple of occasions.

I might say that I think there's a need for a longer term preview with the public with respect to the distribution systems that affect them. The lower mainland is certainly a good example where demand is increasing so much. It's certainly my intent to see to it that the authority advises the public at an earlier stage and involves the public in a discussion of the options available to us so that we can avoid the kinds of confrontations that have developed in places like the area that Mr. Codyre was affected by a year or so ago.

I'm certainly sympathetic to the question. I hope that in the Enderby area we can come up with a solution that's not unreasonable. All of this is tied, of course, to meeting the demand in the great power consuming centres. So it's a matter of keeping well

[ Page 1857 ]

ahead. We may not have been as well ahead as we might have been in the past.

The question of non-union contractors with the authority: the bulk of the contractors are, of course, union contractors, with possible exceptions in some small communities where no other contractors are available. The approach has changed somewhat. We want to see more union contractors employed by the authority.

On the question of Lone Prairie, it's not a part that I've hit yet. I don't quite know what the Hon. Member means by their being "in darkness." I don't know if he means their voting attitudes or what.

The question of the Crown land, however, might well be looked at. I must admit it's ironic that local people in the area of the W.A.C. Bennett Dam aren't getting electrical service.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It might well be worth considering because we could well look at our Crown lands in a more open way in terms of their potential. But the lands administration — I hesitate to say, in the past — has been somewhat starved and hasn't been allowed to have the kind of flexibility it should have in order to make the most of the valuable Crown lands that we hold. I certainly expect that in the future we'll loosen up that area.

We're increasing staff right now in the Lands Branch to make it a more diversified agency so that Crown lands just don't sit there idle when they could be put to some good use. Frequently we just haven't had the staff numbers to look at the positive ways we could be making use of Crown lands in the province, many of them near existing urban areas and lands that are extremely valuable.

So we're receptive to the possibilities with respect to Crown lands. If the Member wishes to give me more of the details on Lone Prairie, I'll certainly go into it in some detail and let him know what the chances might be in relation to the Crown potential there.

Imperial Lumber: I don't know it personally. They have been advised that additional supply with respect to their operation will be tied to providing ships for the Prince George area. So the intent is to reorient them into British Columbia to a greater extent. Geography is a problem. The Member has raised it before in relation to other problems in that part of the province. I would agree that there's a need for some intensive work in that particular area in terms of increasing the urban base, both at Chetwynd and Dawson Creek. But I personally haven't been involved in it to any great extent yet. I expect to be in the near future.

The river course that the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) mentioned is apparently a difficult one — the Pine and Sukunka. There really has been considerable movement there. We did pay money out of the disaster fund as he indicated. The solution, though, in terms of re-channeling it, is extremely costly. That's the kind of dilemma we face with a good many of the younger streams in the province, that the cost of rerouting the stream is frequently higher than the adjacent land value. So it's a matter of reaching some kind of balance in terms of costs and benefits. Beyond that I don't think I can say very much with respect to that problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: (Mike not on)

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In terms of development?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, the major hydro possibilities are of course being studied by Hydro and that site is certainly on the list, along with others on the Columbia — places like the Ponderey at Seven Mile. But all that is going on now are studies. There are no firm decisions.

I think we do have a situation in B.C. where there's considerable hydro potential on rivers that are already tapped. So we can harness the additional hydro-electric capacity of those rivers without having any great impact on the environment — that is they're rivers that are already harnessed. So it's clear that the two main rivers in British Columbia that are in that category are the Peace and the Columbia. So in terms of environmental impact I think there's a case for activity on those two main river systems.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay for supplementary question.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary question. In regard to nuclear power and the fact that the Minister says we will keep the matter very much in review, could the House know whether the Minister has some time period at which it will specifically be reviewed as was done by the Energy Board? I don't think it's enough just to say that we're keeping the whole possibility in mind.

I would like to know whether, without transgressing on legislation before the House, the Minister could tell us whether there may be an annual or a bi-annual board or commission or the Energy Commission as suggested in the new legislation? Will

[ Page 1858 ]

it be given specific instructions at specific times to review this whole vital question of nuclear power?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That does infringe on the statute but it's clear in the statute that the Executive Council has the authority to refer problems to the Energy Commission. So I think that would cover it.

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

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): I'd just like to discuss one item on the Minister's estimates. I mentioned in the throne speech debate an area of the riding that I represent in the north river — they're small communities, Blue River and Avola. They have always had their main income from the forest industry with sawmills in the area. As I mentioned previously, these mills have been bought up by a larger company and the operation transferred.

It's been very difficult. People have been moving out of the area and the corner grocer, the laundromat, everything in the area is suffering and going downhill because of it. Some of these people are facing very real bankruptcy in the future unless there can be some other type of industry brought into their area.

Now I feel quite sure that it would be possible to have saw milling start up if there were timber available. I find on investigation up there that on either side of Blue River there is an enormous tract of timber that goes almost 22 miles into the edge of Wells Gray Park — how wide I couldn't say, but there must be thousands of acres involved — that hasn't had a saw put to it since 1910. As far as I can find out, Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Chairman, the control of this timber is held somewhere in the United States, for what reason I don't know. A lot of it is becoming over-age.

If this could be made available in the area I am sure there would be an industry start up to help support those communities. Now I have heard that Rayonier controls it, I have heard that it has been sold to IT&T and I wonder if the Minister has any information of what type of control is on this. It can't be a forest management license; I don't think they had them in those days. But since 1907, 1910 there hasn't been a stick of timber cut. And I can understand why these people are upset, knowing that their town is dying, and they could have industry if this timber could be made available.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I think it's a problem of the old timber tenures — timber berths and timber licenses — essentially turn-of-the-century tenures that have been regarded as fairly sacred by the former administration. The old tenure systems are something that are under review and I regard them as a serious problem. The tax levels with respect to these old tenures are rather low — and that's being charitable. I used to say that a little more strongly when I was in Opposition.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Those are tree farm licenses, Mr. Chairman. They were mainly — they are not turn-of-the-century tenures. But the turn-of-the century tenures are of a kind that should be reconsidered and I hope that in the next session of the Legislature we have, policies to put before this House that will change the situation so that there is a modernization of the approach and productive use of these lands and a tax level that starts approaching reason with respect to them.

It's a most important question and it's related to a lot of other things. But it is our hope to have legislation in the next session of this House that will deal with the kind of problem that you've raised with respect to the Blue River area.

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

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on a couple of the answers that the Minister gave earlier. One of them — I am sorry I was out of the House — I understand there was a reference made to the cost of dyking as it relates to the cost of acreage in the Nikomekl-Serpentine area. I'd just like to say, Mr. Chairman, that I don't think there should be any relation in that. A Government, particularly, which has said that it is so interested in preserving farmland in the whole of British Columbia…then that relationship should not be put on that land. Certainly, as was mentioned in this House before, if we had houses on that land then we'd have it drained in two days. God forbid we ever do, but nevertheless it is good farmland and, regardless of the cost, it should be drained.

With relation to the answer the Minister gave a few moments ago, Mr. Chairman, in regard to the taxes, we must remember that maintenance does have to go on on these dykes all year long. If the Government, for instance, takes those other two dyking areas out of production — the Colebrook and the Mud Bay areas — then the maintenance charge against the people who are left in the Surrey dyking district will be that much more.

At this moment the recommendation from that dyking district to its members is that their dyking tax this year be $8.60 an acre, which is up from something like $2 to $3 an acre which they have been paying in the past. Much of this increased cost is caused because of the government ordered transfer of

[ Page 1859 ]

the dyking districts to the municipalities. Part of that is because of the municipalities using expensive engineers and other high-priced help whereas the people who belong to the dyking districts in the past used to do the job themselves so they could keep their taxes down.

They don't have that choice any longer so they're going to be paying a whole lot more than they've ever paid before. In the Sumas dyking district the taxes are up at least $1 an acre, or will be if they're approved to $6 an acre this year. That's on top of their regular taxes.

I have one example of a 132-acre farm in the Surrey area which pays $3,200 a year in taxes now, and that doesn't include his dyking maintenance. If you add another $8.60 an acre, that's another significant amount of money for that farmer to pay in taxes.

I realize some of the problems that you've mentioned about the municipality spreading the costs. Nevertheless, what we have to look at now is the exact cost to that farmer. The other thing that I'd like the Minister to say is if the Minister is, Mr. Chairman, then we have to find some better way for these farmers, because they just then will not be able to bear the load at all, and nor will the local area, in my opinion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Just three brief questions, Mr. Chairman, because the Minister did comment a few moments ago relative to TFLs. I remember him very well when he was in Opposition, when he used to stand in this House and accuse the timber companies in this province of being robber barons, rip-off artists, one cent an acre give-away programmes….

AN HON. MEMBER: What a memory!

MR. CHABOT: That's what he used to say. Vicious attacks — always against the forest industry in British Columbia. Now he's the Minister of forestry. I'm wondering whether he will enlighten the people tonight and tell us whether he proposes any changes in stumpage, royalty, taxes or leases on land occupied by lumber or timber barons or robber barons, as the Minister calls them. Robber barons.

I'm wondering, because there's apprehension out there…(Laughter). I'm not going to say on the flood plains. But there is concern about the direction of that particular government over there. I think it's only right that the Minister should indicate to those people, that are the most important industry in the Province of British Columbia, what his policies are and what policies he'll pursue relative to the forest industry in British Columbia. whether he will enlighten the people tonight and tell us whether

I know that the NDP campaign in the last election was fairly well coordinated, and there were candidates — I'm sure this information was coming from the NDP headquarters — saying that they would be giving a better break to the small logger and the small sawmills in British Columbia. I want to know just how there's going to be access to Crown timber by the small loggers and the small sawmills in British Columbia. We're on a sustained yield system in British Columbia. I want to know, because you people led these small loggers and small sawmill operators in British Columbia to believe that if you were elected government there would be access to timber for them. I want the Minister to tell us tonight just what he proposed to do — what his programme is to make timber available to these people who put their confidence in you not too many months ago.

I'm sure that when you were talking to the people last August you weren't attempting to mislead them. You categorically said that you were going to help the small logger in British Columbia. The small loggers tonight are wondering how you are going to help them, and they want answers. They are looking to you people for answers. You made certain promises to them and they want the answers.

Now, when we're talking about land…I said I had only three brief questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: How long is a brief one? (Laughter).

MR. CHABOT: I think the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) would agree with me that Howe Sound and the area adjacent to Howe Sound is basically a recreational area. I'm wondering whether the Minister would agree that the land commissioners should designate some of those islands in the Howe Sound as recreational or park land. I am wondering whether the Minister would agree…

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

MR. CHABOT: …on the designation of Grey Rock as parkland…without compensation. (Laughter).

Oh, no. No. I want answers. Do I have to repeat my questions again?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Well, before you can have answers you have got to have questions, not statements.

MR. CHABOT: Well, I'll repeat my questions to

[ Page 1860 ]

the Minister. (Laughter).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I believe the Hon. Minister has made notes of these questions.

MR. CHABOT: Does he want to answer?

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is one more. I will ask the Hon. Member for Victoria — I believe he has a question to put.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I have two brief questions. One concerns Ocean Falls: I wonder if the Minister could advise us what the situation is with the fresh water reservoir and the piping services in Ocean Falls and what their condition is.

The next question is concerning aircraft in the surveys and mapping department. I see we still have three pilots on the staff. I'm curios to know whether we are going to acquire any new equipment this year — that is, aircraft equipment — and, if so, where the cost might show or, further, what the intention is on leasing of equipment for that department.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I must admit, with respect to the reservoir, per se, or the domestic water system, that I'm not adequately informed. We do have reports with respect to the main dame and power facilities and they were reviewed by B.C. Hydro as well as our water resources staff, so we're satisfied with respect to that facility, which is one of the most important facilities in the community.

With respect to the survey and mapping staff and the question of equipment, we rent equipment as well. There is a Lear Jet — if you'll pardon me the reference. (Laughter). It's one with a hole in it, which has been specially constructed for photography and is used mainly in the north. Apparently it is extremely well thought of. I think our Survey and Mapping Branch is doing among the finest work in the nation, actually, in terms of mapping and map production. In a province like this mapping is pretty critical and a fine job is being done.

The highways department, however, is looking at the whole question of equipment and integrating a small fleet and upgrading the fleet, so the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is looking at that whole question, including questions like air ambulances in isolated areas.

The question of the rates paid on various tenures, TFLs, stumpages, royalties and various levels of taxation in the forest industry in undergoing intensive study. When we increase it we're going to know exactly how much we're going to increase it. The staff have been carrying out a thorough study with respect to an integrated approach in the interior. In addition, outside consultants have been carrying on work in this area. department. I see we still have three pilots on the staff. I'm curious to know how well qualified — Ph.D. In Economics and Forestry — is one of our advisors and there are other advisors as well. There is no intent to change the existing policies until all of these studies are reviewed.

With respect to the smaller producers, the first area that we are looking at in terms of opening up possibilities for smaller-level producers is again in north-western British Columbia, an area that has in fact been under-committed. It is an area in which we have some elbow room and in which we can have some flexibility in terms of policies. The north-west, while it is a problem area, is also an opportunity area in terms of establishing new policy in the forest sector, respect to the main dam and power facilities and they were reviewed by B.C. Hydro as province.

The Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) is no doubt aware of the problems in the special sale area in Prince George, for example. Problems in the East Kootenay are very tight — that is, there is not the wood base that there should have been for the production that is either there or anticipated. So in those instances the flexibility that we would like as an administration simply isn't there, because there was not, in fact, a sustained-yield programme in those regions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia River, followed by the Hon. Member for Victoria.

MR. CHABOT: I didn't expect you to comment on Grey Rock Island, really.

I didn't expect you to comment on Grey Rock Island, really. Nevertheless, you've indicated that the small logger is going to get an opportunity to relocate in the northwestern part of British Columbia. I don't know if you're talking about the affluent area just south of the Yukon. I don't know the type of timber that that area holds or whether it's economic to log that particular area. I don't know whether the access is suitable to make it economic to log in that particular area.

Nevertheless, you did leave the impression with the small loggers that there would be access to Crown timber without disrupting their present location, such as the East Kootenays. I'm sure that no small loggers from the East Kootenays have any hopes of moving or expectations of relocating in south or north-western British

[ Page 1861 ]

Columbia. They're looking for Crown timber and this is the impression that was left with them — that there would be access to Crown timber in the East Kootenays and not south of the Yukon.

Many of them are in problems really. Some of them have been operating primarily with private timber. This does run out in time. They're looking for ways and means of acquiring Crown timber to be able to sustain their little operations and the small investments they do have. I'm talking about real small loggers with 5- to 10-man operations that have a very small production base. You can't really compare the small loggers in the interior with the people you call small loggers on the coast.

I have to admit that certain areas of the East Kootenays are fully committed as far as the timber resource is concerned. There are other areas, I'm sure. I don't know what has taken place in the Kinbasket SYU but it was an extremely conservative estimation that took place there many years ago. I think the allowable cut could be greatly increased. I don't know whether it has been or not in the last couple of years.

There must be some area in which the small logger could obtain some timber. I know that you're not fully committing the timber on the basis of close utilization. Maybe there is a certain percentage of timber that could be allocated to the small logger on the basis of close utilization policies — the small material. I forget the terminology you use in the forest service.

I don't think they expect to be able ever to establish themselves as a larger operator, but I think they'd like to be able to continue their operations on the present basis. They're having great difficulty with private timber. Private timber isn't readily come by. They'd like access to a very minimal amount of Crown timber. I would hope the Minister would take into consideration the plight that these people really find themselves in.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister could advise me what vote number I might find that aircraft leasing amount under. Secondly, why would we have three pilots on full-time staff? If we lease the equipment, why don't we lease the pilots?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Just a few short questions here. I hope you'll bear with me because they cover several areas which are interrelated. But for the Minister to give any comprehensive answer, they must be put together.

In the past, under the Wildlife Branch, recommendations were made to government to acquire certain lands for game rangeland which I have known and been intimately acquainted with for 56 years, which was used for cattle grazing. Since its acquisition by the government, there has been no cattle grazing on these lands.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. RICHTER: Well, it's related to the grazing and the game, which come together. For instance, the thought was that by eliminating the grazing of domestic livestock, the game would multiply. This was the general consensus, However, after four years the game population of the California Rocky Mountain sheep has not increased, as was thought, but has actually decreased. At the same time the coarse grasses on much of this land have grown to the degree that they are really a fire hazard today, in light of the fact that roads have been built into the area. There's a lot of public travel in the area and so on.

I wonder what the best use is, in relation to the fact that we are low on the production of red meat today and the fact that we need grazing. Does the Minister think that under a strict management programme, cattle grazing could be undertaken on these areas — the open slopes and so on, where the coarse grass grows — which the game don't feed on. They feed more in the timber and in the other areas.

This could be a great deal of help, even if it's only for short periods of time after the grass has matured. Under the regulations of the grazing branch, the cattle could be moved on for a given period of time and moved off when it was adjudicated that they should be taken off. No overgrazing would occur.

There has been a great deal of consternation in the minds of the public in relation to the harvesting of antlerless game. Under ranch practices, any time that we wanted to reduce a herd, we sold off our female stock or else we spayed the heifers and regulated the number of cattle that would be grazed. We called it grazing management or range management.

With the harvesting of as many antlerless deer as we do have today, we find that our deer population is diminishing in spite of the fact that we have created more grazing for them. This is causing people a great deal of concern. Certainly we want to maintain good game herds in the interests of those who want to hunt. I don't hunt any more. I gave that up once the antlerless season came in.

I'm wondering, Mr. Minister, whether you are considering the use of this land. This is not parkland — let me make that clear. It's not parkland. Are you considering the possibility of allowing limited grazing

[ Page 1862 ]

under strict range management practices in this area? — and I refer to it specifically by name, the Ashnola.

We know that the Okanagan-Similkameen Park Society has made great pushes to include more and more of this area in park. I'm wondering if we need more park or whether we need a better land use management of those lands that are available for them at this time.

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I would be pleased to meet with the Hon. Member maybe separately to discuss the specifics of the situation in the Ashnola, which I'm sure he's more familiar with than I am, certainly at a personal level. Maybe we could make some arrangements to get together in that regard.

It's an area that the forest service has spent a considerable amount of time on, along with the Fish and Wildlife Branch. The private sector in the forest industry have also carried on some considerable studies. It's another one of these areas where integrated resource management is needed at a pretty intensive level. I'd appreciate his personal input so that we could take that into consideration before a final policy is determined.

With respect to the aircraft, it's vote 136, code 027, $130,000 for leases and the like.

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

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Chairman, just a few questions for the Minister. On aircraft leasing by the forestry department — I'd like to know a little more about how they do this. When there have been forest fires in the interior in the past, there's been a standard leasing contract. We have local planes available and they don't even get an opportunity at this business. I'd like to know the general policy.

I think you contract with one company. I was wondering why the forestry department doesn't know that there are local people in the business and give them a chance at the leasing contract.

A few questions that you didn't answer this afternoon, Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Chairman — I appreciate the answers I did get — but I'm particularly concerned about a small item you didn't answer. That is why forest rangers are telling the taxpayers, citizens, that they will only come to meetings Monday through Friday as they see fit. I would certainly like to know what the policy is with the department; why these public servants can't come when the taxpayers who are paying their wages want them to come. In other words, Friday night or Saturday afternoon or so on.

On the Hixon situation, you did answer it but it may be that you have the wrong information, Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Chairman.

The sawmill has always been operating and there's no problem. It is the planer mill that they closed down. The planer mill is still there, and I would like to know whether you would consider ordering that company to re-open that planer mill and create further local employment in this small community.

I asked you about the disposal policies regarding the future disposal of timber, and later today you have certainly said that there is going to be a change coming in at the fall session. That's fair enough.

On the local Cariboo situation, you didn't answer the timber situation at Clinton. It is my information that timber is available there. There is a lack of employment and I would like to know what the forestry are going to do about the timber that is available — to advertise this to operators or what — so that a payroll can be established.

Last but not least is that I am not at all satisfied, Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. Minister, with the rural electrification policy that I didn't bring up earlier. I think that Hydro should review this policy in view of the inflation that has taken place over the last seven or eight years since the policy was established. It seems to me that the local citizens in the rural areas have had to pay far too much due to inflation that the urban citizen is paying. I realize that the urban citizen doesn't understand that there are still a lot of people in this province that haven't got electricity because of their remoteness and so on.

The rural electrification policy is moving along but it is moving along too slowly for several reasons; one of them is the red tape that B.C. Hydro puts into the policy. It takes a Philadelphia lawyer two years to figure that out. Then when you've got that all figured out, you start arguing with the bureaucracy and have local meetings and so on. Then you find out that local cost is terrific, and the Hon. Member for South Peace River hit on a good subject here.

In the rural area you might have a 30 mile extension to make and the people at the far end of the 30 miles have to go through, say, 10 miles of Crown land. It might be subdividable land or it might not be. I think that your department, Mr. Minister, would probably need more staff to analyse this, but it is my opinion that funds are available from the lands department to subsidize the extension where the gap is — that is, Crown land.

In the meantime there are a lot of people in pockets in my riding — and I'm sure in all the rural ridings — that have lived beyond this and they're still denied. I have one area out of Quesnel only 30 miles and they haven't got power. There is power 9 miles out and there is another pocket of people who live 30 miles out. Because of the gap between the 9 and 30 mile area, they are denied power. They have been applying steadily for 10 years and getting the

[ Page 1863 ]

run-around from B.C. Hydro.

I think the overall policy should be completely reviewed, particularly in the view of inflation. I'd like to have some comments from you, Mr. Minister. Thank you.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Regarding the Forest Service aircraft, there are generally bids every three years. That is, there is a bid received and then there is a two-year extension which is part of the bidding or tendering arrangement. Local planes are hired in many instances. I think it's something to keep in mind all right in terms of more use of local craft.

Regarding meetings in the evenings. That's news to me and it's news to the Deputy Minister as well, so we will follow that up. I think there is an obvious need for evening meetings in rural situations — or in most situations — and the staff in turn might be compensated in one way or another for the time involved.

The question of Hixon. The planer mill decision was made some time ago prior to my holding this office. The sawmill question is not a question that is being considered also; that is firm. The economics of the situation in terms of the planer mill are such that there were real incentives for moving to Prince George. Now I think we have to look at these questions in small communities where their basis is affected. I think we are probably faced with a fait accompli with regard to that planer mill. But it's something that does concern us considerably.

The Clinton situation. There is unallocated timber and we could be putting it to use which would be advantageous to the community. It's something that we will be discussing with the staff shortly. There have been problems with, I understand, a poor operator in the area and that has complicated it somewhat. The likelihood is that it would be a more open situation in terms of advertising.

Regarding the rural electrification policy. I think we could have a more integrated approach with the Lands Branch. I think those are useful suggestions and ones that we will pursue. There is some funding; it may not appear to be adequate. There is a need for Hydro to reconsider its policies in communities such as McBride and Valemount, I suspect. It may well be that policies which might be loosened up somewhat could significantly increase the industrial base.

I think that the Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler) has raised that with me and has written the board of directors regarding the problem of establishing industries in these small communities — industries that are somewhat frustrated because of present policies. I think that Hydro can be a more positive instrument in that regard. It is a public corporation and, as far as I'm concerned, that's the reason it's a public corporation: so that it can respond to the community to a greater degree. It is our intention to see that it does.

MR. FRASER: I want to go back to the planer mill at Hixon and remind, Mr. Chairman to the Minister, that during the last election campaign it was circulated in the community of Hixon that the planer mill was closing and the citizens there — 400 strong — wrote to the present Premier and asked him what to do about it. He wrote back to them and told them to vote against the government of the day and defeat it. Now, I'm unhappy to report that they took his advice and I lost that poll. I think it's time you performed, Mr. Premier and Mr. Minister.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are a number of questions that I would like to raise to the Hon. Minister this evening with respect to his salary vote.

First of all, a little earlier this evening I heard the Minister say in reply to a question, "tenures and licences regarded as something sacred by the former administration". I presume that he was suggesting in that remark that his position is something different regarding tenures and licences and that, as he reviews them, he is prepared to cancel out existing licences, to ask the companies who have bargained for these licences in good faith to renegotiate, or in some means revoke whatever tenure they may presently have and ask them to pay a higher fee.

In this respect, I would like to refer to a newspaper clipping from November 18, last year, from the Vancouver Province; an article written by Mr. Bob McMurray:

"A number of special studies of the B.C. forest industry have been started by the provincial government to provide resources Minister Williams with background for NDP policies. The specific subjects of the studies are not being revealed at the moment but the general speculation within the forest industry is that they include inventories of resources as they apply in various mills, the quota system of timber allocation, tree farm licence tenure and the revenues received for the timber cuts.

"In a telephone interview this week, Williams said there were a number of studies being done, both by personnel within the B.C. Forest Service and by consultants from the business community."

"The work was of a broad general nature and will be ongoing, the Minister said. We are reviewing a lot of questions. We have people with both forestry and economic specialties doing the work.

[ Page 1864 ]

B.C., for instance., has a broad mix of forest tenures. There is a need for some rationalization." He wouldn't expand on the last remark.

Well I would think, Mr. Minister, that it is about time that you did start expanding on the rationalization that you referred to on November 18, 1972. Is it not about time that you outlined your policies in greater detail than we have heard up until this time? Is it not about time that you told the companies that were involved in tree farm licences or in forest management areas what you have in mind in terms of increased revenue to the Crown or whatever form the taxation that you intend to levy may take?

Certainly these people are entitled to know. Because you know as well as I do, Mr. Minister, that in the forest industry in British Columbia 83,000 people are directly employed; that for the 83,000 people directly employed there are another 125,000 people indirectly employed; and that from the statistics that are available to us 50 per cent of our manufacturing industry operates in this province because of the forest industry.

Now if the position of the Minister is to levy even greater taxes on these people, at a time I'll admit when prices of lumber are comparatively high — as high as we've seen for a long time…

AN HON. MEMBER: Forever.

MR. SMITH: …then he should tell the industry. But the Minister who sits in that chair this evening is also aware of the fact that the lumber industry is subject to many variations of price as is any industry in existence today. There are peaks and valleys created not particularly by our own production problems in Canada but because of the fact that we are dependent upon export markets for 80 per cent of the timber produced in British Columbia. These markets can vary from day to day and week to week. So while we may be going through a time of high lumber prices at present, it does not mean that six months or a year down the road those same prices will exist.

If it is your intention to cream the industry at the present time at the prices that they presently receive without making any allowances for future reductions in the price of lumber or the stumpage rates, then you're putting the industry up against a pretty substantial problem, one that can very easily result not only in the loss of markets to British Columbia but the loss of jobs for many of the people employed in the lumber industry.

I think you've been in the office long enough now, Mr. Minister, to come up with some ideas regarding your policies for the future.

When you sat on this side of the House as a member of the NDP Opposition, you were very, very critical of the former Minister. It's amazing that the greatest tribute that has been paid, though, to the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources seems to have been paid to them in a left-handed manner by yourself this evening.

AN HON. MEMBER: We've always been listening.

MR. SMITH: While you haven't come and directly said so, you've indicated that these people have been doing a good job in the province, and they were under the former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Mr. R.G. Williston). You now have the responsibility for enunciating new policies within your department.

AN HON. MEMBER: And determining the time limits.

MR. SMITH: Where are your new policies?

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down and we'll send you a letter.

MR. SMITH: What are your plans? More specifically, what are your priorities? You've indicated that you have to have priorities within the operation of your department and you've also said this evening that you will measure your priorities by decision and action. We're waiting, Mr. Minister, for that action. If we wait as long as many people have waited for answers to the letters that they have written you concerning problems, it will be a long, long time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh! How many letters did the former Premier answer?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I borrowed his secretary.

MR. SMITH: You know, Mr. Leader, it's very easy to sit there and make fun of the former Premier. It's very easy to sit there and criticize.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please address the Chair?

MR. SMITH: It would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that no one worked harder in the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources than the former Minister. This man will testify to that, I think, if he's honest with us this evening. So you can smoke up the situation all you like and all it's going to do is take up more time than I intended to take up this evening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

[ Page 1865 ]

MR. SMITH: I'll save you some time.

But I do think that it is time now, as a responsible Minister of the Crown, for you to give us an indication of what your policies and what your priorities are, Mr. Minister. I do think that you can tell us what, for instance, you foresee for the town of Ocean Falls.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: That's some answer to the question. The Minister says, "A much better future than was anticipated a month ago."

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Let's take a look though at Ocean Falls for a few moments. The latest report that I have before me dated March 21 indicates that in order to even start production there it will require an investment of an additional $2 million immediately.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Doom and gloom.

MR. SMITH: O.K. $2 million. The manager who is with you and who is a former employee of the company Crown Zellerbach with 18 years' experience is probably well qualified to give you advice on the costs of start-up and the costs of operation. I take his word at face value when he says that the machinery in the ground wood and paper mill was in generally good condition as it has been well maintained.

But there's another point, Mr. Minister, that must be of concern to you, as it is to those of us in the Opposition. That is that the paper machines are of 1917 vintage. They can't be that good machines if they were built in 1917. Certainly by any measure you wish to use they're not what you would call modern machines. How many years will it be before they have to be replaced? What is the condition of that mill with respect to control of pollution? How soon will much of the equipment that is there have to be replaced in order to even conform to our own standards regarding pollution control?

You've indicated that the mill will be buying 65,000 to 70,000 cunits of logs a year from Crown Zellerbach and this wood will be converted in the mill to 75,000 tons of pulp. The mill also plans to buy 25,000 tons of semi-bleached kraft pulp from Crown Zellerbach a year. The price of wood and pulp bought from Crown Zellerbach will be tied into the prevailing market rates, the Minister said. It would seem to me that if this is correct the people who have come out on the best end of this deal are Crown Zellerbach, not the Government of British Columbia.

The amount of money that you invested as a purchase price is nothing. It's the amount of money that you will have to invest, not only this year, but in the succeeding years in order to make that plan operate, even according to our own standards in British Columbia, that will determine whether this was a good proposition or a bad one. I think the Minister will admit to that.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: A lot more than you do, my friend.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you against it — yes or no?

MR. SMITH: The man is an expert on peas — we've heard that this afternoon. But I'm not sure that he's any expert on factories or pulp mills.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you against this deal?

MR. SMITH: I'm asking the Minister a few questions, Mr. Premier. I think as Members of the Opposition we're entitled to a few answers. Because I asked the questions before, and I've had no answers to them up until this time. So let's have a few answers this evening, Mr. Minister.

Perhaps the Minister, while he's commenting, would like to tell us what he really has in mind regarding grazing leases in the Province of British Columbia. Because if we believe what we read we would be led to believe that you're very disturbed about some of the grazing leases in the province, and that you would either like to cancel them or re-negotiate them at a higher price.

If this is the situation, you know very well that one of the ways to reduce the size of a ranch operation is to deny him the right to renew his grazing leases. Because without the leases he cannot run a viable operation, and without the leases he cannot run the same number of cattle on his ranch that he has today. So it would be a very simple matter, Mr. Chairman, to refuse renewal of those annual grazing leases, and by one simple action reduce the size of a ranch by the simple method of cancelling out his grazing leases or revising the lease at a price that he cannot afford to pay.

You've indicated that you have created study areas in a number of the TFLs (tree farm licences) within the Vancouver forest district. The specific questions I have to ask the Minister at this time, are these: In how many areas have you created study areas within TFLs? For how long a time?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's been answered already.

MR. SMITH: What effect will this have on the cut

[ Page 1866 ]

of the particular people who are working the area? Is there no effect on them?

AN HON. MEMBER: We've answered that.

MR. SMITH: You've answered that? It's in Hansard? I will accept the Minister's statement, then, that it's in Hansard.

I do think that he sees the relationship between creating study areas and the possible reduction in the number of people working in the woods. This is the only point that I wish to make — that if we get involved in a large number of study areas, particularly adjacent to areas that are presently being logged, we could very soon find ourselves in a position where the timber that was to be harvested six months or a year from now could not be harvested as a result of the study areas being set up within TFLs. I would hope that the Minister would comment on these matters.

I'd like to bring one other matter to his attention at this time, and it is a matter of which he may not be aware, because it applies to a local situation.

The Pine River runs into the Peace River. It's called the East Pine River. It runs into the Peace River about a mile above the Peace River Bridge where it crosses from the South Peace to the North Peace at Taylor.

As a result of high water the Pine River has changed course. It washed out an old channel that hasn't been open for probably 50 years. And now the full force and brunt of the current from that river, particularly in a freshet condition, comes through an old channel and hits directly onto the southern pier of the Peace River Bridge. It's a situation of concern to the Department of Highways, and I know the Water Rights Branch has checked into it.

I am told that a simple solution to the problem is to spend a little money and block that channel again with sufficient material. It would have to be slash material and debris. Perhaps we might even have to use some old cement from buildings that have been torn down. Bulldoze it in, fill it in and compact it so that when a freshet comes the water has to go back through the old river channel.

There's one other problem involved. A little way upstream from the old river channel there's a log obstruction in the river itself and this is probably why this current has turned into this old channel.

I would hope the Minister would investigate it, because I would estimate that the cost of replacing that bridge on the Peace, if it ever was to collapse because of this water action, would be anywhere from $15 million to $20 million at today's prices. It does have a detrimental effect on that one pier.

It's something that comes directly under the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. I would hope that before any permanent damage is done in that location we would find the few dollars that are required to repair the situation. Thank you, Mr. Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I was very much encouraged this afternoon by the Minister's answers. I think he went to considerable trouble to detail answers to a number of questions, and I was pleased to see this approach. However, I thought there were one or two answers that he neglected to give — so I thought perhaps if I asked them again in a little different way he might see fit to answer some of the questions.

He did, Mr. Chairman, spell out clearly the Government's policies with regard to stopping the flooding in the Skagit Valley. And he did mention some policies with regard to reviewing the problems of the Chilliwack Valley. I was very disappointed to learn that he hadn't even heard of Sapper Park. Clearly, Mr. Chairman, last year when I spoke on this at great length in the House the Minister wasn't listening. And it was disappointing to me that he hadn't heard those remarks. I'm sorry there isn't a Hansard from last year so that I can give him the record. But I hope he will consult with his department and learn something about that.

However, Mr. Chairman, the Minister made no comment at all about the present logging in the Skagit Valley and the policies with regard to that — now, and in the future. He made no comment on my questions with regard to: Is this entire area — Chilliwack Valley, Skagit area, all of this area — going to be submitted to study and survey by the Parks Branch? It seems to me that if this is looked at only by the Forestry Service we're getting only one side of the story. I think we should have the other side of the story examined as well.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to go on for a few minutes perhaps to talk about B.C. Hydro, and power generation in general.

Earlier in the session I spoke at some length on my own feelings with regard to nuclear power generation for British Columbia — a policy for that. Especially, I outlined my feelings with regard to nuclear power generation on Vancouver Island. Other Members in the House have spoken on this subject. The Member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) indicated a good deal of interest in nuclear power generation. The Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) has clearly expressed his feelings on nuclear power. A number of people on the Opposition side of the House have expressed this. But tonight, Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister was rather lost over this subject.

Earlier, I outlined at some length the advantages, the technical characteristics and the great success of

[ Page 1867 ]

the Pickering power plant in Ontario, just outside the great City of Toronto. I have here a report of March 1973, which tells us that the Pickering nuclear power station produced more electricity in December than any other nuclear power station in the world, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: That's fine. I'm going to canvass if some more, Mr. Premier, whether you like it or not. I'm not being repetitive at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Chairman, Pickering's three operating units — that's only three-quarters of what they have available — produced more electricity than any other nuclear power station in the world. This is the power station that the former Minister of this department and the present Premier talk about as some kind of dangerous, simplistic experiment. I think it's time that the Members of the Government learned just how practical and effective this Pickering station is.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. BROUSSON: You've never had a two-hour speech from me, Mr. Premier. I'm working on it.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you that it's all very well for the Premier to talk about putting these things off into 1982 or wherever it is. I think B.C. should take its place in the nuclear power age. It's time that B.C. Hydro had some people on its staff who have some background, some knowledge, some experience in nuclear power. If you were to ask their engineers, from the top to the bottom they'd like to get into the nuclear power age. But so far, the Government isn't allowing them to do that.

I'm somewhat concerned about the operation of B.C. Hydro, Mr. Chairman. I think that many of us on the Opposition side of the House, including the old Opposition, were unhappy in the old days. Some of us are still pretty unhappy about its operation. We have a new chairman who clearly is a very political appointment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh!

MR. BROUSSON: He's got a record from Saskatchewan and from Manitoba that is purely political.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's just a fluke he happens to be the best power expert in North America?

MR. BROUSSON: I'm going to talk about that in just a moment, Mr. Premier. I'll get to that particular point, believe me.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to go into great detail about the previous problems of the chairman of B.C. Hydro.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Just smear the man and leave it at that.

MR. BROUSSON: But when the chairman of B.C. Hydro, who is the top man in power in British Columbia, starts to make public speeches, public proposals — whether they're his own personal ones or whether he's got them from the Government or whatever — when he begins to make proposals, as he has done, about building power plants in the high Arctic and transmitting the energy out of the high Arctic into the southern part of the United States…

HON. MR. BARRETT: Ever read any of Shrum's speeches?

MR. BROUSSON: …with electric transmission from the high Arctic to Los Angeles or Chicago or San Francisco.

Really, Mr. Chairman, nobody who has any engineering knowledge whatsoever gives any serious credibility to those kinds of proposals. Nowhere.

AN HON. MEMBER: Should have hired Buck Rogers.

MR. BROUSSON: I don't have to go any further than that, Mr. Chairman. Ask anybody in the engineering field today if they think those proposals should be taken seriously from a supposed senior engineer of a major hydro power operation in Canada. I think it destroys the credibility of the chairman of B.C. Hydro.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps he should be looking more seriously at some of the more practical problems of controlling power demand. As someone said, I've talked about this before in the House. I agree with the Premier when he says that we have to limit demand. I've talked about past policies on power peaks. We had a peak here and a peak there. The previous Hydro policy — B.C. Electric and Hydro since — has been to fill in the valley and level off the peak. We talked about the result of that; all you do is raise the peak that much higher.

Well, we know that doesn't work. All we get from the Premier, as many of us have said before, is simplistic talk about turning out the lights. I think that if the Premier brings the engineer — whom the Premier refers to as one of the great power engineers of the world — if he brings him to British Columbia to lead us in power policy, then he should be talking about how we're going to handle the problem of peak

[ Page 1868 ]

demands and controlling this growth of power in British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, there are ways to do it. They're not mysterious. They can be done, in terms of engineering of 15 or 20 years ago. They're very simple things to do. You don't only turn out the lights and you don't only do a whole variety of things.

Maybe, Mr. Chairman, one of the things you might do is set up a rate structure that said for the first small amount of consumption each month — the consumption that's used by the poor people, the old age pensioners, the small homes and the little people that this Government is so proud of. Maybe those people should be getting a special low-rate structure. Then the next step should go higher and so on. A complete revision of rate structures — I've heard no talk about that from the Government or from B.C. Hydro.

Mr. Chairman, we've talked about this demand-rate structure — the problem of peak demands. Maybe we should look at what happens in the average home when the power goes on. An electric range is 10 kilowatts demand or more. The hot water heater is 3 kilowatts of demand. All the rest of the miscellaneous lights and appliances and toothbrushes — all these miscellaneous things are another 1 or 2. But it's this peak demand that comes on every night about dinnertime and eventually reaches a peak at some supper hour in January or February each year. All we have to do is find a way to reduce that peak.

Mr. Chairman, there are ways to do that if you put in a rate structure that measures the charges to each home on the basis of the maximum demand at that time. It's a very simple thing to do. It was done in B.C. 15 years ago. It hasn't been done since the middle fifties. It can be done very simply. You measure the demand. As a result of that, what happens is that there are controls; there are relays; there are a whole variety of controls that can be put in to level this demand out so that we don't get all of these things coming on at exactly the same time.

These things can be done but you have to have a rate structure. You have to have a policy that makes it worthwhile to do it. We haven't seen this in British Columbia. All we get from the Premier is these simplistic comments — "Well, we have to turn out the lights."

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we should be thinking more seriously about this kind of thing, rather than talking about the airy-fairy oil refineries in the high Arctic and transmission lines that would cost countless millions of dollars to build and to service and to maintain to take the power from the high Arctic to Chicago or Los Angeles, which is impractical and won't work, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They said they couldn't fly to the moon either.

MR. BROUSSON: I'm talking, Mr. Chairman, about the things we know how to do right now and to do cheaply, with no problems. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why B.C. Hydro isn't instituting some of these kinds of practical policies of today.

For a moment, Mr. Chairman, let's look at the board of directors of B.C. Hydro. In the old days, there were two Ministers, a couple of businessmen, a couple of chartered accountants…

HON. MR. BARRETT: A couple of bag men?

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to make any brief. I've done my share of criticism of B.C. Hydro in the old days. Clearly, I'm just trying to spell it out like it was and like it is. So let's not get mixed up.

There were a couple of chartered accountants, there was an engineer, and there was a scientist. That was eight people. What do we have now? Well, we have two Ministers. One's a lawyer, the other's a planner. We have the same engineer, Mr. Chairman. We have another engineer. He's a kind of a political engineer, who's also the chairman. That's four. The fifth man, I understand, is coming. He's another planner and he's going to be on the staff of B.C. Hydro.

HON. MR. BARRETT: With a degree of power that's scary.

MR. BROUSSON: In other words, Mr. Chairman, we have five people, basically a kind of in-House committee, not a board of directors of a major Crown corporation. The Act says there can be up to 15 directors on B.C. Hydro.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you want an appointment? O.K. we'll put Isobel Dawson on it.

MR. BROUSSON: So it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that we need wider and broader representation. We need people who are qualified in the power field — engineering, science, finance, business. But we need more than just an in-House committee, an internal committee, and people who are purely the political appointments representing the cabinet.

Mr. Chairman, I can't prove this. The rumours that come to me say they don't really have many formal meetings of this board of directors, that they hold kind of ad hoc meetings to settle a particular problem. There's only four or five of them so I suppose it's fairly easy to do that. But the Act says, Mr. Chairman, there can be up to 15 Members, and "they shall meet once a month." I suggest that the

[ Page 1869 ]

Minister might tell us something about the board of directors of B.C. Hydro, how often they meet and what they do.

Mr. Chairman, I said earlier that I appreciated the frankness with which the Minister had answered some questions. I said that with sincerity. I mean it. But I did say also earlier that I think it's time the Minister stopped ducking the spelling out of the policies of his Government in these areas.

To go back to the department of Forestry again: in this major industry in British Columbia we still do not, 6 1/2 months after this Government came to power, have this major statement of policy from the Government. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's because you can't see the trees for the forest.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia River for a brief question.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, that will be a whole speech, not a question.

MR. CHABOT: I state a brief question, Mr. Chairman. Don't tell me that it's going to be brief, please.

The Minister used to stand in this House on numerous occasions when he happened to sit on this side and talk about the great need for reforestation in the Vancouver Forest District. I am wondering what extensive plans he has this year for reforestation of Vancouver Forest District.

Let the Minister answer. He's standing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: As the Hon. Minister is aware there's a special bill before the House with respect to reforestation. We have considerable funds and we have a programme…

MR. CHABOT: With respect to Vancouver Forest District, how many thousands of acres will be planted this year?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I don't have the details with respect to the Vancouver district right now. I'd be prepared to file them at the request of the Member. The question of the Skagit. The present logging as indicated was limited to cottonwood. The existing practices are under review. There have been expressions of concern and we are reviewing all existing practices in the valley. There will be no new sales in the valley without my personal review.

I might state that there was an earlier sale in a tributary of the Skagit and we've had correspondence from the Hon. Member in that regard. We have some basic disagreement, I suppose, regarding that particular sale. It was, however, reviewed by the Parks people as well, who were of the opinion that the sale would not affect the recreational values in that particular area.

There is a problem with respect to Scott Paper, the final consumer. It's a major employer in the Westminster area. It's an employer without any wood base whatsoever. So that is a genuine concern as well.

With respect to B.C. Hydro, the appointment of the directors was of course by cabinet. If that is a political decision, so be it. But I might point out that the directors that have been appointed, that is beyond the two Members of cabinet, are amongst the most qualified in that field. All of them have considerable training in power engineering, something that couldn't be said of the former administration. None of them are people who collect funds for the New Democratic Party, which I don't think the former administration could say.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. SMITH: I do not wish to delay the vote, Mr. Premier…

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, if you don't want to delay it, sit down.

MR. SMITH: …but I asked the Minister a number of questions and I have gotten no answers whatsoever. Is he prepared to answer?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister is under no obligation.

MR. SMITH: I know he's not under any obligation to answer, but I think that there were a number of legitimate questions with regard to policy of his department. Is he prepared to answer any of them?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I request that the Hon. Member be seated. Shall vote 131 pass?

Vote 131 approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed: Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:40 p.m.