[ 30040403115.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 3115 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

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

On vote 137.

Mr. Fraser — 3115

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3118

Mr. Chabot — 3118

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3120

Mr. McGeer — 3120

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3123

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3125

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3125

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3126

Mr. Gibson — 3126

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3126

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3126

Mr. McGeer — 3127

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3128

Mr. Fraser — 3129

Mr. Curtis — 3130

Mr. Wallace — 3130

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3131

Mr. Gibson — 3132

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3133

Mr. McGeer — 3133

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3134

Mr. Smith — 3134

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3135

Mr. Smith — 3135

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3135

Mr. Chabot — 3136

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3136

TUESDAY, MAY 14, 1974

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF
LANDS, FORESTS AND WATER RESOURCES
(continued)

On vote 137: Minister's office, $105,352

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I am very happy the Liberals and Conservatives are here to hear me this evening. I much appreciate it. There's one out of seven — that's really good.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division! (Laughter.)

MR. FRASER: I was happy to listen this afternoon to the announcement of the site I development. I congratulate the government on that. I only hope they don't have too many difficulties in proceeding.

I was concerned about what the Minister (Hon. R.A. Williams) said about rights-of-way. They have to widen the right-of-way apparently from site 1 down to Prince George or down to near Merritt. I was wondering if he'd further expand on that as to how far this right-of-way has to be widened.

I would like to say that it is quite a slash through our province now, but B.C. Hydro have done a good job in rehabilitation of that right-of-way for the benefit of the urban MLAs here. It's some of the best grazing now in the Interior of British Columbia because they've seeded the right-of-way and it has more growth on it than the ordinary rangeland that exists in the immediate neighbourhood.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the three mule deer?

MR. FRASER: I think they'll survive.

What I would like to talk about tonight, Mr. Chairman, is the policies of this Minister as regards disposal of land and, more specifically, Crown land. First of all, we're talking about housing and the shortage of land and all the rest of it, but 95 per cent of the land in our province is owned by the Crown and controlled by this Minister. They have certain policies now and I would like to briefly review them,

MR, CHAIRMAN: I would suggest to the Hon. Member that a more appropriate time to discuss lands would be under vote 140, unless it relates to the responsibilities of the Minister.

MR. FRASER: As I understand it, he's the Minister of Lands. We've been on forestry for a week, and I'd like to change the scenery here for a few minutes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Where there are specific votes, the matter should be dealt with under those specific votes.

MR. FRASER: I want to review the policy generally of disposal of Crown lands.

First of all it is my interpretation — I am referring to provincial Crown lands residential — that the only disposal is by lease. These policies, by the way, aren't new. The same applies to disposal of commercial and industrial land for provincial Crown land.

Then we have a change in policy for disposal of land classified as agriculture. The policy has been and still is lease and then an option to purchase.

I would like to discuss some of the things that have been going on in disposal of Crown land in the last 12 months or so, On the disposal of particularly residential Crown land which is under lease, the leases are reviewed every five years. There are a lot of leases that I am aware of up for renewal and which have been renewed this year. But the alarming part of it is that the renewal rate has gone up about 150 per cent. I'm just wondering if this isn't too heavy an increase, in view of everything that's going on. I think it adds fuel to inflation.

I realize these residential leased lots…. I'm referring to permanent residences, I'm not referring to lakeside. I think there's a difference there, but I believe the policy is the same. I am now discussing Crown land on leases that are up for renewal where permanent homes exist.

Most of the people that have these problems, certainly in the Cariboo, are retired people and they've all of a sudden found out in 1974 that their lease rental rates are up 150 per cent. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that they also have to pay taxes like everybody else over and above the lease rental. I would like the Minister's comments on this policy. Why this increase of 150 per cent?

I would like to make another observation, Mr. Chairman, on this. I am sorry the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) is not here as I'd like to have his legal opinion. I think that this government's policy in increasing residential leases by 150 per cent is in contravention of Bill 75 that was just recently made law in this Legislature. I refer to the law that restricted rentals to 8 per cent.

Now we have here the provincial government as the landlord. They have since February, 1974, increased these rental residential leased lots by

[ 30040403116.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 3116 ]

approximately 150 per cent. Certainly there's one department of government not keeping in tune with the other, or else somebody is breaking the law, and the law I refer to that they're breaking is Bill 75.

1 would like to say to the Minister that I think that these renewed leases on Crown land for residential purposes should be rolled back to January 1, to an increase of 8 per cent. I don't think anybody would deny they're certainly entitled to an increase because of inflation, but Bill 75 told us they're entitled to only 8 per cent. The government in this case are the landlords, and I don't see that there are any exceptions for any individual landlord. But in fact, Mr. Chairman, this has taken place and is currently taking place each month in the Lands department of the provincial government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, I would note that the discussion that you've embarked upon obviously should be under 139, 140 and following. Perhaps if we passed the other votes then you could proceed.

MR. FRASER: I've pretty well said what I wanted on residential leases as they pertain to permanent residents.

I would now like, with your permission, to discuss the disposal of agricultural Crown land. As I said earlier in my remarks, it is my information on the policy of the government that first of all the land has to be classified as agricultural by the Lands department. There are a lot of problems in this regard, I might say. But once it is classified then it can be acquired by the citizens of the province on a lease/purchase agreement. Of course, the conditions of the lease are that improvements to the land must be made over the years. If a certain amount of Crown land is put into agricultural production they can finally get title.

I believe that this government is about to change policy on that, and I would like to hear the Minister's remarks on that. By that I mean the purchase clause will probably be taken out of the arrangements that have existed for some time. I would like to hear whether this is correct or not, whether they are thinking about it or intend to change it, because I would say on behalf of the policy that exists that it's very popular. People seem to still want to go on the lease and then to the purchase arrangement.

On this subject, just to give you an example of increases that are going on on leases and not to purchase, it was just brought to my attention because of the renewal I believe that takes place every five years on agricultural leases. An agricultural lease in the Cariboo was just up for renewal, and for the last year and certainly for the year 1973 on an agricultural lease the fee was $62. Recently this was reviewed and this fee became $485 for the same property.

Quite frankly, this is a young person trying to develop a place out of the wilderness, and this is, roughly, an 800 per cent increase. This young married man is trying to, in all sincerity, make a full living off this property, and he advises me that he just cannot afford to pay this kind of a lease fee or, alternatively, this kind of an increase. He has appealed to me only recently for at least time to pay while these valuations can be reviewed.

The point I'm trying to make here, Mr. Chairman, is that certainly in the marketplace lands and improvements all over the province and, of course, this nation have gone up tremendously. But I think that some consideration should be given to the pioneers that we have still in British Columbia today. I refer to the young people that are trying to develop a place to farm and carry out agriculture.

It's certainly difficult and expensive for clearing of land and to get it developed to a productive unit. I would think that a productive unit today as far as beef cattle is concerned, is that they have to develop so they have at least, say, 300 head of cattle to make a living. Now they're confronted with these terrific increases in the lease fees. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that this party said when they campaigned that they wanted to encourage young people onto the land.

There have been young people go on the land — I'm referring to provincial Crown lands — and then all of a sudden they're faced with these tremendous increases. It's most discouraging to them. I would like to know whether the Minister intends to adhere to this policy and whether he would listen to some relief for people that are certainly making their full-time living from agriculture. It's difficult enough, but where the lease is up this amount of money, it's just too much.

There's another thing I would like to find out, Mr. Chairman, from this Minister. I have reason to believe that he's in charge of all land policies whether they pertain to…. We have different departments of government that have surplus property come to hand as surplus. I believe that this Minister dictates the final policy, and I'd like to know what that is.

I've seen instances where, for instance, the Department of Highways has surplus property after they've left a built-up area, built new establishments, moved out to the fringe area — which is all good. The property that they had is vacant and the private sector would like to acquire this property. But we can't find out from this government how they are going to dispose of it.

In the prior years this was disposed of by advertising with an upset price and the person could purchase it — the highest bidder. It's my information that this government has not clarified whether they will carry on with this policy or change this policy. I would like to know from this Minister when a policy

[ 30040403117.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 3117 ]

statement will be announced on surplus property from all departments.

I repeat: it is my opinion that this Minister will put down the original policy that will be carried out by the various departments of government that have surplus property. They have declared it surplus, by the way. There's no argument there; it's no further use to them. I refer to the Department of Highways and the Department of Public Works.

What I would like to know on this land policy is what the policy is of the government. Are they going to continue to let the property go up for auction sale and be purchased, or are they going to let it go up to bid on a lease basis? I think that the people of this province should know, because there is a lot of this type of property. I'm referring now to developed Crown property, not in the bush — mostly in municipalities or in immediate areas of municipalities.

I feel that the Crown are holding things up here, and, of course, in turn they're not getting the revenue while this property stagnates. No taxes are being paid on it. It's an asset that the people of this province have got, and I think it's time that a clear policy was made on how disposal is going to be continued from now on.

I would just like to go back a minute, Mr. Chairman, on another jurisdiction of this Minister — back to B.C. Hydro and his responsibility there as the senior Minister.

Up in the Cariboo we recently had quite an education in pollution where beehive burners were banned from the immediate built-up area of the community of Quesnel in 1972. That's fine; that's good. But all of a sudden, Cariboo Pulp, who had established a pulp mill there, have a surplus of hog fuel, which is the residue from the sawmills.

They took on the job of disposing of all the hog fuel from the sawmills. Of course, they found out in actual operations that they could only dispose of 40 per cent of it by burning it and turning it into electricity and steam, and the original estimates on this were something like 80 per cent.

So the smart guys missed again and we had the situation develop there at Cariboo Pulp that, while it's an excellent idea…. The point I'm trying to make is that to convert hog fuel to electricity, 60 per cent of it became surplus and a problem. So this was taken to a land fill in the rural area outside of Quesnel. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that a huge pile of it…and it is still going there as of tonight.

In the interim Cariboo Pulp applied to the Pollution Control Board and were granted a permit to install a burner right back in the area where the beehive burners were banned two years ago. I realize that there's been a lot of advanced technology in burners and this one might be better. I hopefully feel that it will be a better burner. But the fact is that it's a burner in a built-up area of a built-up community.

The permit should never have been allowed for this burner to be located in the position it was. The Pollution Control Board comes under the jurisdiction of this Minister. But the fact remains that what is causing all the trouble is the surplus of hog fuel.

Now the Minister reported today that site 1 is going ahead, and that will look after our requirements for electricity until 1980. But the Cariboo Pulp at Quesnel have already proved that hog fuel is an excellent source of generation of electricity, although there was too much hog fuel manufactured by the sawmills, so 60 per cent of it goes to a dump.

My point here is — apart from the fact that the new burner is certainly located in the wrong place: why can't we burn 100 per cent of the hog fuel? I might tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the chairman of the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority was approached on this some year or so ago, and in a public statement he said: "Oh, it's too expensive." And he just dismissed it.

Well, I don't think that's good enough, because we can get hog fuel from lots of sawmill operations in this province — not only in the Cariboo, but all over. I realize that the hog fuel that manufactures electricity might be more costly but, surely, why charge all this cost of generating electricity from hog fuel to the cost of electricity?

I think we could charge quite rightly 50 per cent of generating this electricity to pollution and the province could pick up the bill, or something like that. It's solving a real problem in the largest industry we have — how to dispose of this hog fuel. There's an automatic way to dispose of it: by B.C. Hydro being a little more co-operative, instead of being the dictators that they really are and just dismissing industry.

Industry made the approach to them and they said: "Oh, no. That's a bunch of nonsense; we can't fool around with small generating plants that generate electricity from hog fuel and have them spotted all over the province."

Well, I suggest that they should be taking a second look. I have reason to believe — and this is what I want to know from the Minister — that they are looking at it. But while we're worried, and site 1 will give us the electricity requirements till 1980, I think that if we would look at these alternate sources of fuel such as burners in different locations in this province where most of our sawmill industry is concentrated and where the hog fuel is handy…. Install burners there. Feed that electricity into the grid system of Hydro, and maybe after site 1 and doing this we'll find out we have a source of power. Maybe it will extend the source of our power until 1985 or even longer.

The point I'm trying to make is that we have a source of fuel here to generate power. We are doing it. It has already happened in this province. It's

[ 30040403118.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 3118 ]

happening at the Cariboo Pulp in Quesnel. It's not something we have to experiment with.

I think that B.C. Hydro Authority are bring very autocratic when they won't take a hard look at this. I repeat that the chairman said that it was a bunch of nonsense, this was about a year ago, and I don't think that's the way we should be looking into these problems.

Just in closing, Mr. Chairman, the biggest problem I find with B.C. Hydro, other than the high cost of electricity, is the rural power extensions. Due to inflation, believe it or not, there are a lot of people in this province who have no power and they'd appreciate it.

Extensions are going on, but as one who deals with them every day, I never saw anything with more red tape involved than to get a rural power extension. From the day you find out you have a section of the public that need power, until you turn the lights on, you can gamble it will be two years. Surely, there must be some way this process can be expedited.

Just dealing with the cost of rural power extension, that policy's been in effect for some time — the Hydro sharing and the provincial government sharing — I think it's about time that policy of their sharing was reviewed because strictly for inflation purposes, the costs have gone up four or five times.

I'd appreciate some answers from the Minister. Thank you very much.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Mr. Chairman, with respect to residential lease loss, which the Member raises, we are still in an interim period where there are some fee simple acquisitions and some leasehold acquisitions, but the goal of government policy is full leasehold acquisition. Industrial and commercial is, of course, by lease, as you mentioned. Agricultural policy remains as it has been.

The five-year review is a matter that's been under study now for a few months, with respect to rental rates. I expect a report shortly from the Lands Branch and the secretariat people who have been involved in the question. We recognize that there are some areas of hardship, and we're reconsidering the whole policy.

With respect to surplus properties, the Department of Highways has more recently been referring these matters to the Lands Branch. That's a decision of the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) because he feels that it makes more sense for the staff of the Lands Branch to handle those questions. Again the secretariat is reviewing this with the Lands Branch regarding a strengthened function in the Lands Branch. But no final decisions have been made.

Regarding the use of hog fuel in the Cariboo, the study by B.C. Hydro is still being carried on. However, there are a number of industries interested in using this so-called waste material in the Cariboo and we're presently reviewing a few possibilities. It does appear to me, at least in the medium and longer term, that this material is probably more valuable for other uses rather than for energy. In the short run in some instances, it might make sense, but we still have an open mind in that regard. We saw the burner, which is a very high-standard burner, as the best immediate solution, but we don't regard it as the desirable solution.

We're looking at Vancouver Island thermal. You know, one of the possibilities of Vancouver Island thermal is the possibility of hog fuel, although I place the doubts that I have.

Regarding rural power, I tend to agree with the Member. There is a case for reviewing the formula and reviewing the funding. It might well be improved.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I think maybe if I ask my questions one at a time, maybe I'll get some answers from the Minister. I'm going to try a new approach, Mr. Chairman, hoping that this will generate some answers from the Minister. The other approach of asking a series of questions certainly has been reached with failure on the part of the Minister to answer questions.

I want to deal with one particular matter — the logging on Christmas tree permits in which there's a new policy evolving from your department in relation to this. A letter from your department…and I'm not going to criticize the individual or the official within your department for the letter, but he finds it necessary to write this kind of letter because of the policy and the action which has been generated by that government over there. He writes to a small Christmas tree permit holder, which we have a greater number of in my constituency, and says as follows:

"As you are certainly aware, we have in the past issued sawlog addenda to you for the above designated Christmas tree permit. However, with demand increasing on a diminishing timber supply, we have had to re-evaluate our policy.

"Christmas trees permits are now examined not only to judge a permittee's performance, but also to determine whether the land is best suited for production of Christmas trees or wood fibre. We are pleased to be able to inform you that the area you hold under permit is best suited by today's standards to the growing of Christmas trees."

I think that was generally the idea when Christmas tree permits were originally instituted and set out. It's just a matter that these Christmas tree permits did contain certain volumes of timber. I don't think there's been any change, regardless of what's stated here, as to the best usage of that particular land.

"Our second concern is the volume of

[ 30040403119.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 3119 ]

sawlog material which may be removed from a Christmas tree permit. Where very small volumes are concerned, we may still issue sawlog addenda, particularly where such action will better the management of the area for Christmas tree production.

"Examination of your permit, however, has shown sufficient volumes exist to interest established licensees for logging operations. We must therefore inform you that your request of October 28, 1973, for sawlog addendum has been disallowed. Should you still wish to log the area yourself, a possible course of action would be to obtain a private contract with whichever company acquires the sawlog rights. You may rest assured, however, that your investment in the area will be protected by appropriate clauses in the cutting contract document.

"We appreciate that from your point of view this may appear unduly severe. We have no choice however but to protect the rights of those parties licensed to cut larger trees, just as we must protect your rights under your permit to harvest Christmas trees. You may also have been under the impression that you held rights to the larger trees, but if you'll check your contract, clause 13 (c), you can see that the forest service reserves the right to dispose of these values."

I don't think there's any argument in that respect. But as a small Christmas tree permit holder who was cutting trees…. Below there's a note that says:

"We hope this will explain the situation which unfortunately is by no means an isolated case. We anticipate further criticism, perhaps justly, but we must fulfil our commitments to the forest industry and through them to the economy of the region. This is particularly so in the Windermere PSYU in a year in which timber supply has been critical. It has become critical because of environmental impacts and restrictions."

That's the situation, and now we find there's a growing scarcity of timber for the existing operators within the area, that they must now raid the timber on the small Christmas tree permits — holders of these permits who've been able to cut this in small quantities for the last 15 to 16 years. When I talk about small quantities, this particular operator was allowed to cut 10,000 cubic feet over a five-year period.

I want to suggest to you….

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: I come from the Christmas tree capital of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are against this.

MR. CHABOT: They're against a lot of other things, too.

But here they've been able to remove a maximum of 10,000 cubic feet over a five-year period. Now the Minister finds it necessary to force the large operators into these small volumes of timber that exist on these Christmas tree permits, caused primarily by your removal of large areas in the upper Kootenay, the Simpson River, from the sustained yield and establishing it into a park. Also, the establishment of the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy has had a tremendous bearing on the availability of timber to the operators there.

There's a serious situation developing as far as timber volumes being available to the operators. So now the Minister feels that the only way to resolve this is for them to invade the little Christmas tree operators' permits to cut timber. That's merely a stop-gap arrangement as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't resolve the long-term problem of timber supply to the existing quota holders within the Windermere PSYU.

I've been told it will be necessary for the lumber operators in the area that are moving, they're invading the Christmas tree permits in the area, to establish a damage bond. If damage is caused to the Christmas trees, the funds will revert to the Crown, but not to the holder of the Christmas tree permit.

I wonder what kind of consideration the Minister will give to those Christmas tree permit holders who find damage to the Christmas trees possibly through logging by large equipment which is utilized by the sawmill operators in the district. What kind of deposit will they be making? Will they examine it and see whether it's logical or economical to log on a selective basis? Or will they look at the deposit bond, the damage bond, which you require, and come to the conclusion that it's best not to worry about selective logging — to move in and destroy many of the Christmas trees that exist on these permits.

If that does develop, what kind of compensation will you give to those Christmas tree permit holders who have properly maintained those permits for many years, who have not only fertilized their lands but have pruned consistently for many years? This has cost them money.

These Christmas tree permit holders have looked at the permits not as their private fiefdom or their private preserve, but they looked at it as a year-long occupation. In the spring they fertilize and they prune. In the fall they cut on the sustained yield basis. In the winter they log to a very limited degree because of the restrictions of logging on their permits.

[ 30040403120.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 3120 ]

I'm wondering what the Minister intends doing to resolve the problem of availability of timber for the operators who find themselves cramped because of policies of this government. Also, what kind of consideration will he give the small Christmas tree permit holders whose investment is substantial to them for fertilizers and for time spent in pruning these trees in case of damage? What kind of consideration will be given to him by the government?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'd like to say, Mr. Chairman, that a special study, in fact, is now being carried out in the Windermere PSYU. There is a tight situation there — there is no question about it — and Mr. Bill Young, the assistant chief forester, is carrying out that study with local people. So we recognize the basic supply problem, and that is getting reviewed by our senior staff here.

The Christmas tree permit question. The sawlog side is simply a reflection of the situation. Those are not basic rights tied to the Christmas tree cutter holder. The prospect was always there of that fading. It simply happened.

If the Member has specific cases where it appears that the sawlog-cutting right holder is abusing the Christmas tree stand in any significant way, we'd be pleased to follow it up.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Minister a few questions about a variety of subjects.

The first is whether or not the rumour that he has hired private architects to plan a housing development on the University Endowment Lands is correct. If the Minister or the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) have not engaged people on a project for this purpose, I'd be relieved to learn that.

The reason, Mr. Chairman, for my making this point at this very moment is that if the lands are properly to be developed as a park, it becomes necessary to preserve those areas such as the bog, the headwaters of the streams that form the ravines, and the other ones that run down south to the Fraser River that can be stocked with trout to protect the ecosystem and leave the irreplaceable value that those lands will have for a park. This is why it's so essential that the ecological studies be satisfactorily completed and not only a park designed, but a park built before any attempts are made to do anything else with that territory that would be highly desirable.

Many people who are promising to stand with me in front of those bulldozers will be relieved to know…

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That would make the decision more difficult.

MR. McGEER: …that they won't be required to do duty.

I can only assure you and the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) that feelings are very, very high on this subject, not just in the Vancouver–Point Grey area but right throughout the province. I received a resolution just the other day from the Corporation of the Town of Quesnel. Way up there in Quesnel they passed a resolution saying how essential it was to preserve parkland on the lower mainland.

I hope the Minister wrote them a complimentary letter, as I did, because when a town like Quesnel sees its responsibilities broadly enough to preserve a park in the most densely crowded area of British Columbia, I think they ought to be congratulated in this Legislature. I just wish there were more of that kind of cooperation between the City of Vancouver and the smaller areas of British Columbia — that same kind of spirit of building together a better province for tomorrow. Certainly I've scarcely been as moved by anything a small community has done in this province. I would like to think that the City of Vancouver would occasionally make unselfish gestures of that kind.

Mr. Chairman, we talked briefly about the Columbia River during the Premier's estimates. He was in a hurry to pass his own vote, but he said that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources would discuss it thoroughly and that we would get all the answers.

The Premier also, I remember, in answer to a question — not in the Legislature — about dams said: "There won't be five dams, four dams, three dams, two dams, one dam — there'll be no damn dams."

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): In the north.

MR. McGEER: Just today there was a dam announced in the north. I want to ask the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources how many other damn dams we're going to have up there when that one's completed. It seems to me there was one announced at site 3, site 4, site 5. There were sort of vague announcements of maybe a whole bunch of other damn dams up there in the northwest, and I wonder….

HON. MR. BARRETT: One in Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Well, it looks like all they're going to do is flatten it out with a bulldozer. That seems to be your plan for Point Grey.

HON. MR. BARRETT: One in West Vancouver.

MR. McGEER: I think there's one thing that I can certainly agree on with the Premier and the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, and that is

[ 30040403121.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 3121 ]

that on the Columbia River Treaty, British Columbia took the worst skinning in its history. The former Premier of the province (Hon. Mr. Bennett) did a monumental disservice to British Columbia in signing that treaty. Some of us were in the House at the time that deal was completed.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier was here.

MR. McGEER: The Premier was here, sure. The people of British Columbia were completely hoodwinked for the purposes of winning an election. He and the former leader of the Conservative Party, Mr. Davie Fulton, were stumbling all over themselves trying to give the Columbia River away as fast as they possibly could.

We might as well toss in a few of the Liberals federally who became willing accomplices to the final act. Paul Martin, I know, was terribly proud of what he did and treasured his friendship with the former Premier which was based on this massive disaster for British Columbia.

We lost on the Bennett promise, by my calculation, about $370 million. We have set for all time a figure for flood control which is already a disgrace, less than 10 years after that treaty was signed. I think it will just look like a pile of coon skins and a tot of rum before another 15 or 20 years have passed.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: I wouldn't even include the rum.

MR. McGEER: We gave away 150,000 acres of the loveliest land in British Columbia for the most pointless project, from our point of view, that could possibly be imagined. We set too low a figure for the water storage. The Minister calculated we lost something like 300 and some odd million on the lower value than we should have which was set for firm power.

Mr. Chairman, the thing that galls me most about the Columbia River Treaty was that we gave peaking power away for nothing. The value set for peaking power, which is what the Americans are using that water storage for almost exclusively, we gave away for nothing. No price was set on it at all. It was done by the people who are most anxious for the political credit. Make no mistake about it, our tripping over ourselves in order to sell the Columbia and place the people of British Columbia in bondage, as far as their natural resource was concerned, was done to win elections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm shocked.

MR. McGEER: I hope, Mr. Premier, you'll never pull a stunt like that to win an election, and that no political figure in British Columbia ever in the future will do a thing like that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I promise you I will never follow their business practices. Never.

MR. McGEER: Just so long as you don't invent worse, Mr. Premier.

But words just can't express my growing outrage over this particular deal. There were those of us who sat in the House at the time, who stood up and said that kind of thing would happen. We were never given information; we were laughed at, ridiculed, humiliated, but here we are, Mr. Chairman, still in this Legislature to say the same things we were saying then — namely, it was a lousy deal for the people of British Columbia, for their children and for their children's children.

I'm asking the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources: what can he and what will he do about this outrage?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't talk about the past. It is not becoming to the Liberals to talk about the past.

MR. McGEER: No, I'm talking about the future. I want to know what miracles this government can manage in the future to retrieve this disaster.

I suggested in the past three approaches that the provincial government can use: one is to undertake a renegotiation from within the agreement signed between the Province of British Columbia and the federal government at the time the Columbia River Treaty was signed. And, Mr. Chairman, I never even saw that document for 10 years. It was kept as a secret by Premier W.A.C. Bennett who did not want the people of British Columbia to know the little deal he had signed with the federal government. It was never discussed in this Legislature as it should have been; it was never voted in this Legislature.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was it hidden?

MR. McGEER: You're darn right.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You mean to say they kept it secret in an open government?

MR. McGEER: You'd better believe it was hidden.

The second approach is to seek redress under the Columbia River Treaty itself on the grounds that power has been stolen from the people of British Columbia. Power has been stolen because peaking power was given no value under that treaty, but it is clear that the Americans are using the water for

[ 30040403122.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 3122 ]

peaking power. In other words….

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Chairman, I have to ask that Member be fair.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You can't accuse someone who is absolutely stupid, and giving it away, to be responsible for a theft.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Was the Member rising on a point of order?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, perhaps if I said they were buffaloed….

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, no. They're just dumb-bells.

MR. McGEER: They were buffaloed. In any event it seems to me there is a potential reason, however slim, for reopening, that treaty directly.

The third approach is to go directly to the federal government and insist that this was a continental deal in which the Canadians in general and the British Columbians in particular were taken to the cleaners. And before we talk about any other continental deals of any kind, including a pipeline to bring American natural gas from Prudhoe Bay down to the midwest, that we set the straightening up of this lousy deal ahead of any other bigger projects that might be entertained between the two countries.

If there are going to be continental arrangements then I think there has to be a good-neighbour policy whereby if one country has taken outrageous advantage of another, as the Americans did in this particular case where we were blinded by the desire to win power in the short term — governments sold out the people for the opportunity to win elections…. And I know that's a pretty weak argument to take to the bargaining table, yet we should be asking the Americans to make a fair division of the benefits that they have obtained through the use of this peaking power.

Mr. Chairman, there are, perhaps, other devices that can be used, and I'd like to ask the Minister whether he's considering these: one is to divert, or at least to discuss with the Americans the possibility of diverting substantial amounts of the Columbia River into the Okanagan basin. This can be done by diverting the Columbia into the Shuswap through Eagle Pass and passing the water through the Okanagan basin at a faster rate.

I know up there in the Okanagan that the vintners will be busy growing larger grapes to take care of the burgeoning wine sales we're going to have in British Columbia as a result of all the recent publicity, therefore we're going to need more irrigation in the Okanagan. And I think at some time, if people use their common sense, they are going to realize that more water is going to have to be passed through the Okanagan basin, and it's got to come from somewhere.

If it comes from the Columbia we are not losing it from the Fraser River basin. Americans won't like this one little bit because they won't have that water for peaking power.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I wouldn't mind missing it a bit right now.

MR, McGEER: Well, that's fine. Maybe it is possible if you've got a diversion going down Maple Lake. If it's too high through the Kamloops area, spill it off through the Okanagan. But in any event….

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: But you realize there's a plateau there, and the Minister well knows this, where you can move either the Fraser River basin or the Columbia River basin down through the Okanagan.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think they should stay there now. (Laughter.)

MR. McGEER: Oh, no. This proposal, which the Minister well knows, and which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) should know, has been the subject of detailed engineering studies. So I'm not coming out here and taking a look at a map with a pencil and suggesting that water ought to be moved around. And the Leader of the Opposition, since he comes from the Okanagan, would do well to study some of these engineering studies that have been made of the movement of water between these areas.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: If this were done, of course, I don't think the Americans would particularly welcome it because the water that would pass down through the Okanagan — if I can use that word — would not be available for the tremendous complex that is now being constructed at the Grand Coulee Dam.

Mr. Chairman, I would recommend to any of the Members who are going down to Spokane to see the British Columbia pavilion at the World's Fair to stop by the Grand Coulee Dam and see what's going on there.

I went down about two years ago and that's when my interest in the Columbia really began to soar. I was staggered by the engineering work that is going on for the specific purpose of taking advantage of

[ 30040403123.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 3123 ]

peaking power made possible because of our obligation to store the water for the Americans, and store it for a pittance.

Well, Mr. Chairman, these are four suggestions that the Minister might be able to use to retrieve something for us on the Columbia. The government has been in office over 18 months now, 20 months, and I would like to think in this time that they could begin to show some evidence that they were taking this Columbia River problem seriously and were going to start producing some results.

You are halfway through your term, and it may be the only term…

AN HON. MEMBER: Right, it will be.

MR. McGEER: …so days are slipping by. I'd like to ask the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources….

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Don't make any big bets.

AN HON. MEMBER: If you want to make your mark, you'd better get busy.

MR. McGEER: If we made one today it would be big, I can tell you, Mr. Member. Maybe things will change for the better for you in the next year or two, you can't tell. But I can tell you…who's that fellow who sets the odds in Las Vegas?

AN HON. MEMBER: Jimmy the Greek.

MR. McGEER: Jimmy the Greek wouldn't call you favourites right now. Jimmy the Greek, I think, would be putting pretty long odds on you.

Mr. Chairman, there's another damn dam going on Seven Mile site in the Ponderey, and I'd like to ask the Minister a word or two about the Seven Mile mystery.

The original plan was to build this dam to elevation 1,730, and had it been built to 1,730 it would have made full use of the upstream benefits. But instead of that, there was a mysterious cutback to elevation 1,715 in the B.C. Hydro plan, and this 15-foot drop just moved the water forward to the Canadian border.

But now, Mr. Chairman, if it were the full 1,750 then the peaking power that would be obtained from that elevation would go a long way to satisfying any potential losses that Seattle City Light would experience as a result of losing peaking power on the Skagit.

The Americans don't mind flooding land. Why not give them that extra 15 feet? Let them flood their own territory, and give them that peaking power for nothing.

If we stick with the present plan at elevation 1,715, okay, we only flood our side of the border. But peaking power, which they claim they need so badly, will be lost.

My question is this: why not let the Americans pay for the extra 15 feet, give them the peaking power, say "It's all yours; take it" — and forget about the Skagit Valley?

Now what's wrong with that plan? It wouldn't then involve our having to pay any substantial compensation to the Americans for their supposed losses under another lousy deal that was signed under thy old coalition government, but later ratified at…. What was that price per acre we set on the Skagit, that Bennett and Williston set on the Skagit? Five dollars an acre? Five dollars — $5.50 an acre a year. It's incredible.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, here is a way that we can let the Americans flood their territory. They can have the peaking power they want, and we will just gracefully bow out of the Skagit River flooding.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): He obviously doesn't have any answer to the problems. I wonder, therefore, if I might bring him back to some of the information that he produced for us this afternoon when he talked about site 1.

I am referring to the appendix, entitled figure 1, to his release this afternoon. That figure, Mr. Chairman, that appendix, deals with the loads and resources of electric energy produced from various sources in the Province of British Columbia over the period ending at the end of 1981. It takes the existing power source, the hydro source, that we have. It adds through its various stages the power generated from the G.M. Shrum power station. It includes Kootenay Canal, Mica, Burrard Inlet, future site 1, future Seven Mile, et cetera.

I was interested some months ago to hear the Minister announce, in his capacity as one of the senior directors of the British Columbia Hydro, that studies were to be undertaken with respect to the realistic figures which should be used in considering the future growth of power use in British Columbia.

I was also interested in hearing him say this afternoon that some of the top experts in the world were being engaged by British Columbia power to determine the flexibility of our power needs in British Columbia.

Figure 1 shows us the forecasted energy demand. I wonder if the Minister would indicate whether those forecasted energy demands were from the most recent available B.C. energy board study or whether they take into account any of the examination that has been made by B.C. Hydro into the realism of those figures that the B.C. energy board gave to us some weeks ago.

The reason it's important that I think we

[ 30040403124.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 3124 ]

understand precisely what the energy forecast might be is that it is a bit disturbing to find that in the year 1978-1979, when the Bennett Dam is fully on stream, the Kootenay Canal is fully on stream, the Mica is fully on stream, and the Burrard thermal unit is fully utilized, that our forecasted energy demand is exactly equal to the energy resource in terms of electric energy.

Surely the Minister would agree, as will his advisers from British Columbia Hydro, that that is a very critical situation in which we find ourselves without apparently any flexibility.

Now I've had the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, of talking to some of the Minister's advisers. I fully recognize that the statistics contained in the appendix, so far as hydro-electric generation is concerned, are at critical periods, and that if the water flows at those particular times may be greater than what is critical, indeed, more hydro-electric energy may be developed. Therefore, the crisis of energy resource equalling the forecasted requirements may not arise.

Nevertheless, we are dangerously close. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, if you consider figure 1 through each of the years from 1973-74 through until the year 1981, the excess of our power capacity — our power-generating capacity — to our forecasted needs is extremely thin.

I would like to know from the Minister whether or not he believes, based on the advice we have from B.C. Hydro, that this excess generating capacity will in fact meet our requirements. If we find ourselves in the position of having to go into short supply so far as our energy is concerned, the growth of our industrial development, which the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) is so concerned about — and must be concerned about — will be critical indeed. We would be facing the kinds of brownout problems that we have experienced in other areas not too far removed from British Columbia.

It is also significant, looking at this appendix, that the apparent plan of British Columbia Hydro and of this government is for Vancouver Island Hydro and Vancouver Island thermal power to be developed after the end of this decade.

I think that in view of the electric-energy problem facing Vancouver Island and the impact it will have on the growth and development on this island, we need to have some clear indication from the Minister as to the flexibility of the plan which B.C. Hydro may have in this regard.

If it is indeed the policy of this government and of its Crown corporation to provide Vancouver Island thermal power potential in the year 1980-81, and if that thermal power capacity is to be provided through the use of natural gas as the fuel, then we must also contemplate the provision of natural gas for other purposes — principally domestic, commercial and industrial — on the island.

I would like to have the Minister indicate whether or not the government and British Columbia Hydro are currently examining the pipeline possibilities required to provide natural gas on Vancouver Island.

Important as it is for Vancouver Island, it is also important for some areas on the mainland. I recall that under the somewhat less than exciting plan of the previous government to provide natural gas capacity on Vancouver Island…. It may have been exciting to some of their supporters, but I am sure that it was less exciting to others who were responsibly engaged in the industry.

So far as the mainland is concerned, there are some areas which may be affected by the transmission of natural gas from existing pipelines to a point on the mainland which would be an appropriate jumping-off point to the Island.

Therefore, I would like the Minister to indicate whether or not B.C. Hydro and the provincial government are today seriously examining the problems involved in the transmission of natural gas to Vancouver Island and the distribution of natural gas on the Island itself, whether for thermal-electric generating purposes or otherwise, because it will have a significant effect, not only upon the individuals in communities on Vancouver Island who will be served by natural gas, but it will have a significant effect upon those cities, towns and municipalities on Vancouver Island who will need to accommodate the installation of natural gas pipelines underground in order to provide this service to their residential, commercial and industrial customers.

The City of Victoria itself will be faced with a major undertaking if natural gas is to become distributed widely through the southern end of the island. Therefore I would hope that the Minister could give some clearer indication of the way in which the problem, so clearly forecast by this appendix to his report, will be resolved so far as Vancouver Island is concerned.

I would also like to know from the Minister whether or not, once a thermal electric generating capacity is developed on Vancouver Island, this will also include facilities to utilize some of the waste wood which may be accumulated in the gulf. It was suggested by the former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Mr. Williston) that the hogging of floating debris and other waste wood could be accommodated by burning it in a thermal plant on Vancouver Island.

We are still faced today with the problem of waste wood drift in our coastal waters. A great quantity of this material is available. The collection and destruction of it, however, still continues to be a major and apparently insurmountable problem. No real change has taken place in the past two or three

[ 30040403125.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 3125 ]

years with regard to the collection and destruction of this material.

A thermal plant on Vancouver Island, equipped to dispose of such waste, is one solution. I would like to know whether the Minister and B.C. Hydro have this under consideration.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: With respect to the Hon. Member's reference to figure 1 in the release today on site 1, the point made regarding '78-'79 is interesting. The energy forecast is in fact the latest energy forecast from B.C. Hydro's staff — their latest review — so it's not the previous energy board's forecast. So it's the most up-to-date information that we have had at this time.

The two lines merge at that point, but the energy available of a Hydro nature is based on flows which occur once in 30 years. It's that kind of critical factor in relation to those lines merging. So if you run into the worst situation with respect to the 30-year pattern, then you get the lines merging and you have to make full use of the Burrard thermal unit. Otherwise, no. So that's the kind of situation with respect to the lines merging.

The question of gas on Vancouver Island. Yes, the matter is being intensively studied by the staff of B.C. Hydro at this time, but that's the stage that it's at. It's being looked at very closely. Of course the policy of this government would be that the system, if it were to be constructed, would be constructed by British Columbia Hydro, not by a private company or the friends that you mentioned that supported the former administration.

Regarding the fuel that would be used for a thermal unit on Vancouver Island, the choice is wide open at this stage. All the choices are being looked at by the staff of B.C. Hydro — choices ranging from garbage, coal, gas or hog fuel. The feasibility of hogging drift should, I agree, be looked at as part of this programme.

There were some points made by the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) regarding Seven Mile. I don't know that I really want to comment on anything regarding Seven Mile at this stage, since there will be hearings held with respect to the possibility of Seven Mile. Hydro have held informational meetings in the Trail area regarding Seven Mile. There will be further meetings and the comptroller of water rights will hold a public meeting regarding the question of the Seven Mile site, so we're some time away from any decision on Seven Mile right now, although it's certainly again, like site 1, one of the better sites in terms of limited impact on the environment and the reasonable production of power at a reasonable cost.

The question of dams in the northwest. I think everything has been said. Site 1, I would point out to the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, is in the northeast, not the northwest. I don't think that's necessary, but I just thought I would make the point.

AN HON. MEMBER: The northwest of North America.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Regarding the endowment lands, yes, the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) and myself have been carrying on discussions and have hired consultants and architects with respect to some of the possibilities on the endowment lands. The names don't all come to me at the moment, but they are three independent, well-qualified architectural groups in the Vancouver area. They are very good local architects.

At any rate, we also had a staff ecologist working on the endowment lands question as well, looking at the heron areas, looking at the bog areas, looking at the creek areas, looking at the earlier forest areas. That will be an input with respect to any decision that's made regarding the endowment lands.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, just a few brief remarks. With regard to the Minister's response concerning natural gas coming to Vancouver Island and the Vancouver Island thermal plant, it would seem from what the Minister says that the thinking of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority is fairly nebulous at the moment. I can't help notice that while the energy forecast, energy production lines merge in 1978-79, only by including a proposal for Vancouver Island thermal in 1980-81 do we keep the energy forecast line from exceeding our potential production. I would have thought that therefore the thinking of B.C. Hydro in the production of this kind of report would have been a bit more firm.

May I therefore raise with the Minister a power production source that we haven't talked about, and that's nuclear power. What is the policy of the Government of British Columbia with respect to the provision of nuclear power facilities on Vancouver Island or on the mainland, which may in a very significant way change this pattern of energy resource development and energy forecasted needs and the merging of those two lines?

It seems abundantly clear, depending upon your emotional bias, that Canada, through the CANDU system, is pre-eminent in the world so far as the safe production of power from nuclear sources.

I think that it is time that British Columbia, particularly when it faces this situation, and its government indicate what its position will be with respect to the use of this source of electric-power capacity. It is being used in Ontario with interesting, exciting results and there is no reason that British Columbia should hesitate longer in using this power source in those areas of the province which have a critical electrical energy need forecasted and with

[ 30040403126.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 3126 ]

equally critical problems of providing the resource.

To suggest that we would have on Vancouver Island a capacity depending on garbage, hog fuel and waste wood collected from our coastal waters as being the fuel to feed a thermal generating plant is, I suggest, scarcely more than incompetent, particularly when we have available the expertise and the knowledge within our own country to provide this need safely and at figures which compare favourably with any other electric generating capacity.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The sources indicated on the chart here are by far the lowest-cost power we can have in British Columbia at this time, basically. We are talking in terms of 7 mill power, basically, at site 1, for example.

The government is not seriously considering nuclear power; nor are the senior staff of B.C. Hydro at this time. There are better alternatives, as we see it, and they're indicated on the chart.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I just have a very short question of the Minister following up the remarks of the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), relating again to figure I and the very slight differential between the apparent generating capacity of the province and demands.

I would like to ask the Minister what annual growth factor is presumed in figure 1. We don't have any numerical read-outs. But just looking at the graph, it looks to be something under 9 per cent. Mr. Cass-Beggs, in December of last year, is quoted as foreseeing an average rate of about 9.5 per cent annually, which is not an unreasonable figure when you consider that electricity now supplies about 20 per cent of our energy needs in British Columbia. If the energy crisis of the last few months has taught us anything, it is that we are going to shift increasingly to an all-electric economy over the next few generations.

I would ask the Minister if he could tell us what annual load growth is built into the forecasts in figure 1 so we can assess it next year when we come again to these estimates.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The range in the next five-year period is between 8.6 and 10.5 per cent. There is a range that varies each year. As you get further out, the more questionable it is.

I would like to say that we have this task force working internally in B.C. Hydro with outside consultants on the question of demand. We don't think the work has been done with respect to demand and we want as thorough analysis of that as possible. That, in turn, and the results of these studies and possible policies that might be recommended as a result of the task force work could change the line on the graph.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I just want to add a few words about this matter of the load growth of electrical power and the use of electrical power.

Shortly after we came to power, I made the statement that people should conserve electricity. You're not setting a very good example tonight, but I won't raise that. The fact is that we cannot afford to continue the rapid growth in the use of electrical power that is presumed to be normal and acceptable in this province or anywhere in North America, for that matter. We have to change our whole approach to the use of power.

The short energy crisis in the United States led some Americans for a brief period to re-examine their use of energy and their energy-use habits. But they're right back to where they were before.

When I suggested that we should conserve electricity, some newspaper columnists and others in the opposition (Laughter) tried to make light of this….

Well, they're all the same. I don't see why you should find that humorous. As a matter of fact, they get all their leads from the media establishment because they have their own problems of a shortage of power. But that's not what I'm talking about tonight.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What's that, Mr. Leader?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The North Vancouver–Capilano 57-vote landslider wants to say a few words. (Laughter.) You might as well do it now. The way the Liberals are going, you get every chance you can, brother. (Laughter.)

But I want to say that there is a need….

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, okay, judge. You blew it by about a month. (Laughter.) Here I was measuring robes for him and they pulled the plug in Ottawa.

But anyway, I think it is very, very important that people start examining their habits on the use of electrical power. I don't think it is necessary to keep on growing, growing, growing. If anyone seriously wants to examine the dangers of this kind of commitment to growth in the use of power, examine the Rand report on California's projected power needs by the year 2000. The Rand report projects — and they did it for the Government of California, delivered in 1972 — that if the present growth rate of

[ 30040403127.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 3127 ]

California's power demand continues, they will need a small-sized to medium-sized nuclear power plant every eight miles on the coast of California.

That kind of load growth demand is just impossible to meet in terms of human safety, let alone the costs. So I urge everybody to slow down in the use of power. It's not necessary to use as much electricity. Save a few dollars. As a matter of fact, it might be worthwhile raising the price of electricity to encourage people to save a little bit of power.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: How much? How much?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I told you…. I think there are industrial users of power that are probably wasteful. There are some jurisdictions in North America which are examining the industrial use of power and raising the rates to encourage them to find alternatives to that kind of power and to conserve the power they are using.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): How much?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I want the Minister to look at it very closely to see if some industrial users are wasteful and to encourage them to save money by raising those power rates.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): How much?

HON. MR. BARRETT: How much? Enough to save the beauty of this province without threatening it with nuclear power, Mr. Member.

MR. FRASER: You can start now by locking this place up.

HON. MR. BARRETT: All you have to do is shut up. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: You're the one who is talking.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're the one who is listening. If you promise to stop listening, I promise to stop talking. (Laughter.) Good-bye. That's one down; just a few to go. There's your chance.

Quite seriously, Mr. Chairman, it is a very, very serious matter of concern to all of us. I urge every citizen of this province to really consider their power habits. Turn off those lights; turn down the thermostat; save that little bit….

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, it's all very well to joke about it, but it is a very serious matter. Anything any one of us can do to save electrical power, we should make that effort to help.

MR. McGEER: That's a very interesting speech by the Premier. He didn't quite explain to us, though, how turning out the lights is going to keep down population growth. I wouldn't like to think that policy was going to boomerang on the Premier. (Laughter.) I'm not sure we shouldn't keep the lights burning and ride to victory on the coattails of a constant population.

I want to say something, quite seriously, to the Premier. The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) made an excellent point about nuclear power.

I charge the Minister with jiggling the figures if he tries to tell us that there are more attractive options available right now, from a financial point of view, than nuclear power on Vancouver Island.

Only a year ago we had a report handed to us, prepared by the former government, which showed quite clearly that nuclear power was the cheapest and most advantageous source of power for Vancouver Island.

Now that gets away from the fact, Mr. Chairman, that nuclear power is the least-polluting form of electric power than can be made available. It doesn't take into account the fact that nuclear power does not significantly consume wasting resources like oil and natural gas. To talk in terms of conservation of valuable and irreplaceable natural resources on the one hand, and to condemn nuclear power on the other, is outright irresponsibility on the part of the Premier of this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: The Premier of the province, Mr. Chairman, has done everything he can to terrify the public of British Columbia about the dangers of nuclear power, which experts say do not exist. He has done this because he says he has a hang-up about nuclear power.

I tell you, Mr. Chairman, that this hang-up the Premier has about nuclear power is going to be very costly to the people of British Columbia. If his prejudices are allowed to prevail against sound economic and engineering advice, we will wind up building on Vancouver Island a facility that not only uses more expensive forms of fuel, and therefore adds to the overall cost of electricity in this province, but one which will consume, if it's natural gas, an asset that will be more valuable than any natural resource we have to future generations of British Columbia.

It will be regarded at some stage — our consuming of natural gas for purposes of generating electricity — much the same as if we were to light cigarettes with $20 bills.

This is a clean, easily distributable, safe and

[ 30040403128.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 3128 ]

valuable natural resource. In my view, we should not be exporting it. We should be using what we absolutely have to use in British Columbia, and never, never, when there are other sources of energy available, should we be wasting it in the generation of electric power.

Mr. Chairman, all around the world today the focus is on nuclear energy because it does not waste oil and natural gas — because it is safe, because it is clean and because, if you use the CANDU reactor developed in Canada, it is cheap.

Do you realize, Mr. Chairman, that when the expansion of the Pickering plant is completed, there will be generated in this one moderately sized nuclear power plant outside the City of Toronto something the equivalent of the total Peace River development? And the guts of it are in miniscule nuclear reactors for which we in Canada have a virtually inexhaustible supply of uranium.

We're not taking something which is lacking in Canada, or which we're going to use up in a limited period of time. We're taking something which is available in almost unlimited amounts now and which today, with today's technology, can produce something cheaper, safer and cleaner than any other form of energy that we have.

Now I think that the Minister, the Premier and the B.C. Hydro are misusing their mandate from the people of British Columbia. You weren't elected to put forward irresponsible power policies for the province. To use up natural gas for the generation of electric power when we do have limited supplies of that natural resource in this province, to my way of thinking, is irresponsible.

I hope — in fact, I plead — for the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, since he does not have to take this step on Vancouver Island for a little while yet, to reconsider what you're doing. Seek further advice. Don't set up the kind of stacked and phony seminars that you set up here last December.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Were you there? Were you there?

MR. McGEER: Do get the facts. There were plenty of accounts in the newspapers and the people that you invited are well-known….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: …as being among the few nuclear quacks in the world. We paid to bring them here to British Columbia for the purpose of scaring the public about the whole subject of nuclear power.

I suggest to you that you get responsible people, try and get a balanced opinion and do the thing that's correct in the future, which is to build a nuclear power plant on Vancouver Island.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm sure that the good doctor would really like to withdraw the statement regarding "quacks" in the academic community.

MR. McGEER: I've no intention. The people that you invited to this seminar here are well known for being in a minority and taking an extreme view on nuclear power.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That's a little….

MR. McGEER: They are the equivalent of the dissenters that are considered to be in a technical sense, irresponsible.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That's a little different statement, Mr. Chairman, and an improvement.

But the point is, regarding cost, that the relationship, as determined by the Energy Board study in 1970, between the kinds of hydro possibilities that existed in British Columbia compared to the nuclear reactors was a two-to-one difference. A two-to-one difference!

Now if you can have a run-of-the-river dam like site 1, then it's absolute nonsense to talk about nuclear power in British Columbia. If you can have run-of-the-river dams on the Columbia where it's already committed, it's absolute nonsense to talk about nuclear power. So at this time….

MR. McGEER: You've got to deliver it to Vancouver Island. Talk about the cost versus thermal power to Vancouver Island.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We're looking at thermal on Vancouver Island at this stage because we are not prepared to make that kind of decision.

We are fortunate in British Columbia. We are not locked in to having to face this question at this time. You can talk about hang-ups or talk about whatever you like, but it strikes me that if we don't have to commit ourselves to nuclear power at this stage, then why should we? Why should we when we have better alternatives at hand as we see it.

We do have a time period here in British Columbia because we're energy-rich, because we have gas, because we have oil, because we have wood, because we have hydro-electricity, because we have gold. We don't have to make the commitment. Maybe the scientific community will do better.

The prospect, as the Premier says, of nuclear plants every 10 miles along the California coast is frightening, quite frankly, to me. I don't believe that on the San Andreas fault or in the volcanic areas of the west coast of North America we can have a fail-safe system with respect to waste and various problems.

If we don't have to make the commitment, if we

[ 30040403129.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 3129 ]

can learn in the years to come, if there can be more information come out of the scientific community, then great! But right now we don't have to make the irrevocable commitment that other parts of the world are making, and I say "Thank God."

MR. FRASER: There are a few other things I'd like to inquire of the Minister. I'd like to talk about our peak potential flood threat. I was quite frightened yesterday when I heard the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) say that the flood level is down. It came up in the question period today.

I would like to tell this House that I've lived on the bank of the Fraser River all my life. I have seen it flood, and I am afraid that we're in for serious trouble this year, the reason being that we have the heaviest snowpack we've ever had — and, for the information of this House, it's still snowing. It snowed six inches on the ground at 100 Mile House on Saturday night, and that is the problem — the weather.

I'm not blaming everybody, but I want to refer for a minute to the news release this Minister put out as the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources — which is good — dated April 8 this year. What I want to refer to is the preparation, because it would appear that if this weather that we have lasts throughout the province until the end of this week, I think we will be in trouble around the first week in June due to the heavy snowpack.

The snow has only come out from the altitude of 3,000 feet at this time and it should be out at least to the 6,000 feet. Again, it's caused by the weather. I know the Fraser better than the Thompson, but I think it exists generally.

Getting back to getting ready, I want to read from the last paragraph of the first page that the Minister released on April 8.

"Mr. Williams stressed that while the provincial government stands ready to assist and will provide technical advice, initial responsibility for flood preparedness and flood fighting rests with local authorities in threatened areas."

I'm fully aware of that. That is all fine and good where we have organized areas, but there are large areas on the Thompson and the Fraser that are not in organized areas.

On the Fraser right now, because of the high flow that we've had earlier and now receded because of the cold weather, there's already been erosion, and there's agricultural land already fallen into the water.

I say, what kind of financial relief have we got for these people? Are you saying that if you have a formula they would belong to a regional district and they would be involved? Because I'm really referring to organized territories as municipalities, not regional districts.

Right at the moment there are some farmers who want to do some work, but with the expense, how does an individual farmer try and preserve land that has already fallen in the river, and, of course, with the threat of higher water will fall more? I would like to hear from the Minister if they would share.

By the way, your Water Resources Branch, your engineers in Prince George, are doing an excellent job. They have all these trouble spots that came up in '72, and prior to that in '48 — they have them all tabulated as to whether they are individual ownership, Crown land, or municipalities, but nothing has really happened to the individual areas and the rural areas in any form of assistance. These people are not asking for handouts. They would like to know how they can share, get the government to share — 75-25, I believe, is the formula with the municipality.

What I'm really saying is: does this apply to an individual? And who determines this, and when? As I repeat, your engineers of the Water Resources Branch in Prince George know all about them. So, so much for that.

Another question I have that is of concern for all the Interior is that the Minister has appointed a task force on grazing, and I think that's a good idea. It is time everything was reviewed. My question on that is: could he give this House any idea when they might release their report? It is my information that they have been studying for, I think, six months. When does he expect them to report? I don't think we should go into the grazing season of 1975 without getting some new formulas and so on set up for grazing, because it is a problem throughout the whole of the Interior. I, of course, refer to grazing on Crown land.

The last thing I have to ask the Minister is on the subject of water licences. I realize that water licences were very negligible — that is, what the Crown charges for the right of using provincial waters. People get licences and they use this water for residential and commercial purposes and so on. But it has been brought to my attention that this year, because of the increase that's been going on for these licences, in the case of an individual farmer, his water licence has advanced from $ 100 to $200 in one year. Now, that's a 100 per cent.

These farmers aren't people with 100 head of dairy cattle or 1,000 head of beef cattle; they're small operators trying to eke out of a living, and this becomes a financial strain on them. I was wondering if there is any policy to double the charge on the water licences to everybody, because I think consideration should be given again to the agricultural industry, if nobody else. I don't think we have to get these kind of rates. This water is being used by the farmers I'm referring to for domestic water supply as well as for irrigation.

[ 30040403130.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 3130 ]

I think they might have been too low before, but the problem is that they have been advanced too sharply and too high — in other words,100 per cent. I would like to hear from the Minister on those points.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): I'm pleased that the Member for Cariboo raised the question of flooding. I would also like to associate myself with the remarks concerning the apparent good efforts that have been put into this by more than one department, and the concern that has been shown by various government agencies.

But perhaps the Minister can help us on a specific that has occupied a fair number of news columns in the last couple of days — the Vedder system in the Fraser Valley. The Vancouver Sun yesterday said: "Time running out for flood-threatened Vedder farmers."

I was aware also, as I am sure the Minister is, of the concern expressed by Chilliwack District Mayor, Mr. Simpson, after he toured the dikes.

Then in The Province this morning we see the headlines: "Vedder will get dikes pumped with Victoria's help."

Now it seems to me that there was an unreasonable delay here as far as the Minister's department, or the Water Resources Branch, was concerned in that I'm informed that on May 1, representatives of the IBEW indicated to Water Resources that they were quite prepared to provide the necessary men to complete the connection of the four pumps which are of major concern in the Vedder area, providing that the job was assigned to a contractor who is not a member of the CLRA.

May 1, again, was the date indicated to me in this connection, and by May 3, the Water Resources Branch contacted a firm known as Blitz Electric of Surrey to make the necessary arrangements. May 1 and May 3 are the two key dates. We're aware of the critical situation and the fact that the people of Chilliwack District and others would be standing by watching rather helplessly as each day passed with the incompletion of these pumps. And if this offer was, in fact, made by representatives of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and the arrangement was transmitted or the information was transmitted to Water Resources, what was the reason for the delay? Almost two weeks later we finally learn that work will commence on the pumps.

If the Minister can ease my fears in this connection, or contradict the information which has been given to me, then I will be satisfied, but it does seem that somehow bureaucracy ground to a bit of a halt in this particular instance.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, first of all, the Minister, I think, just forgot to answer my question about Ocean Falls.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, he nodded when I asked the question, and said that six private companies had shown an interest. I think the Minister did mean to answer it, but I just do raise it again — that back at the end of March the Ocean Falls corporation announced that it was inviting proposals from private concerns to join with them in forming a logging sawmill, wood trading, newsprint and specialty paper manufacturing organization. I did ask if the Minister had received any response because I do feel, as I said yesterday, that his well-known attitude and appraisal of the private forest industry is not one which would encourage harmony or encourage private industry to feel that a co-operative effort with the government would be one of peace and tranquility exactly, because the Minister has said that he doesn't exactly appreciate some of the efforts of the private sector.

On that basis I find this request for co-operation with the private industry in developing the Ocean Falls project as being a little difficult to follow, but maybe I'm wrong. If I'm wrong, it would best be proven wrong by the response of private companies to this request.

Just one or two quick points, Mr. Chairman. I'd like the Minister to tell the House about the present state of the money put in the greenbelt fund. Back in December of last year it was reported that the responsibility for the greenbelt fund would no longer be solely that of the Minister, but would be transferred to the Land Commission. It was stated that money from the fund would be used to attract other funds and land from municipal councils, regional districts and private foundations.

The report stated that at that time, December last year, the government had reviewed the 46 purchases made under the terms of the fund, and the statement the Minister made was that there had been some question as to how suitable some of the purchases were for the purpose of greenbelt areas of land. The Minister said that actually some of them were more suited to industry and housing than they are to greenbelt.

I wonder if I could ask the Minister about these sites. How many such sites are there that were considered unsuitable as greenbelt? And if they are unsuitable, is the government planning to sell these sites for industry and/or housing in the cases where they were considered unsuitable as preservation for greenbelt?

Very quickly and briefly, I would like to raise the whole question of natural gas and electricity to Vancouver Island.

I heard Mr. Cass-Beggs being quoted earlier this evening and in March of this year he said that

[ 30040403131.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 3131 ]

technology had possibly reached the point where it would be much wiser to drill a tunnel under the seabed to Vancouver Island to carry electricity power lines than a natural gas pipeline. He said the cost may be lower. He didn't say that it is, but he said it may be lowered to the point where it is economic to bore a tunnel under the sea to Vancouver Island.

We have had quite a bit of discussion and publicity in the past on the whole question of natural gas to Vancouver Island. It seems to me there were hearings and several companies placed their case before the public hearing. I just wonder if the Minister could bring us up to date on that particular project.

Finally, now that the Premier is back in the House, it would be very interesting just to touch on the question of rates for electricity, and to ask the Minister some very straightforward questions.

The Premier, with all the skill and dash of an established and experienced politician, started off by talking about the importance of using power wisely and without waste, and gave us some examples of the tremendous demand for power in California and so on.

But in a very subtle way — or maybe not so subtle — the Premier just sort of edged on to the subject of cost by saying maybe it would be wise to put up the price so that people might use less power.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That's right, especially industry.

MR. WALLACE: Now the Premier's qualifying his earlier statement.

The Premier has just come back from Missouri, and people from Missouri are said to be a little sceptical. I'm just from Fife which is a county of Scotland where people are considered to be pretty careful in their decisions and very sceptical of statements such as the one made by the Premier.

My immediate reaction to the Premier's statement was to say, Aha! We have all been wondering when Hydro rates were going to be raised. Rather than come out swinging and say, "Look fellows, it's time to put up the rates," the Premier very cleverly came around in a somewhat — one has to be careful in using the word "devious,: Mr. Chairman, so I won't use it, but….

MR. McGEER: Circuitous.

MR. WALLACE: In a circuitous way. Thank you, Mr. Member.

MR. FRASER: You doctors get together now.

HON. MR. COCKE: Wait for the other shoe to drop.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, we really shouldn't try to be clever and trap the Premier but the fact is that the last increase in Hydro rates was in 1970 and it was of the order of 15 per cent. I think we have to be fair and objective — in four years all services and goods in our community and in our society have continued to go up in price. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect that when the next project is to cost $500 million to build the dam at site 1…. The Minister making the announcement this afternoon mentioned that although the projected cost was $400 million, with the continuing escalation of wages, prices and costs, he thought it would cost $500 million.

So we have to ask two questions: Is the Minister, or B.C. Hydro, planning some increase in rates for electricity in the next few months, shall we say, which would not be unexpected in the light of the cost increases that I have quoted? If they are anticipating increased rates, is the Minister in a position to tell us whether the attitude will be the same as with natural gas, that most of the increase will fall on industry and business?

The Premier just interjected in the debate that costs and encouragement to the saving of electricity should be mainly on the business sector. So I am asking the very straightforward question: is an increase anticipated in the very near future? If so, will the greater part of the increase be placed on industry and business?

Thirdly, and finally: is the Minister able to tell the House to what degree B.C. Hydro will go into the public marketplace to borrow money to finance future power developments? I understand the last time this happened it was also some years ago — in June, 1967 Hydro went in the public market to borrow financing.

These are some very pertinent questions which affect every citizen in the province. When we have seen how business and industry have been nailed tax wise and in the assessment over the past year, and we have seen business and industry take the heavier share of the increased cost of natural gas, I think it absolutely necessary that we ask the questions: Where are we in relation to electricity rates? How soon will there be an increase? Can the Minister give us an approximate idea? Is it another 15 per cent or is the main burden to be placed on business and industry?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: As I indicated, Mr. Chairman, there is this special study going on inside B.C. Hydro, and elasticity of demand, particularly in the industrial sector, is a factor. The industrial sector consumes about 40 per cent of the energy that is produced by B.C. Hydro.

I think the philosophy of the government has been clearly established in the last 20 months. The load, obviously, if there were to be an increase, would be heavily weighted toward that 40 per cent industrial

[ 30040403132.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 3132 ]

demand.

But that decision has not been made and we are not considering an increase at this time.

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, the Premier has asked us to look into that and of course we will follow his wishes in the matter cheerfully.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, that's an order.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: As to the funding — much of the money, of course, is through the Canada Pension Plan funds, and it still remains to the Treasury Board to determine the amount that will be provided from those sources. I can't give you that information — that's the Treasury Board's decision to make, and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett).

The question of unorganized areas and protecting private lands in unorganized areas — there is a 75-25 formula. That is reviewed by the Water Resources staff, that particular problem. We then consider the merits of the particular situation, set some priorities and then provide the funding. In some instances the 25 per cent, which would be paid by the private property owner, has been paid over a period of time, not necessarily all in the one year.

The grazing task force — I hope their report will be ready within the month. So, as the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) suggested, that he would hope that new policies would prevail in 1975, I would agree. I would like to see new policies established by the next year with respect to grazing.

Regarding water licences — the total revenue is $5 million for all forms of water licences, and about $4.5 million of that is paid by B.C. Hydro for their water licences. There has been an increase, it is true; it may have seemed sudden, but I still think the domestic and agricultural rates are, by most standards, very reasonable.

The question of the Vedder area — the matter was discussed between the management and our civil servants, and unions and our civil servants. We did not receive the kind of unconditional agreement that we would deem necessary in the situation. That explains the time lag.

I think it is clear the government has taken action with respect to the unions in that emergency in the Kamloops area. We are willing to take action regarding management in other areas.

So I think in a sense that the government has been quite equitable regarding these problems. We think the time factor is still okay with respect to the Vedder.

On the Ocean Falls request for proposals we are being quite open. We are asking all comers to put their proposals forward. We are definitely interested in a joint venture at Ocean Falls. We think it makes sense, partly in relation to marketing. That has been discussed in this debate. We think it makes sense just in terms of management generally. We think it makes sense in terms of the forest resource that is not fully utilized in central coast. We also think that we hold a significant asset in Ocean Falls that will establish a very significant equity position for the provincial Crown.

Regarding the gas line to the Island, the studies are still going on and we can't say what the best solution would be — that is, integration or non-integration with other utilities.

The Green Belt Protection Fund — I'm working on memory now, I would think it is down to probably about $14 million. $5 million of that has, in effect, been turned over to the Land Commission, but the final approval still remains with the Environment and Land Use Committee of the cabinet. They have requested that all of the regional districts, in effect, on a per capita basis suggest acquisitions that they deem to be the most appropriate in their region. There has been the one at Swan Lake in Saanich in this region, for example. The greater Vancouver one has suggested Crescent Beach, and so on.

MR. CURTIS: But it's not limited, naturally.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, it's not limited to that. In addition, the Environment and Land Use Committee of the cabinet is dealing with the remaining funds. Various acquisitions are being actively considered. We have some major ones that we are considering right now that involve sharing with Second Century Fund and significant conservation groups like that.

MR. WALLACE: Will you be selling any that are not suitable?

HON. R, A. WILLIAMS: We have transferred some of the 46 that the Member mentioned to the various departments — Transport, for example, and others, or the remainder in the Lands Branch. Several have been transferred to other departments for action.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're wanted on the phone.

MR. GIBSON: Could you take a message, Mr. Premier?

Mr. Chairman, the Premier has come up with another nice little zapper for industry tonight because he knows that industry doesn't have many votes and people have lots of votes so he is going to raise the electric power rates on industry. What he hasn't said is how this is going to affect the jobs of people in British Columbia.

[ 30040403133.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 3133 ]

So the Minister comes back and says that we are going to do demand studies on this and we are going to get demand elasticity on power rates for industrial users on that 40 per cent. What I would like to know from the Minister on that aspect is whether these demand studies will be made public — the demand studies to be made by his department and by Hydro — and whether or not the hiking of rates for industrial users will await the completion of these demand studies. That is the first question.

The second question relates again to figure 1 and just how good these energy forecasts are. The figures go up to 1980 and 1981. That's about a current planning horizon. After that we are going to have to be looking at new capacities. If the Minister is determined not to have nuclear, what is he going to do in 1981-82 and then 1982-83? Just in case you're still the government, next year, Mr. Minister, when these sorts of decisions will have to be made for 1981, what are your thoughts?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Then we'll all go back to the dark ages.

MR. GIBSON: I would also suggest that even if all of his capacity plans work out right his demand forecasts might be very much on the low side.

We have had a good description tonight from the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) as to why we shouldn't be using our hydrocarbon resources for energy production. We should be conserving them in this province and we should be conserving them, in particular, for industrial feed stocks.

We should be converting more and more to an electrical energy economy. That is going to mean a higher rate of growth than we have had in the past on electrical energy side, whether the Premier likes it or not. That electrical energy is going to have to be found somewhere. It is not found here on figure 1. I ask again, why is this government not taking a closer look at nuclear power?

I appreciate the view of the Minister and his reluctance to make any decisions on it at this point if he can possibly put it off. But he based a lot of his reluctance on the cost factor. I asked him across the floor what the costs were for the installations he has planned. He says, for example, that site 1 will be 7 mills. I draw to his attention the comparison of the cost factor on the current Pickering nuclear reactor which is 6.22 mills, according to a publication put out by ACL, with which I presume the Minister would be familiar. So clearly the cost factor is not the reason for being against nuclear power.

Maybe it is the waste management factor. If that is the case, maybe the Minister would stand up and tell us what his officials have been able to find out about developments in waste management systems of recent date. This is the largest problem with nuclear reactors. I presume the Minister is an expert.

I would also ask him what the incremental cost will be, according to his department forecast, of that Vancouver Island thermal in 1980-81, because at that point and beyond he is looking increasingly to thermal reactors fuelled by hydrocarbons, whether it is coal or oil or gas. We know that the cost of all those energy sources is going to be going up on an increasing curve. We are looking seven or eight years down the line here and there is just no way that that cost isn't going to be a great deal more than 7 mills. I would like to have the Minister's reaction to that.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The Vancouver Island thermal is still a very iffy question. There are hydro-electric opportunities that are low-cost hydro-electric opportunities.

MR. GIBSON: But you've got it there as part of your supply.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We've got it there because we prefer the idea that we wouldn't be tied totally by cables to Vancouver Island. It is an alternative source on the Island. That is the factor as much as anything else with respect to Vancouver Island thermal.

The demand study, yes. I would like to see most of the information that comes out of the task force studies made generally available to the public. I think that the more information there is, the better we can understand the kind of energy problem that we have in the province.

The question of after 1980. Of course, we're going on but I don't really think it would be that beneficial to pursue the question of beyond 1980. When I look at the immediate problems, 1980 doesn't look so bad.

The question of prices. I think the Hon. Member is really talking about yesterday's prices with respect to Pickering because of construction in the past. We are talking about tomorrow's prices for site 1. Site 1 isn't on stream until 1980 and Pickering was constructed in a period and is now in use. You are not, in fact, comparing comparables.

I think the fairest thing would be to use the Energy Board report of a year-and-one-half ago wherein they indicate that the cost at that time the ratio was 2:1 between nuclear and Hydro ones that were readily available to it.

MR. McGEER: I want to switch the subject. The Premier is groaning and I was wondering if he was wishing he were back in the Kowaiken Resort Hotel in Hakone.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What was the name of that place again?

[ 30040403134.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 3134 ]

MR. McGEER: Hakone is a resort area in Japan. It is a very lovely area. I was privileged to visit there last summer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are discussing vote 137. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to that vote.

MR. McGEER: Do you know who paid for that hotel in Hakone? A pulp company — a Japanese company that has pulp interests here in British Columbia. You know, the Japanese are great on hospitality but they expect favours in return.

HON. MR. BARRETT: For what?

MR. McGEER: Well, for hospitality.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I went to a Liberal dinner once…

MR. McGEER: Well, they've given you lots of hospitality in the past.

HON. MR. BARRETT: …and I did the people of this province the best favour of all — I kept them out of office.

HON. MR. LEA: I wonder if those contributors to the Liberal campaign fund will want a return.

MR. McGEER: Which ones was the Minister referring to?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey address himself to the vote and the Minister's responsibilities?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know exactly what obligations the Japanese pulp firms in British Columbia are expecting from the government as a result of the hospitality which I don't think the government should have accepted now or in the future.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What hospitality?

MR. McGEER: I would like the Minister to make it clear that no Japanese firm can expect any special favours in British Columbia as a result of the junket to Japan.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think it is very clear that none of the major companies get any special favours at the hands of this administration, and I don't think any comment beyond that is necessary.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Well, I think I'd like to spend a few minutes this evening talking with the Minister about…

HON. MR. BARRETT: Deadly Ed.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SMITH: …the lease of agricultural Crown land, Crown land for agricultural purposes.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Members please extend the courtesy to the Hon. Member for North Peace River, who has the floor?

MR. SMITH: What I wish to question the Minister about is the policy, both now and in the future, for the disposal of Crown land for agricultural purposes. Now for some time the policy has been that people, where Crown land was available, could leave, develop and then purchase the land, and this was spelled out in their original lease form.

I found a bit late, particularly in the last year, Mr. Chairman, that a number of people who have applied for land under that particular policy in the Peace River country have experienced varying degrees of problems with the Department of Lands concerning their leases.

There seems to be a great reluctance to give them any leeway at all if any of their fees are behind, or if they haven't dotted the "i"s and crossed the "t"s properly. And the suggestion has been made to them on more than one occasion by officials of the department that if they didn't adhere to the letter of their lease agreement, probably the agreement would be cancelled and they, on that basis, would not be able to renew their rights to eventually purchase that land.

Now in some cases the Department of Lands might have had justification, but in many cases it has been the result of poor weather conditions, not being able to get hired equipment at a time when they needed it to develop that land and get as many acres into cultivation as they should have done under their lease requirement. I think, when people are making an honest attempt, that the Lands department, if they want to encourage development of farmland in British Columbia, should give those people some consideration.

Now in more recent weeks I have had a number of letters from people concerning the purchase or the acquisition of Crown land for agricultural purposes in the Province of British Columbia. I would like the Minister to clarify in very definitive terms the policy

[ 30040403135.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 3135 ]

as it is today and the policy as he expects it to be in the future. This is an important part of the economy of the province and I think it is something that we should encourage people to do. If there's Crown land available, then they should be encouraged to go out and develop it.

Certainly at the present time there are estimates of a million acres of potential agricultural land available in the Fort Nelson area, which is presently under a total reserve to the Crown. Some of these days, I presume, the Crown will do the surveys that are required and determine exactly the amount of land that is suitable for agricultural purposes in that particular area. I would hope at that time that that land will be available to people so they can lease, develop and purchase land for agricultural production.

I'd like to comment, if I might, briefly on the matter of the development of site 1 on the Peace. I'm not going to review the actual development except to ask the Minister if the same condition will be included in the labour contract on site 1 as we had in the labour contract with respect to the original dam built on the Peace and the dams on the Columbia.

They were subject to a no-strike clause, which worked out very well. There were very few work stoppages, as I recall, on the original work at the W.A.C. Bennett dam and very few problems on the Columbia with regard to the labour force. I think that was due in the main to the fact that the unions, together with Hydro, had worked out the terms of a very good contract and, with both sides keeping true to the terms of the contract, they lost very little time in any of those projects.

So I would like the Minister to give an indication of what type of agreement will be worked out between the unions, whoever they might be, on that particular job and B.C. Hydro. I would also like to know if the Minister is still looking at the Liard River in northern British Columbia as a potential site for hydro development. I know it is included in studies. Is it to be given serious consideration with respect to further hydro development in this province?

If the Minister wouldn't mind, I would like answers to those questions.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Regarding land policy in the Peace, there has not been any change in policy with respect to agricultural leases and development. The question of taking a hard line with respect to some lessees: I am certainly pleased that our staff are taking a hard line with respect to some of the major land acquirers — people that got incredible amounts of land, in my judgment, quite improperly under the former administration.

MR. SMITH: I'm not talking about major land. I'm talking about rip-offs.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm pleased to see that we are taking a hard line with respect to the mammoth land holders who acquired land in the Peace River country under the former Minister outside of regular policy methods.

The question of land development for farming in the Peace: I would just like to give an indication of what is happening in terms of development of farmland in the Peace. Expenditure under the ALDA programme with the Minister of Agriculture under the former administration was $445,000. In the previous year in this administration it was $1.4 million. In 1974-75 it will be $4 million.

So it is clear that this government has been encouraging in a very real way the agricultural development of the Peace River country. That is not to say that there isn't a need for very careful examination of land with potentials other than agriculture.

The no-strike question on site 1: I think it is too early to comment at this time in terms of what Hydro might achieve in that regard.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Minister, with respect to the Crown land for agricultural development, I think perhaps if the policy I have just heard you enunciate is the policy of your department, then perhaps it should be passed on to the members of your department. I have letters dated as recently as May 7 replying to people who were interested in Crown land in British Columbia, trying to find out if it would be available for agricultural purposes. I quote from the letter:

" In the past the disposition of Crown lands other than waterfront has been on a lease-develop-purchase basis. Since 1959, waterfront land has been disposed of on a leasehold basis only. Currently the Lands Branch is moving toward a policy of disposing of all Crown lands on a leasehold basis. There is no doubt that when the administrative details have been worked out, any applications being processed will be finalized as a lease rather than a purchase."

That's a letter signed by Mr. House for the director of Lands. It is dated May 7, 1974, Mr. Minister.

I would hope that if this is an error on the part of the Department of Lands with respect to the policy, then they would make that known to the people who have written in to find out if Crown land is available and can be purchased through the lease-develop-purchase basis as it has been in the past.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I would be pleased to pursue the individual case with the Member if we could jointly agree on a suitable time, regarding that problem. I think it is still referring to possible future policy, and that is not firmly established at this time.

[ 30040403136.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 3136 ]

MR. CHABOT: I have just a few words. I know the hour is getting late. If the Minister would tell me right now if he is going to rename McNaughton Lake to Kinbasket Lake, I'll sit down forthwith.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That's the most tempting offer I've had in a long time.

MR. CHABOT: So it appears that the Minister is unwilling….

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'll take the matter under active consideration. I'll discuss it with our specialist in surveys and mapping. I'll see how irrevocable it is. I'll see if erasures can be made in those federal maps. This offer is really a magnanimous offer from the Member for Columbia River, and I just can't readily ignore it.

MR. CHABOT: Maybe I should fill you in on some of the details (Laughter) to convince the Minister of the wisdom….

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I am reading the history of Chief Kinbasket.

MR. CHABOT: of renaming that lake because there have been some peculiar happenings in that government relative to Indians — our native people. First of all we saw the only Indian ever appointed to a cabinet in Canada kicked out on his ear by that government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: And then the Minister goes up and he is discussing forestry in the Burns Lake area. And what does he say?

AN HON. MEMBER: "Jobs!"

MR. CHABOT: He says: "I am being harassed by the Indian people. I am being harassed." Terrible, that little government being harassed by that huge Indian nation in British Columbia. That little government being harassed!

Now we see the Minister's respect for long-standing…

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Now we see comedy hour.

MR. CHABOT: …Indian names within my constituency.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Williston Lake and Bennett Dam? Okay. We don't want to insult anybody by calling that name after them.

MR. CHABOT: Yet the Minister appointed a task force to examine the Mica Basin under Farquharson to look at the possible utilization of the land surrounding the future lake. And he held public meetings in Valemount, Revelstoke and Golden. There was a unanimous motion introduced by the people from Revelstoke.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): By whom?

MR. CHABOT: By an individual from Revelstoke. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, I heard so much about Kinbasket that I would like to draw your attention to the clock.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I really think Mr. Kinbasket could be covered under the Surveys of Mapping Branch.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11 p.m.