[ Page 445 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 8.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 445

Mrs. Wallace –– 447

Mrs. Jordan –– 448

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 451

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates.

On vote 75.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 452

Mr. Skelly –– 453

Supply Act, No –– 2, 1979 (Bill 2). Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

First, second and third readings –– 456

Royal assent to bills –– 456

Medical Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 15). Hon. Mr. McClelland.

Introduction and first reading –– 457

Tabling Documents

Report under Legislative Procedure and Practice Inquiry Act.

Mr. Speaker –– 457

THURSDAY, JUNE 28, 1979

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

On vote 8: minister's office, $109,787.

HON. MR. HEWITT: It's a pleasure for me to give some outline of what's happened in agriculture in the past year, and also state some of our plans for the future.

Before I do that, I would like to introduce the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Sig Peterson, and Mr. John Newman, director of finance for that ministry. Both served me well in my previous term as Minister of Agriculture from 1976-78.

Before I proceed, I would like to make a comment about the former Minister of Agriculture, Cyril Shelford, the former member for Skeena. He was a great supporter and a great spokesman for agriculture. I can say that although the people of his riding have not found it in their hearts to return him, Cyril Shelford will be missed because of his close ties with agriculture over the number of years he served, and when he was Minister of Agriculture under W.A.C. Bennett's administration, and then in 1978. I'm sure the members here would recognize that.

Mr. Speaker, 1978 was a very good year for agriculture. We have seen some of the turnarounds that have taken place. I'd just like, before I start to refer to some of the facts that I have before me, to give these fact sheets to the Pages and ask them to distribute them in order that members may follow along or refer to them at a later date.

I'I just touch on some of the key indicators in agriculture. In 1978 the number of farms in the province of British Columbia increased to 19,800 from 19,600 in 1977. This is an increase of 3 percent, which is not a large increase. But in Canada as a whole, the number of farm holdings dropped by 5 percent.

In 1978 the number of acres under cultivation was 1.97 million as opposed to 1.94 million acres in 1975, which is an increase of approximately 5 percent. In Canada as a whole, there was no change in cultivated farmland.

The net farm income for British Columbia went from $181 million in 1975 to $205 million in 1978. This is a 44 percent increase in farm income from 1975 to 1978. In Canada as a whole there was a 1 percent drop in that same period of time.

In farm expenses from 1975 to 1978, there was a 24 percent increase in British Columbia and a 34 percent increase for Canada as a whole. That would indicate, I think, that our farmers are good administrators, good businessmen, and have had good results in keeping their expenses under control.

Farm cash receipts in British Columbia for 1975 to 1978 show a 31 percent increase, as opposed to 19 percent for all of Canada.

I'd like to quickly touch on some other statistics: milk production up 4 percent in that three-year period, Canada as a whole down 2 percent; poultry sales up 47 percent, Canada as a whole up 28 percent; egg production up 7 percent, Canada as a whole down 1 percent; tree fruits up 67 percent, Canada as a whole up 37 percent; vegetables up 17 percent, Canada as a whole up 3 percent.

I can go on, because every one of those indicators that follows on that page pretty well shows the activity that has gone on in British Columbia in the past three years. I think it is an indication — not that my ministry has done a great job but that the agriculture industry in this province has done a tremendous job. I can only say that my ministry, my staff, have played a small part — a supporting role — to the agriculture industry in this province, and for that I am very proud. But at the same time, the credit goes, of course, not just to the Federation of Agriculture, as a spokesman for the agricultural community, but to the commodity groups that meet with my staff and speak out on behalf of the individual farmer.

At the base of that pyramid, you might say, which is represented at the top by the Federation of Agriculture, as the spokesman for the industry, is the individual farmer in this province. That individual farmer, Mr. Chairman, has to be not only a businessman, an accountant, a mechanic and an engineer, but he has to also be able to anticipate and outguess, in many cases, the weather. Sometimes he is successful and sometimes he is not. Nevertheless, he is the man on which, you might say, the rest of the community rides, because he is the man who supplies our food.

Two years ago, as the new Minister of Agriculture, I aimed at a program of 65 percent self-sufficiency by 1985. I don't have any particulars on the growth percentage in trying to achieve that 65 percent, but I can tell you, and I think the indicators can show you, that we've moved a long way toward becoming more self-sufficient in agriculture in this province.

The one other comment I could make in regard to the players in this success story, or the reason why it is a success story, is the good two-way communication we have between my ministry and the agriculture industry. We have been able to meet together and to resolve some of the problems and differences over the past years.

The members will note that in the estimates the total budget figure for 1979-80 is $55,233,000, down from the budgeted figure last year of $72,000,000. The reason, basically, is the farm income assurance requirements in the province. Members know that farm income assurance is the income stabilization program for most commodities in the province where the market return is below the cost of production, through no fault of the farmer. We do have a stabilization program where we pick up part of the loss. It is an insurance program. It is a program for which the farmer pays a premium; it is not straight subsidy. This last year, Mr. Chairman, they are now getting that return from the marketplace, and as a result the need for farm income assurance is not as great. They are getting a return from the marketplace and I am sure the farm community is more than happy with the results. They're getting a fair return for their efforts at the present time.

We have brought our new commodities under the Farm Income Assurance Act, and we’ve entered into what we call the second generation of farm income assurance with the B.C. Tree Fruits. The first contract will expire under the old

[ Page 446 ]

program. The policy of this government was stated during the election campaign. It was stated by myself when we reached agreement with the Federation of Agriculture. It is an ongoing program — not a five-year program. The farmer can participate in it and be secure in knowing that at the end of five years it will not be terminated, but that it is a government policy to proceed with it. It is no different than other programs of government, such as medicare or GAIN, et cetera.

The Select Standing Committee on Agriculture has completed its reports under the chairmanship of the former member for Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree). I can only compliment those members of the committee who served many long hours to attempt to come up with some direction for the agriculture industry.

There were a great number of comprehensive reports. The cost of that committee, of course, is substantial. Travelling around, having the hearings and doing the research is expensive, but the material we received is valuable material for my ministry. It also gives guidance to the industry.

We ran into some flak with the Standing Committee on Agriculture in regard to reports that some commodity groups were not happy with. But after discussion, I think even those ones who reacted the most found out that we were looking at constructive criticism. In any industry — in any lifestyle we have in any community — the biggest fear we have is the fear of change. This is why some of the reaction to the reports came from the farming community originally. Yet they also recognized that nothing is as constant as change in this world. The reports that have been submitted to my staff will be used as reference material by the industry, and we can build from the information that those reports contain. So I thank the Standing Committee on Agriculture. The reports are comprehensive, and they will certainly provide us with a foundation on which to build.

The prime role of my ministry is to support the industry not direction, not takeover of agricultural enterprises, but support of that industry. We've given support in a number of ways, such as our food promotion programs. The brown bag campaign went over in such a successful way that all the MLAs were carrying their lunches to work. It was a good campaign; it went right through the schools, and we've had excellent response.

This year we are moving into a coordinated advertising promotion program with the various commodity groups. Matching funds will be provided so better identification can be given to each of those commodity groups.

Secondly, we've brought forward the ARDSA program, the $60 million federal-provincial cost-sharing program. You're seeing the results of it in packing plants being upgraded, cold storage facilities, coordinated resource development programs, et cetera.

We are looking towards more regionalization of staff to get our people closer to the farm community, and you'I be seeing that direction in some areas in the coming year.

I'I just touch briefly on the issues of the farming community. One is urban encroachment of residential property on the farm community. I just have to look to Saanich, Mr. Chairman, and talk about Fatt's Poultry Processors. That chicken farm has been there for years, and now it is under pressure because people are not happy with the sound of the chickens at night, the feathers floating in the air or the possible smell from that facility. Who was there first? We have a problem with urban encroachment, and my ministry has developed the green zone approach, the buffer zone, and we're working with regional districts and municipalities to bring that into effect. I don't know whether we will solve the problem, but it seems that as we expand our city boundaries the farmer is the first man to suffer.

Although the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Mair) isn't beside me today, I've got to tell you that we have serious problems in this province with the environmentalists who are really causing problems to farmers in regard to weed control, and to our ranchers who have problems with their grazing lands. Every time they turn around they have an environmentalist saying: "You can't do this." Yet that same environmentalist relies on our farmers for food.

We have another issue, winter damage of some of our crops last year. Mainly the grape crop was damaged, and we are analysing the seriousness of that.

One issue we're going to have to face deals with the agricultural credit, the partial interest reimbursement program which is assistance to the farmer, whereby we relieve him of some of the cost of interest, and at present we reduce his interest costs to 9 percent. In this day and age, with the high interest costs, we are going to have to address ourselves to the problem of where to set that level. Do we set it at a prime bank rate and allow it to fluctuate as the interest rates in the business community fluctuate or do we hold the line at 9 percent? If we hold the line at 9 percent, and the interest rates remain high, the cost to my ministry and to government and to the taxpayer continues to increase. And I think that I will have to discuss this matter further with the farm community to reach an understanding on how to best identify the agricultural credit program and the assistance we give them. Should it be a fixed level or do we allow it to fluctuate with the interest rates charged by the banks?

For the benefit of those city dwellers in the House I have one final comment in regard to the high cost of food. I want to tell you that it's not high, that my farmers are getting a reasonable return for their product. Compared to other parts of the world we don't do too badly.

Let me give you some statistics. These are retail food prices in selected world capitals. This comes not from any ministry publication but from United States agricultural statistics:

Steak in Ottawa is $6.47 a pound; in Washington it's $7.03 a pound; in London it's $10.05 a pound and in Tokyo it's $39.98 a pound. We've got a pretty good deal. Bacon: $3.55 a pound in Ottawa; in Washington it's $4.01; in London it's $6.11; and in Tokyo it's $7.97. Eggs per dozen: 84 cents in Ottawa — now I know they're a little higher here, Mr. Chairman; I know you live in South Vancouver, and you would be concerned.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the Egg Marketing Board?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, I want to tell you, Mr. Member, that that marketing board exists for eggs in Ottawa as well. In Ottawa they're 84 cents and in Washington they're 91 cents; in Tokyo they're $1 — that's not too bad in Tokyo; in London they're $1.53.

I could go on, Mr. Chairman, in regard to other commodities — potatoes, apples, and so on. In almost all

[ Page 447 ]

instances this sheet — and I'd be glad to pass it out to anybody who'd like a copy — shows that we have a pretty good deal as far as the cost of food is concerned, when you compare it to our disposable income.

So, Mr. Chairman, as I said, 1978 was a good year for agriculture; 1979-80 looks like that trend will continue, and I can assure the members here that my ministry will be doing its utmost to make sure that trend does continue. With those comments I'll be pleased to answer any questions the members might have.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, we've heard the minister tell us all the things he knows about agriculture....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Now you tell us what you know and it'll take two seconds.

MRS. WALLACE: It seems that he's not aware, however, that one of the reasons the agricultural community has done so well this year is because of inflation and because of some crop failures south of the border that have prevented imports from coming into the province, and he seems to stand in his place and somehow take credit for what has happened in the agricultural community. And he spent the greater part of his speech in reading us some statistics that have been prepared by a statistician for Statistics Canada and which certainly I have had for the last several weeks — and I assume other members of the House have also had those statistics.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this particular estimate and this budget for agriculture this year is nothing short of an insult to the farming community. To cut back on a budget in a year when, as the minister has indicated, the farming community is facing serious problems in the methods it uses for control of weeds and for insects and so on is nothing short of being hard-hearted and uncaring. If the money was there last year and the year before and years preceding that, then certainly there shouldn't be a cutback now. The minister has indicated that it's cut back because farm income assurance isn't requiring so much funding, but that money, Mr. Chairman, should have been allocated to other areas of agriculture to provide the kind of research assistance that is needed by agriculture to meet some of the problems that they're facing.

It's interesting to note — and the minister has spoken about the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture — that that committee and this government were prepared to expend some $3 million on that particular committee. And yet that money, if you put into the research and development portion of the agricultural estimates, would have lasted for 20 years at the rate it's now being funded — one-twentieth of that is all that's in the budget for research and development.

The minister has talked about all the reports that were filed with that food-cost study. Well, the ministry may use those; I doubt it very much; the committee certainly used them very, very little in preparing its report.

When that committee's report did come out, we found that in Phase 1, on the section on land use, the recommendations caused real concern among the agricultural community. We saw something that had never happened before in the history of this province. The Institute of Agrologists and the B.C. Federation of Agriculture issued a joint statement, proclaiming the problems that were occurring with that report, and urged government not to implement it as it stood. So much for Phase 1.

The minister has already talked about Phase II, the production section, where the farming community, without exception, nearly, was concerned about the errors in the research. Obviously those errors must have been there, and certainly the conclusions must have been wrong if the committee has any credibility at all. Very, very few of those recommendations that were based on those research reports were included in the final report from the select standing committee.

The third phase: that committee came out and said there was nothing wrong with the retail and distribution sector, and that everything was fine. Mr. Chairman, every jurisdiction around this country is proving there are problems at that level. Yet this committee found nothing wrong. They found nothing wrong with the fact that retail stores could increase their profits by 81 percent, and increase their volume by only 17 percent. They could see nothing wrong with that. I think there is something wrong with that, and I think that committee was very lacking. As I say, that money could have been spent on research and development.

The minister has indicated the problems facing the farmers. He hasn't specified particularly, but certainly we know what's happening with the Tordon spray in the valley north of Hazelton, where there's a real concern there. And Tordon is scheduled to be used on knapweed on the rangeland. We have to face it. Mr. Chairman, sooner or later we're going to come to a point where some of these things farmers are presently using will be excluded from use. It's going to happen. We had a delay with the 2,4,5 treatment on the apple trees in the Okanagan. It's coming, and it's a responsibility of government to move in those areas to ensure there is a provision for farmers, an alternative method, to use for control. The minister's remarks that there is a conflict are almost an indication that those people are wrong. I'm not going to make a judgment, Mr. Chairman, but a judgment is going to be made somewhere along the line. It's moving in that direction all the time that there are more and more things coming to notice that are harmful. We've been using sprays and chemicals indiscriminately over the years, and now it appears the pigeons are coming home to roost. The evidence is gathering all the time; it's piling up. Before very long the farmer is going to be in the position of having to face up to those problems. Yet this minister does not add one red penny in addition into his budget for those alternative methods. The biological control programs are underway, but they won't be ready for a while. The reason they're delayed for so long is because those and other programs have been starved for funds. Those programs should be beefed up, and it’s ridiculous to see a budget cut by $17 million when those kinds of problems are facing the industry.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Aid to developing countries: a point very dear to my heart. I hated to see that $5 million dropped when this party first took office. But it was dropped. Then the $5 million fund was retrieved, and instead of the interest on that fund we had a flat sum of $350,000 put into the budget. That was something less than the interest on $5 million would have

[ Page 448 ]

brought at that time. Since then we've had no increase. Based on inflation, that would be up to something like $478,000 to buy the same amount of aid to developing countries as the $350,000 bought back in the years when this government first took office. If it were based on interest from that $5 million fund, we would be looking at something like $500,000, and still we're stuck at $350,000. Even worse, we have no report, nothing to indicate to his House what has been happening with that fund. That, I say, should be on the table before we discuss these estimates, but there's nothing there — no report.

We've had an interesting experience while agriculture has been under the control of the Social Credit government. It has shown just what low priority agriculture had with this particular government. The first Minister of Agriculture, now Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), was a part-time minister.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Part-time? I was the best Minister of Agriculture this province ever had.

MRS. WALLACE: You were a minister the staff didn't even recognize when they met you on the street, because you were never there, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I did more for agriculture in two months than you did the whole time you were in government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MRS. WALLACE: You were a minister in absentia never there.

Then after that minister was removed and we had a full-time minister, we had a credit union accountant. He told us what he'd learned about agriculture in that period of time he was minister. He's told us that today. But, you know, that minister was one of the first ministers.... Farmers are very polite people, but that minister was actually booed at one farm gathering that I attended. That minister was responsible for tractor cavalcades in the Fraser Valley because of his attitude about farm income assurance.

He's changed a lot; he's learned a lot. But that was the kind of attitude that minister had. That minister was overruled by cabinet three times when he was minister, and then he was kicked upstairs and we got a new minister — a recycled minister, incidentally — and his only contribution to agriculture in his short term of office was his sale of Panco to Cargill, a company whose record parallels a Chicago gangster with its list of convictions and problems in the eyes of the law. That was his contribution.

After he was defeated, I was reading a report in Country Life where he had termed the environmentalists that this minister speaks of with a bit a disparagement He went much farther and called them "leeches on society."

HON. MR. HEWITT: Who did?

MRS. WALLACE: The former Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Chairman — "leeches on society," that's what he called them. They are good solid citizens who are concerned about the future health of our province and our country and our people. That's the attitude.

Now that minister has gone. Even his appointment as a minister didn't get him re-elected to this House, and we're back to a recycled minister, a part-time minister. You know, Mr. Chairman, it's a good thing that the staff of that department is of the calibre that it is, because without that staff that ministry would have fallen completely into disrepute. It's the staff that has carried that ministry since the Social Credit government was re-elected in 1975. It's the staff that have carried it because there has never been a full-time minister or a minister that was knowledgeable about agriculture since that time.

It's the staff that have carried it, and the staff have attempted to come up with a budget but, you know, they can only repeat what has been in previous years. Staff cannot make decisions about innovations, about increases, about direction or about policy. That's the job of the minister. And the reason that this budget has nothing new in it.... There has been nothing new in the Agriculture budget since I came into this Legislature. It's the same old thing, and now it has even been cut back.

Part-time ministers, cutbacks in the estimates — Mr. Chairman, these estimates for Agriculture are not really worthy of discussion in this Legislature. It's a waste of time to talk to this minister because he's not going to be the minister for long. He knows that; I know it. All the backbenchers know it; they're all looking for the job. He has nothing to say. He can't plan the future in agriculture. He's just there for a little while, and we're stuck with a budget that has cutbacks for the third resource industry. It is unfair to the farming population; it's an insult to agriculturalists. It's the third resource industry, and if this is the kind of treatment it is getting, it is not worth my time or the time of this Legislature to even discuss this budget today.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I don't intend to take up much of the House's time, but I have to stand in strong disagreement with the former speaker, and must confess to being totally appalled at her attitude as it is reflected in her statement.

We have in this province a very vital and necessary industry in terms of economic development, job opportunities and environmental management. The taxpayers of this province have spent thousands of dollars for that member to have the opportunity to sit on a very important committee of this province, and the most constructive thing she can say is, "You should have put more money into research," which I don't disagree with. But to have her say that this budget, this industry, does not merit discussion by the people of this House, who are sent here by the public, who have a vital and diverse concern with agriculture, is shocking.

I hope the member will change her mind. I hope that in the next moments that she speaks we will have constructive suggestions upon which this government can think and act.

For my part, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a couple of comments, two of which I think are of immediate concern. I don't intend to reiterate the minister's statements in terms of the health of this industry in this province; I think the facts largely speak for themselves. I would like to point out to him that his consistent use of the term "he" was well appreciated but, of course, there are many "she"s in the agricultural industry today, and their presence is of great contribution. While they don't ask for a special significance, I think we must pay tribute to the fact that the

[ Page 449 ]

agricultural industry is all-encompassing of sex and age, from children to grandparents — and must be if it is to succeed.

The minister mentioned our educational and promotional programs. As one who has spoken on this many times in the House, I must say I am very pleased at the progress that is being made. While our ministry has supported it, it is also showing some initiative and leadership in this area, which I think is necessary. However, I would like to say to the minister that I think we're merely scratching the surface on this subject. It's been well received at the moment because the industry is reasonably healthy, or quite healthy, and the public is becoming intrigued with the idea of B.C. production and utilizing B.C. products.

But I do suggest that perhaps unknown policies of the new federal government which we hope will be beneficial to British Columbia; certainly the very delicate balance that exists between the national and international economic picture; the petroleum situation which is developing and certainly is going to have a major impact on agriculture as well as everyone else; plus the traditional pressures that are pointed out by the committee, and which we're all aware of, of land use, urban development and conflicting attitudes of the public, are going to bring increasing pressures on this industry.

If we are to meet those pressures and we are to do what we should and the industry must do what it has to, the public has to be much more knowledgeable than they are now. We have to have some substance behind our promotional campaigns. I believe that we have to take a very strong look at the educational agricultural programs in our schools, both in specific instances and in general instances. What are the students who will be the consumers and the producers of the future learning in the way of understanding of the benefits of a food policy? What are the alternates in developing a food policy? What are the benefits of those policies and what are the consequences on whichever route we take?

I believe that it must not be confined strictly to those interested in agriculture. Every student in this province, every consumer in this province — in fact every person in this province, whether they're a member of a union or an industry or management — must have a better  understanding of this industry and the role that it should play in the future, and the options that are open to us and the cost of those options.

So I would first ask the minister if he is prepared to develop some substantial strengths to the promotional program in that area. If you go through Hansard, you'll find a lot of detailed suggestions.

Also in relation to current problems, I think we are seeing in this province a very grave danger of agriculture, because of the various pressures and the lack of public knowledge, being put in a position where it's being moved into a climatic frontier, if not an economic frontier. If we are to accept that this cannot give agriculture the strong base that it needs to meet its commitments in the future, then we have to address ourselves to the cause of this problem.

One of the most acute causes at this moment, in my mind, and I think in the minds of many other people, is the role of municipalities and regional districts. We know what the provincial government policy is. We have an understanding to a degree what the federal government policy is, but it may well be the best-kept secret as far as municipal and local levels of government are concerned. In essence, there is some evidence — in fact considerable evidence — to suggest that local levels of government are not only not aware of the policies, but there is little understanding of the agriculture industry itself, and they are having a very powerful impact which is, in many instances, contrary to what the provincial, industrial and federal policies are.

We see strong evidence of a multiplicity of zoning bylaws. We see strong evidence of a lack of the agricultural voice at the local level of government. In very few instances is there an agriculturalist on a municipal council. In limited instances they are on the regional districts, but they tend to be a minor voice when it comes to voting.

I believe that we have to recognize this and that the provincial government must take an initiating role in bringing these groups together. I was surprised, and I certainly stand to be corrected if I'm wrong, that the Union of British Columbia Municipalities did not make a presentation to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. One must ask why this did not happen. I'm sure there are many reasons but I believe it should be a matter of concern to us.

If one reviews the history of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities conventions, there is little, if any, evidence to suggest that agriculture has ever been on the agenda — the industry itself. I would suggest that we must address ourselves to that.

When one examines the various influencing bodies in the province and at the local level, one has to bring to mind not only the councils and the regional districts but the chamber of commerce, which is a very strong instrument in industrial development in this province. They have agricultural committees, but they are sporadic and there is now a strong representation or input from the industrial point of view, as well as the land use and economic problems of agriculture, into those local committees.

I suggest that the industrial development commissions around the province, to which we as government are contributing substantially, be made aware of this concern, and that they be asked what they are doing in relation to land compatibility and industrial development compatibility, and to submit their views, and on that basis make recommendations to them which we hope they will follow.

I believe that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs must be very conscious of these concerns which are very timely. We're looking at the role of local government. It's extremely important that on all those committees, not just within government — agriculture is really well represented within government — but with the external discussions with various interested bodies, the agricultural industry must be represented and totally involved. This would address itself, of course, to the confusing and often detrimental local zoning bylaws which are hampering agriculture and pushing it ever more to a frontier.

The minister touched on a classic example in Saanich. We have another example in another part of the province, where a person was established and wanting to establish. They were complying with the zoning bylaws. The municipal clerk said they were not in contravention of any existing bylaw. Yet that individual felt they were being harassed by the municipality and by the public.

We also have to look at the courts. There are considerable problems with the multi-existence of urban development and agriculture, of which we are all aware. But there are little problems which can be very frustrating and very

[ Page 450 ]

costly, such as raiding parties and cattle rustling. We are all guilty. This is where public education comes in. I want to tread on this lightly. I was witness to a situation where my own child was involved in a summer activity away from home, where I went to visit him. There were these beautiful cherries — obviously this is in the lower Okanagan Valley. I asked him where he bought the cherries. He said: "Well, Mom, we didn't buy the cherries." I said: "What do you mean, you didn't buy the cherries? Did someone give them to you?" "No," he said, "they organized a raiding party last night, and we went out and we helped ourselves." He didn't say: "We stole them." I was appalled. When I looked further, that raiding party had been organized by a person who was in a profession in this province, who had security of tenure, who was among the higher income earners — I'm not talking about a doctor or a lawyer — and who we would tend to think of as being an average citizen. I'm sure they didn't intend to steal or to mislead those young people, but this is a matter we must address ourselves to. It comes back again to education.

Court decisions in relation to cattle rustling are very questionable in terms of compensation to the producer; I think it should be discussed with the courts.

Another area of concern is the sort of rational protection we can provide for the producer in an urban area, not only in terms of his legitimate agricultural practices, but in terms of the fact that his land is often the local playground. When this becomes a problem it is discussed with the local law authority, the RCMP. Everyone then throws up their hands and says: "Well, what can we do about it?" We must address ourselves to this. Again this would involve local municipalities, regional districts, law enforcement officers and the industry.

There's another point we have to be concerned about. If we are going to look at regional services in this province in the reorganization of government — I'm not saying we are, but it's certainly under discussion in some areas — how do we see that the legitimate concern of agriculture is met? Water, for example. There is a tendency among all of us to want to have our little bailiwick fairly strong, whether we are in government at the provincial level, federal level, municipal level, or managing a water district. How much cost does that impose upon a producer, and are those costs reasonably in line?

Along with this type of coordination and overview, we must examine the role of air cargo in the future of the agricultural industry in British Columbia. Is our emphasis on assisting communities to develop local airports going to result in less costly and more effective transportation of local produce to more accessible and larger markets? This is very important. That type of discussion should be coordinated at the same time.

To summarize, is the minister prepared to take leadership in terms of having much more discussion among industry, the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and regional districts, and to address himself not only to the legislation but to practical problems, some of which may seem small but which are very costly and frustrating to the farmer?

Again I suggest an educational program for those assuming responsibility at local levels. This should not only be in the long term, but we should address ourselves today to this problem of municipal bylaws and zoning. That does get into the matter of legitimate concern about pesticides and things, but even that can be overcome. I would suggest that our philosophy must be that there is no way we are going to let agriculture be pushed to the climatic frontier or the economic frontier of this province, and that we will educate people to understand why.

The last point that I'd like to touch on — in deference to the House's efforts on this particular vote — is an order that was passed by the Interior Vegetable Marketing Board as a companion to the Coast Vegetable Marketing Board. There are many pros and cons to this order, as the minister is aware. It is legal; it does, in essence, place nearly all production in the Interior under the control of and in debt to the Interior Vegetable Marketing Board. It applies well beyond those who are receiving income assurance and those who are members of the association.

My concern here is that we recognize that while there may well be merit in this type of approach, it has come in very suddenly, and therefore, I believe, the timing must be questioned and will be questioned by those who are affected by this order. It came in on June 12, which is really into the high-pressure time for all aspects of the agricultural industry, and to expect fruit stand operators or individual producers to sit down and sort this out at this time is, I think, undiplomatic, if I might say so, and very unrealistic.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

There are two ways one approaches a fairly controversial action: you hit it with a sledgehammer or you use a jackhammer, which could perhaps be as effective. And while I don't want to criticize the board in their intention, I do want to stress that I believe they've opened a Pandora's box, which was not necessary.

One has to look at the matter of communications. How does the board communicate this information to the individual producer who is now going to be affected by it? Who are the producers that are affected by it? Is it public knowledge and is there a definition of an economic quantity or a commercial quantity of produce? What is a commercial quantity of produce? How does this type of order affect our assessment changes in trying to define what is in fact an agricultural unit that can receive assessment benefits under our new efforts to assist in the preservation of agricultural land? What are the logistics of its implementation? And in the areas that I represent there is the question of who is covered. Am I covered in Chase, which isn't in my area but in the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke's (Mr. King's) area? People in the backwoods are saying: "Am I covered?" Small people who are selling cabbages down at the fruit stand — perhaps $50 worth — want to know if they're covered.

Perhaps the solution to this lies in recognizing that the industry has shown a strong tendency toward continued and ever-developing independence; we must recognize this and leave it within the industry to solve this problem. But I believe we could provide an avenue of appeal for those producers who would be affected but have no understanding of the logistics and the impact of the order. We could have discussion, and the order might best be set aside for six months or eight months to allow for that dialogue.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to bring just a couple of points forward which I believe are of concern to the industry and certainly myself. And I feel ever confident that this side of the House will not dismiss the

[ Page 451 ]

Agriculture minister's estimates as unworthy of discussion, and dismiss the agricultural industry as really having no importance in this House, as the opposition say. I would ask the minister to address himself to what I consider two very important problems.

MR. SKELLY: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

NAYS — 27

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I will just respond briefly to some of the questions that were raised by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace). She commented on biological control. We have, of course, gone to a considerable amount of effort with regional districts with our weed-control committee, and we've increased the budget considerably for weed-control assistance administered through the regional districts. The member also commented on research and development. We have, of course, $126,000 to research and development with UBC, and $100, 000 to DATE, the Demonstrative Agricultural Technology and Equipment program. That $100,000 relates to technology, primarily because the federal government is responsible for research in agriculture — as the member knows — and they budget some $78 million, out of which, in direct and indirect assistance, about $8 million to $10 million for agricultural research and development comes into the province of British Columbia.

In regard to other biological control items, there has been, of course, the problem with the codling moth. That program was reduced or discontinued. It was too costly to be economically feasible to use. We have had good success in biological control in greenhouses for greenhouse plants.

In regard to the final comment of the member, "nothing new in agriculture," I think we've indicated that we've expanded the commodity coverage under the Farm Income Assurance Program. We've dealt with the situation of, in my opinion, unfair assessment of farmland, and as a result we have a reduction of assessment on farm property, as was disclosed in the budget address this year. Food promotion: we've increased that by $100,000. We have 150 programs approved under the ARDSA program. Agricultural credit we've increased from $8.6 million to $11.7 million.

In regard to the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), I can only apologize for not mentioning the ladies. I have met many strong women in the agricultural community. As for the Women's Institute, I have seen a good representation from that body, which has made a number of representations to my office. There is one lady — I wish I could remember her name — up in the Punchaw country, a rancher's wife, a great gal, and I think she certainly represents the women's side of the agricultural community very well. I think the member knows who she is.

Governments, regional districts, municipalities — yes, we have a problem. As I mentioned, there is urban encroachment, and these bylaws affecting agriculture. We've had some success in regard to the weed-control program and dealing with regional districts — a committee regarding weed control, which is administered by the regional district. Our green-zone committee is working reasonably well. I've encouraged the agricultural community to have representation on regional districts and municipalities, to get involved in chambers of commerce, because they've got to make sure they get their story told. The agricultural industry must be involved; otherwise we sort of take second place. I hope that the agricultural community does follow through and make sure that they do have representation on such things as chambers of commerce.

The marketing board problem is a problem. The Interior Vegetable Marketing Board and the Coast Vegetable Marketing Board have issued their orders trying to put some control on marketing of vegetables and fruits. There was a meeting as recently as last Friday night in the village of Oliver regarding the Interior Vegetable Marketing Board. Representatives of that board were present. The B.C. Marketing Board representative was there; my staff were there. I understand that the board is reviewing that order. However, I do also believe that there may be some appeals to the B.C. Marketing Board in regard to that order. What does concern me is that we're talking about a farm marketing board, one that is administered by the farmers for orderly marketing. and the people who are taking exception to that order are also farmers — one and the same group. I think the result may be a plebiscite in the Interior for the Interior growers to determine where they want to go in regard to orderly marketing in the interior of the province of British Columbia. That is the latest issue that's come — that marketing board order — and I am concerned about it, Madam Member. I'm hoping that it will be resolved without our involvement, but with discussion between the growers, the fruit stand operators and the marketing board members.

Vote 8 approved.

Vote 9: deputy minister's office, $1,183,780 — approved.

Vote 10: general administration, $1,375,366 — approved.

Vote 11: production services, $4,269,593 — approved.

Vote 12: marketing services, $604,476 — approved.

Vote 13: financial services, $39,726,088 — approved.

[ Page 452 ]

Vote 14: information services, $188,670 — approved.

Vote 15: specialist and regulatory services, $4,431,184 — approved.

Vote 16: Milk Board, $225,985 — approved.,

Vote 17: building occupancy charges, $3,676,000 — approved.

Vote 18: computer and consulting charges, $444,862 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,
MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

On vote 75: minister's office, $91,533.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, with leave of the House, may I just ask for a moment to introduce a guest in the gallery.

Leave granted.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Lew Rossner, who is economic development commissioner for the North Okanagan, is in the gallery, and I would ask the House to give him a very warm welcome.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman — before I proceed with this aspect of my responsibilities — I neglected to make three important comments. First of all, today's debate occurs on the first day of publication of the Province newspaper, following almost eight months of absence. And the premier agricultural reporter of B.C., none other than Malcolm Turnbull, is back in the saddle and will be reporting on agriculture once again. On top of that, it is Mr. Turnbull's birthday. So for the record, I would wish him a happy birthday.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not appropriate debate under this vote. Please proceed.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I was hoping I would get good coverage on my agricultural estimates; that's what I was trying for.

In regard to the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, today that ministry is probably the most up-front ministry not just in this province but in Canada, in the country as a whole, and I guess in the entire world. It is with pleasure I introduce the estimates for the new Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. The mandate I received on December 4, 1978, was basically to develop and manage an energy policy for British Columbia, to be responsible for the management of mineral resources of the province, and to ensure the conservation of the landscape associated with mining operations.

We are looking to a reorganization of the ministry in order to have a more cohesive approach to energy planning and the development of energy and mineral policies. I hope to be able to place before members in the near future a comprehensive statement on energy policy direction in British Columbia. In that policy statement we will point out a number of specific projects which will be carried on to meet the objectives of an energy policy. The policy statement will result largely from the efforts of a task force which is under the leadership of my ministry, and which includes expertise from all government energy organizations and several government ministries.

I'm sure the members will appreciate this point. I'm still organizing the ministry, and I will have to complete that organization and complete staffing to be able to ensure that energy and mineral resource policies are developed and updated on a continuing basis.

Members will also appreciate that the election caused some delay, but we have accomplished a number of things since the ministry was formed. In May I signed a $27 million, five-year energy conservation agreement with the federal government. It deals with renewable energy and energy conservation, and is a first step in giving direction and assistance to developing energy from renewable resources and conserving energy.

We prepared a provincial position to lay before the NEB in regard to its upcoming hearing concerning natural gas exports. Another area where we have taken positive action is the coordination — the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) will be pleased, I think, to hear this — of the preparation of energy supply and demand forecasting in the province as opposed to this this-and-that approach we've experienced over a number of years.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) mentioned the waste coal of the Kootenays. Ministry staff and B.C. Hydro have been looking at this and the possibilities to use that coal. But we must recognize that on the one hand we relieve an environmental problem by cleaning up the coal waste, but on the other hand we have to deal with the problem of creating environmental problems because of the burning of such waste. There are some major considerations to be taken into consideration there.

We have to recognize at this time in the world and the province the impact of the OPEC oil price increases. There has been a lot of discussion about oil prices. I think the Leader of the Opposition raised the question the other day regarding the freezing of the price of gasoline. The Premier responded that it was not our intention to do that. The companies that import offshore oil are subsidized by the federal government. Having the price of our oil well below the world market price causes considerable problems. We also have to recognize we pay a fair price for our domestic oil. It enables those oil companies to go into further research and development to obtain oil from domestic sources which gives us the opportunity to become more self-reliant.

We have had excellent activity in the mineral resources arm of the portfolio. Placer Development announced the Sam Goosly property up by Houston. This multi-million dollar development increases employment for the people of the north. But more importantly, we have a Canadian company reinvesting its profits back into the province and back into a northern community. For that I compliment them.

There are other announcements. Teck Corporation in the Highland Valley announced its copper mine for development. There's a lot of activity there, such as the Alice Arm property. There are a number of them, but I point out a few to show the activity there. What a turn-around we have achieved in the past three and a half

[ Page 453 ]

years. We can deal with the natural gas rigs working in the north of British Columbia. Such activity and excitement! The development in places like Dawson Creek and Fort St. John is only an indication of how much activity is going on in British Columbia and where we're going in regard to oil and natural gas.

Our directions for 1979-80 will be: to complete our reorganization; to finish our energy policy, which will include efforts to decrease our reliance on oil in this province; to encourage the use of provincial energy resources; to reach a decision regarding the natural gas supply to Vancouver Island; to increase our activity in the energy conservation field; and to continue to maximize the benefits to the province from the export of natural gas.

This ministry represents an industry that is the second largest in the province, second only to forestry. This industry is alive and well, and it ensures not only the economic future of this province and its people but the social health and well-being of the residents British Columbia.

With those comments, Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to answer any questions.

MR. SKELLY: The minister outlined a number of things with which his ministries are dealing. Also, he went back several times to mention that he was in the process of reorganizing the ministry and coordinating some of the efforts of the ministry. I think one of the problems we've seen since 1975 is that more energy has been spent on reorganization than has been spent on the resolution of our energy problems.

Since the minister discussed a number of specific things he gave a wide-ranging introduction to his department — perhaps I could come back and ask him some specific questions. I hope to receive some answers.

The first one relates to the provincial uranium mining inquiry conducted by Dr. David Bates. One of the problems with that inquiry is its credibility. Is the inquiry really looking into all aspects of uranium exploration, uranium mining, its health impact and its environmental impact? Is the government really serious about the inquiry? Is the government really serious about public input into that inquiry? Obviously it isn't.

The uranium mining companies feel that it's business as usual in this province. Permits are being issued by the Atomic Energy Control Board as if uranium mining were business as usual. As a result, the credibility of the Bates enquiry has been completely undermined by the government policy to continue uranium exploration.

Since this information isn't generally public, how many permits are current in the province? As for the Atomic Energy Control Board surface exploration permits, how many are current and what kind of work is being done on those permits? Is drilling being permitted? If so, on how many permits? Is there anything other than rock sampling, surface sampling and small trenching being done? Is anything being done on these Atomic Energy Control Board surface exploration permits? Have any drilling permits been issued by the Ministry of Mines for uranium or thorium exploration? One of the problems, as I said, is that the credibility of the inquiry is being undermined by the fact that the government is allowing business as usual for uranium exploration.

I would appreciate it if the minister would reconsider his decision to allow the issuance of surface exploration and drilling permits for uranium, thorium and radioactive materials until such time as the Bates inquiry has had an opportunity to examine all the aspects of uranium mining within its terms of reference and report to the government. It's unfortunate that the minister has allowed exploration to continue, because it has undermined the credibility of that commission.

The minister said he was attempting to get some kind of coordination between B.C. Hydro, his ministry and the B.C. Energy Commission concerning the planning and forecasting of energy requirements in the province. We would definitely welcome this under some circumstances. Is the coordination being done through B.C. Hydro or through the B.C. Energy Commission? Would the minister give us a better description of just how this coordination will be developed? What energy agency will be responsible for coordinating, planning and forecasting projections of energy requirements in in the province? If B.C. Hydro has any input at all, then we would have to question those estimates.

It's been our position, and the committee on Crown corporations' position, that the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority should be broken up into separate operating units, that the planning function should be taken away from B.C. Hydro, which would then remain as an operating company following through the energy policy and the dictates of the province, rather than doing its own planning and projections and operating almost as a separate entity from the provincial government and its energy policy, whenever that may be developed. So how is this forecasting and planning agency going to structured, and who is going to be represented on it?

I would also like to ask a specific question. Hydro seems to be going ahead in this province developing generation and transmission facilities without adequate input from the public and from energy agencies, but obviously they have input from the government because the government must approve every expenditure and every borrowing on a step-by-step basis. An example is the Cheekye to Dunsmuir 500 kilovolt power line. The government has obviously approved Hydro's plan to build this line across the Strait of Georgia, and the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) nods his approval. He says that they have the approval to go ahead with this power line. But we understand from memos that have been transmitted between Hydro and the Minister of Energy's office that rather than the estimate of $31.5 million as the cost for this power line applying, the actual cost estimate for the power line is now somewhere over $600 million. Hydro still doesn't have the final go-ahead to proceed with the power line. We're asking the Minister of Energy what the true estimated cost is at this point of the Cheekye-Dunsmuir power line. Hydro tells us it's $315 million. It comes out in their reports as $315 million. But we understand from communications between the Ministry of Energy and B.C. Hydro that the estimated price has now almost doubled to over $600 million, and the cost is still going up.

Hydro, in the meantime, in order to overcome some of the legitimate objections of people on Vancouver Island to the construction of this power line, has started a public relations program to try to convince municipalities that the

[ Page 454 ]

power line is going to be necessary. They're trying to develop a bit of a scare tactic on Vancouver Island, saying if they don't get this power line built and they don't begin it this fall, we're going to have no expansion at the Elk Falls plant in Campbell River; we're going to have no expansion at Duke Point and we're going to have no expansion in Port Alberni. We're not going to have the power that we require in order to continue with those proposed industrial expansion projects.

I understand that at B.C. Hydro, Mr. Bonner has even hired Paul Hurmuses to do his public relations work in this, regard. Mr. Hurmuses was the guy who wrote objective material on Sweden just before the 1975 election, and the material conveniently came out around election time, obviously distributed with the help of the Social Credit campaign committees. Mr. Hurmuses also wrote another book about the NDP term of office in the province which was totally biased, inadequately researched and straight garbage. But Mr. Hurmuses has now been hired by B.C. Hydro as Robert Bonner's political propagandist, and he, through Bonner's office, is now attempting to sway public opinion on Vancouver Island, using what utilities in the States have used for years, a kind of public terror tactic, saying: "If you don't get the power that we're planning to provide to the Island, you're going to be out of jobs. We're not going to follow through on our industrial expansion." That's kind of terrorizing the citizens of Vancouver Island into approving this 500 kilovolt line from Cheekye to Dunsmuir, even though we understand that the projected cost of this line has now doubled over what Hydro originally projected it at. So I would like to ask the minister what the true projected cost is at this point for the Cheekye-Dunsmuir 500 kilovolt transmission line.

One of the things that Hydro seems to neglect is the alternatives to building this line. The UBC program in natural resource economics has published a number of studies on wood-waste as an energy source for British Columbia and, in particular, some areas of Vancouver Island where oil is used in burners for providing electricity and process heat for pulp mills. According to the authors of this study, Helliwell and Cox, it is possible for Hydro, by changing its pricing policies somewhat, to encourage companies such as Elk Falls to develop their own power and in that way to put off the requirement for the Cheekye-Dunsmuir power line for a number of years.

I'll just read a paragraph from page 15 of resources paper No. 19, by Helliwell and Cox:

"The conversion of all boilers at oil-burning mills to 1,250 pounds per square inch pressure and the installation of back-pressure turbines would add about 225 megawatts of capacity to the B.C. system. More than 75 percent of this extra capacity would be on Vancouver Island where it could serve to postpone substantially the construction of a controversial and expensive high-voltage transmission line to the Island. This would involve capital cost for the additional boiler and burner capacity and generators of $64 million in 1978 prices."

Helliwell and Cox also mention the installation of 1,250 psi boilers would be more labour-intensive and less capital-intensive and debt-intensive than the generating facilities Hydro is currently building throughout the province, and that electricity produced from those facilities would be cheaper than electricity Hydro is currently producing, and is expected to be producing from projects such as the Revelstoke Dam, where electricity is available at a cost of 20 mills or more.

One of the problems Cox and Helliwell outline in their report is that Hydro has the attitude that is prevalent throughout almost all public and private utilities in the United States and Canada — they're extremely reluctant to change. They're extremely reluctant to allow people outside the utility to develop energy sources. They say those people are unreliable, that the source of electricity is unreliable. Yet in Sweden, one of the main reasons why that country is so competitive in the pulp and paper industry with British Columbia's industry — in fact, I understand we're even selling them chips — is that most of their pulp and paper mills produce their own power, using wood wastes.

So the propaganda Hydro is presently putting forward on Vancouver Island is that if we don't allow construction of the 500 kilovolt Dunsmuir line and the Elk Falls expansion, the new paper machinery at Elk Falls is not going to go ahead and jobs are going to be lost.

AN HON. MEMBER: Great blackmail.

MR. SKELLY: It is blackmail. It's an attempt to blackmail the people on Vancouver Island to support that power line. The same thing is being done, using MacMillan Bloedel personnel in Alberni. They're saying that necessary plant development isn't going to take place unless the people in the Alberni Valley, and on Vancouver Island, support this 500 kilovolt line and unless the government allows it to go ahead in a timely way.

What has Hydro done, what has the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources done, and what has his ministry done to encourage these people to develop their own electricity requirement, using 1,250 psi or 1,500 psi boilers, which are also recommended by Helliwell and Cox as cheaper, more desirable alternatives to the expensive, centralized generating and transmission systems Hydro is trying to push down our throats?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

One of the problems with Hydro — and I can understand that they're caught in the same bind as other utilities throughout Canada and the United States — is that the cost of new generating facilities is prohibitive unless the price structure is increased to represent the cost of producing electricity. Yet if the price structure is increased or if the price is increased, then people are going to conserve more, and the generating and transmission facilities aren't going to be required. The result is they'll be over capitalized, and the price will have to go up to pay for idle generating and transmission facilities. So they're caught in that kind of a squeeze. Yet Hydro, in its conventional way, refuses to consider the alternatives to the type of energy it's producing.

The minister announces — and boasts — that he's entered into an agreement with the federal government for $27.5 million over a five-year period. That is minuscule compared to the amount of money we're voting year by year in borrowing power to B.C. Hydro. This year we voted Hydro $750 million, yet we're being allocated something like $5 million out of this federal energy program which is just getting off the ground now. It's minuscule compared to

[ Page 455 ]

the amount we're voting for Hydro for conventional facilities. I understand the Energy Commission has in its budget less than $1 million for the study of alternative energy facilities or alternative energy technologies. It appears that Hydro and the ministry believe that these alternative technologies are technologically unsophisticated, or underdeveloped, or esoteric, and that they won't be able to produce enough energy to justify the required investment.

If the minister is listening, I'd like to refer him to an article in the New Yorker by Barry Commoner, a well-known energy expert in the United States, who outlines a number of solar technologies that have been developed in the United States. But because there is no demand for those technologies through the conventional utilities, they refuse to take them up. They're uneconomic. But if a demand is created, those type of technologies will become marketable and economic.

The thing he discusses in this article is photovoltaic cells, which are based on the electrical properties of silicon crystals. At the present time, producing a watt from a module of silicon cells costs about $10. They work out an economic strategy where, if the government becomes involved through public purchases of photovoltaic cells, they could not only increase the production of them, they could decrease the cost of production to a point after a five-year period where photovoltaic cells could produce enough energy to replace existing energy or conventional generation facilities, and also could be competitive in residential uses.

So it would be an interesting few minutes' reading for the minister to take a look at Commoner's article. I'I pass it on to you. I understand you probably won't have an opportunity to deal with some of these questions until next week, but I will make a copy available to you, because it is an interesting proposition. Commoner points out that the cost of exploring for conventional fuels, non-renewable fuels, is now increasing in geometric progression. The cost is increasing and the amount of fuel we get for the dollar expended is decreasing. The cost is increasing at a faster and faster rate, whereas with the solar technologies, the cost per unit is now similar to the cost per unit of non-renewable energy between, say, 1940 and 1960. The cost of solar technologies is now going down whereas the cost of non-renewable fuels is now increasing. So it's a good article and I would recommend it to the minister.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Since we now are close to the time of adjournment, Mr. Chairman, unless the minister has some replies....

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'I do it at the first of the week.

MR. SKELLY: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

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

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move that from and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and applied, in such manner and at such times as the Lieutenant-Governor- in-Council may determine, a sum not exceeding in the whole $1.227,000,000 towards defraying the several charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980, not otherwise provided for and being substantially one-quarter of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia at the present time.

Motion approved.

The House resumed: Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the resolution as reported be considered?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of resolution from the Committee of Supply on June 28, 1979, be now taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move that the resolution now be read a second time.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the minister to have a distribution of the bill at this point?

HON. MR. WOLFE: It's okay.

Mr. Speaker. I move that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means.

Motion approved.

The House in Committee of Ways and Means; Mr Rogers in the chair.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move that from and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and applied, in such manner and at such times as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine, a sum not exceeding in the whole $1,227,000,000 towards defraying the several charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980, not otherwise provided for and being substantially one-quarter of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia at the present session.

Motion approved.

[ Page 456 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of resolution from the Committee of Ways and Means on June 28, 1979, be now taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the resolution be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

SUPPLY ACT, NO. 2, 1979

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I present Bill 2, intituled Supply Act, No. 2, 1979.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the said bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

The House in committee; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report recommending the introduction of the bill.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports recommending the introduction of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 2, Supply Act, No. 2, 1979, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

The House in Committee on Bill 2; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 2, Supply Act, No. 2, 1979, reported complete without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 2, Supply Act, No. 2, 1979, read a third time and passed.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am informed that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is approaching the buildings and will be shortly entering the chamber. Perhaps the wise thing to do would be for all members to remain in their chairs until notice is given that he is approaching the chamber.

The House took recess at 12:07 p.m.

The House resumed at 12:32 p.m.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Social Services Tax Amendment Act, 1979

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1979

Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1979

Pari Mutual Betting Tax Amendment Act, 1979

Revenue Surplus of 1977-78 Appropriation Act, 1979

Vancouver and Victoria Trade and Convention Centres Fund Act

Lower Mainland Stadium Fund Act

Special Purpose Appropriation Act, 1979

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (1964) Amendment Act, 1979

British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation Amendment Act, 1979

Public Schools Amendment Act, 1979

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to these bills.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Supply Act, No. 2, 1979

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and doth assent to this bill.

[ Page 457 ]

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

Introduction of Bills

MEDICAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

On a motion by Hon. Mr. McClelland, Bill 15, Medical Amendment Act, 1979, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker filed a report under section 7, chapter 6 of the Revised Statutes of British Columbia on the Legislative Procedure and Practice Inquiry Act.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:37 p.m.