[ Page 459 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions.

Native traplines. Mr. Passarell –– 459

Sale of Crown land through realtors. Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 459

British Columbia Government News. Hon. Mr. Curtis replies –– 461

Radiology safety procedures. Mr. Macdonald –– 461

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

On vote 75.

Mr. Skelly –– 462

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 462

Mr. Skelly –– 462

Mr. D'Arcy –– 463

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 465

Mr. Davis –– 467

Mr. Skelly –– 468

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 469

Mr. Lockstead –– 470

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 472

Mr. Skelly –– 473

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 474

Mr. Lockstead –– 474

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 474

Mr. Mussallem –– 475

Mr. Nicolson –– 476

Mr. King –– 477

Mr. Passarell –– 478

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 478

Mr. King –– 479

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 479

Mr. Lockstead –– 480

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 480

Mr. Leggatt –– 480

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 480

Mr. King –– 480

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 481

On vote 82.

Mr. King –– 481

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 481

Mr. Skelly –– 481

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 481

Mr. Hanson –– 481

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 481

On vote 88.

Mr. Hanson –– 482

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 482

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Attorney-General estimates.

On vote 19.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 482

Introduction of Bills

New Westminster Redevelopment Act, 1979 (Bill 21). Hon Mr. Vander Zalm.

Introduction and first reading –– 484

Education Statutes Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 18). Hon. Mr. McGeer.

Introduction and first reading –– 484

Provincial Homeowner Grant Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 19). Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm.

Introduction and first reading –– 484

Presenting Reports

Audited financial statements for the year ending March 31, 1979, of the British Columbia Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 484

Ministry of Environment annual report for the year ending December 31, 1978.

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 484

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KING: Visiting from the fair city of Prince George are Mr. and Mrs. Dan Wolsfeld and Mr. and Mrs. Bill Weir. I ask the House to join me in extending a warm welcome.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a good friend of mine and my family's. He helped our three children through their various childhood diseases and I ask the House to please welcome Dr. Gordon Tomm.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery with us this afternoon are some good friends of mine, Mr. and Mrs. Armando Boullon. The ladies are my mother and my sister, Ethel Williams from Portland, Oregon.

I would like to make one brief comment without getting into any speech. As you know, I would never abuse the rules of the House. My mother and her husband have travelled from Los Angeles to be with us on this occasion. She made a very wise decision when she brought my sister and I up north from New Orleans back in 1941. I made a very important decision when I left where she brought us to to came to British Columbia. I would like to congratulate her on her wise judgment and my decision to go on even further. That's why you are blessed with my presence today, Mr. Speaker. [Laughter.]

MR. DAVIDSON: In the gallery this afternoon are Mayor Ernie Burnett of Delta and the administrator for Delta, Mr. Mike Allen. I would ask the House to give them a very warm welcome.

MR. BARBER: Another couple here are the parents of the president of the Victoria New Democratic Party, Bob Milne. I'd ask the House to welcome Gordon and Beth Milne come from the Continent.

Oral Questions

NATIVE TRAPLINES

MR. PASSARELL: I'd like to address this to the Minister of Environment. Our native people are becoming a little disfranchised with the trap line regulations — and I know we talked about this a bit last week. Certain individuals are losing their livelihood through the loss of traplines, and the question is: is the minister going to allow native traplines to be put up to the highest bidder?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is not in order. Does the minister wish to reply?

HON. MR. MAIR: Yes, and I would say the member brought the situation to my attention last week. I told him I would look into it, and my ministry is looking into it.

MR. PASSARELL: On a supplementary question, the other day the wildlife commission in Fort St. James made a public statement about trap line bidding. I'm wondering if the minister can assure the native people of this province their traplines will be secure.

MR. SPEAKER: This is part of a question taken on notice. Does the minister wish to reply?

HON. MR. MAIR: I can only repeat what I said before. The ministry will look into the matter, and I don't know what more I can say to the member. I certainly don't want to see anybody put out of business, but until I know the parameters of the problem and what solutions might be brought to bear, I can hardly answer.

SALE OF CROWN
LAND THROUGH REALTORS

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) asked questions regarding the Hayesville mobile-home park in Prince Rupert and the allocation of Crown land to the real estate industry for speculative purposes.

The Hayesville mobile-home park, with a total of 100 pads, was developed in 1974 by Dunhill Development Corporation, a development firm acquired by the former government. The mobile-home park is one of the many bungled projects inherited by this government. Not only was the project in excess of market requirements, but it was developed with no detailed cost estimates, no feasibility studies and no accurate or useful soil studies. The market value for these mobile-home pads in Prince Rupert is estimated to be $12,000 each: the inherited cost is $21,000 per pad, with additional remedial work required on 17 vacant pads to improve drainage and sewage disposal. These 17 vacant mobile-home pads have not yet been listed for sale.

In his questions the member attempted to convey the impression that the Crown is disposing of raw land in Prince Rupert to the real estate industry for speculative purposes. He knows that this is inaccurate, but persists in his distorted questions.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister is completely distorting the purpose of question period by entering into debate and answering in a very argumentative fashion to specific questions. I suggest to you, sir, that he's out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. member would please direct us to the measure that puts him out of order. I'd be happy to draw it to his attention. I would suggest, however, that the manner of speech chosen, both in questions and in answers, should be that kind of speech which is perhaps best described as moderate. Perhaps the hon. minister could keep this in mind.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Continuing with the answer to the complex question asked, marketing arrangements through the Housing Corporation of B.C. had become too costly. In an attempt to recover a portion of the cost involved in this Dunhill development, the Ministry of

[ Page 460 ]

Municipal Affairs and Housing established marketing procedures in 1978. Those new procedures were designed to more expeditiously effect sales of this stagnant development.

Of the remaining 52 mobile-home pads, 35 were listed with the Multiple Listing Service of the Northwest Real Estate Board. The balance of 17, which were subject to remedial work, have not been listed. The normal sales commission for these transactions is 10 percent. The ministry has negotiated a 5 percent commission for the sale of the 35 pads that have been listed. The current practice is to list with Multiple Listing Services properties that are considered costly to dispose of through ministry or agency services.

This mobile-home park that started in 1974 represents a capital outlay of over $2 million and, under the circumstances, there is a need to consider recovering a part of this expenditure at the earliest opportunity. All sales are contingent on a mobile home being located on the site within six months of the sale date. Some of the lots have been sold to Atlin Rentals, and they must locate a mobile home on the site within six months.

This procedure of selling mobile-home pads through Multiple Listing Services is the most cost-effective for this project, and is an improvement over previous arrangements. The previous government, through the acquisition of Dunhill Development Corporation, acquired a subsidiary called Venture Realty. It was common practice to utilize Venture Realty as both a listing and buying broker. This generally resulted in the payment of higher fees than we have presently been able to negotiate with the real estate industry, as payments are governed by the standard commission splits between listing and selling broker.

I could give you many examples of sales and purchases through Venture Realty which involved Wall and Redekop, Block Brothers and other majors in the industry, all splitting commissions both ways. As an example, a large condominium development called Passmore Place was marketed directly by the ministry. This project was marketed prior to December 1975. At the conclusion of the marketing program, the last few units were listed with the real estate industry, rather than have Dunhill bear the direct cost of a full-time salesperson. The selective and occasional use of the real estate industry made sense in the past, and still does.

The member for Prince Rupert also asked whether the ministry had accepted any down payments from Kaien Consumers Credit Union for the following lots: 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 55, 57, 61 and 73. The answer to this question is yes. The Housing Corporation of B.C. accepted deposits from Kaien on all the lots referred to, accept No. 73, but there were no negotiated contracts on the sale of these lots.

These were accepted in November 1977. In November 1978, pursuant to advice from Kaien's solicitor, the Housing Corporation of B.C. advised the ministry that Kaien had no further interest in the lots referred to, except for lot 57, which was subsequently sold to Kaien.

The ministry was not aware that the Housing Corporation of B.C. had not returned the credit union deposits until late April 1979. Arrangements are now being made for the return of these deposits to Kaien Consumers Credit Union.

To summarize, the whole project started in 1974 by Dunhill was premature and costly and there is a desire to dispose of these mobile-home pads as soon as possible to recover costs incurred. The approach does not deviate from methods 'Utilized by previous governments.

MR. LEA: Can the minister tell me whether there was Crown land from Hayesville sold to real estate firms on which they would put on a mobile-home unit, and then before six months they were allowed to sell it? If they're allowed to buy it and then sell it later for more money, would the minister say that this is speculative on the part of the buyers?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. A further question?

MR. LEA: The minister went to great lengths to say that when we were in government, we had also utilized real estate agents to sell land on a commission basis. Is the minister now saying that we allowed real estate firms to buy land for speculative purposes? Is the minister saying we did that when we were in government?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer is yes.

MR. LEA: Would the minister then be willing to tell me now exactly where that took place?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to bring a list of the properties involved, the purchasers and the sellers.

MR. LEA: One more question. I would like to get one other thing straight. I think that the real estate firm

MR. SPEAKER: This is question period, hon. member.

MR. LEA: Yes, that's right. The real estate firm that the minister said the Housing Corporation had utilized was a subsidiary of Dunhill, did he not?

HON. MR. CHABOT: It was acquired at the same time Dunhill was acquired.

MR. LEA: Would the minister then say that any money that went to that real estate firm which was acquired by Dunhill would have ended back in the hands of the people through a Crown corporation?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, their deals with Wall and Redekop, Block Brothers and other major real estate firms in the Vancouver area did not return any revenue to the Crown.

MR. LEA: One final supplementary question.

MR. SPEAKER: We had already concluded that the last one was the final question.

MR. LEA: I'd like to get it clear: is the minister saying that when we were in government, through the real estate firms he mentioned — Wall and Redekop — we actually sold land for speculative purposes?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member is asking to utilize another question period. I'I be glad to bring a list, and

[ Page 461 ]

when I've compiled it I'I use the full question period to give the answer, because it's massive.

MR. LEA: Yes, I'm sure it is. [Laughter.]

B.C. GOVERNMENT NEWS

HON. MR. CURTIS: In answer to a previous question of the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) with respect to the mailing of B.C. Government News, I am informed that four public service employees were engaged in the Vancouver area during the period mentioned by the hon. member with respect to distribution of B.C. Government News. Overtime amounted to 4 hours and 30 minutes, and travel expenses for these employees amounted to $530.92. The overtime was incurred only by the acting supervisor. I trust that is the information the member sought.

RADIOLOGY SAFETY PROCEDURES

MR. MACDONALD: I want to ask a question of the Minister of Health.

In view of the widespread concern that the public is being exposed to unnecessary and excessive doses of x-rays in dental, hospital, chiropractic and private clinics, is the minister considering a study by the B.C. Research Council on all aspects relating to the training and licensing of all operators, the safety and inspection of x-ray equipment, and other related safety procedures?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, I haven't been considering that study by the B.C. Research Council.

MR. MACDONALD: In view of the seriousness of the situation, and the report in Ontario of Dr. Kenneth Taylor that excessive radiation has caused 20 needless leukemia deaths — I don't know whether it's true or not — it obviously indicates a dangerous situation when the head of their radiation hospital in Toronto can make that statement. In view of reports that there have been such fatalities in British Columbia, will the minister reconsider and be prepared to advise the House as to whether he is prepared to look into the safety aspects of radiation procedures?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I didn't say that I wasn't prepared to look into the safety aspects of radiation procedures. I simply said that I wasn't contemplating, at the present time, a study by the B.C. Research Council. I'm not so sure that that would be the agency to carry out such a study.

Yes, I'm prepared to consider such a study. I'd want to talk to the officials in my ministry and get their opinions. We do have, in my opinion, a better method of making sure that the proliferation of radiology in the province is handled well through the Radiology Advisory Council and through other ways, so we're fairly careful about where radiology equipment goes and how it is used. But, yes, I'I take those questions under advisement and perhaps I could comment again on them during my estimates or at some future time.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) abused question period today beyond, I think, any precedent in this House — 8 minutes and 45 seconds to give an utterly irrelevant answer. I wonder if he could be directed to contain himself, because not only did he do that, Mr. Speaker, but he threatened the House by suggesting that next time he'I take up the entire question period. What kind of nonsense do we have to put up with in this House!

MR. SPEAKER: On the point of order, perhaps I could give the House some insight into the previous rulings of the Chair into this very same matter. We have at least four pages of instructions to the Chair as to how to conduct questions in question period, but I must say that my hands are tied with regard to instructions as to how to handle answers. Whoever designed the concept of question period for our House simply says this: "It is my recommendation that whenever an hon. minister has a lengthy answer to any question taken on notice, the minister concerned advise the House of the same and file an answer outside of question period." It is a recommendation, not a ruling, and on many occasions I think we've heard the Chair make that same recommendation to hon. members.

Hon. members, if there are to be further rulings by which answers are to be regulated, then those will have to be made a matter of discussion, either through a committee or by this House, and put into the hands of the Chair so that the Chair can be empowered to do something about it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I recall that at the time the question was put by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), you had suggested that the question was a detailed and technical one, and therefore would involve a detailed and technical answer. You had suggested at that time that the question might be more appropriately put on the order paper for a written answer to be conveyed to the member. I think your advice was wise at that time and is still wise today, Mr. Speaker.

MR. COCKE: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister could not have put a political speech on the order paper — and that's what we're talking about.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, may I point out an abuse that is taking place at the moment? We are using points of order to carry on a debate. I can accept another observation on the point of order.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, possibly in helping you to decipher the rules we should have the facts in front of us. Yes, it was a lengthy answer, and I appreciate the answer. But at the same time I think it should be pointed out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the answers were an accumulation of questions over a three-week period. Had the minister answered each question more promptly, he wouldn't have had the need to do that. He accumulated all the questions and then chose to come in and try to answer them all in one day.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I would remind the House about the provisions that are made. Provisions are made that a minister of the Crown may, at his discretion, take a question as notice and return the answer at his discretion. I think that is what we have witnessed here today.

[ Page 462 ]

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,
MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES
(continued)

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

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I believe the minister had collected a series of questions from us at the end of Thursday's sitting, and he was planning to answer them today.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The first point raised by the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) had to do with the 500-kilovolt line from the mainland to Vancouver Island. I think he questioned its need. Also, he referred to a Helliwell and Cox report indicating there was a plentiful supply of energy from the use of wood waste.

The 500-kilovolt line is needed because of a number of developments. As the member knows, there are Crown Zellerbach's proposed Elk Falls construction, Doman Industries at Duke Point and MacMillan Bloedel's proposed expansion at Alberni in the member's riding — I'm sure he'd want that to go ahead.

The Helliwell Cox report was reviewed by the industry and by the Ministry of Energy. I believe — and the member can correct me — that the Helliwell Cox report talked about 163 megawatts of power that could be generated from wood waste. But there is some question whether there is that amount of hog fuel available on the Island. When you look at the practicality of it, it's somewhere between 50 and maybe 100 megawatts of power production. Crown Zellerbach is already planning a 25-megawatt unit at Elk Falls, and B.C. Forest Products is planning somewhere between 20 and 40 megawatts capacity at Crofton. That uses up a substantial amount of energy that can be generated from wood waste.

The Crown Zellerbach announcement of not too long ago said that they felt they could handle their power requirements, but the member will recall it was conditional on the Hydro transmission line getting to Vancouver Island.

The Helliwell Cox report indicates that we can use wood waste as an alternative source of energy. As a matter of fact, we are taking advantage of it. Approximately 17 percent of the total energy generated in this province comes from wood waste at the present time. But that is not a substitute for the Hydro 500-kilovolt line.

I think the member also mentioned the cost of the 500-kilovolt line, that originally it was estimated at about $375 million, and now the figures are over $600 million. The original estimate of B.C. Hydro was approximately $480 million and the latest estimate is about $640 million. The major part of that increase is the cable costs, but B.C. Hydro is working with the makeup of the estimate. We feel that we should be able to bring in the 500-kilovolt line at something considerably less than $640 million.

You raised a point about who is responsible for the forecasting of energy demand. The new Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources will be responsible for developing some basic assumptions to go into that detailed forecast. We will provide some of the overall direction in the forecasting, and will consider factors such as the gross provincial product, the rate of our economic development in the province and population growth in the province. We don't want to end up with the public debate that we've had over the past years with the B.C. Energy Commission coming up with some basic facts on which they start to do their forecasting, while B.C. Hydro is doing the same thing. Through input from my ministry, Economic Development, B.C. Hydro and the Energy Commission we could come up with some basic facts which would bring that 10- to 15-year forecast closer. We're not trying to hide anything, nor would we be trying to end up with, you might say, one that would make everybody happy.

What I would see is that we could come in with those common denominators. But then you're going to see variances because of the involvement of Hydro and the Energy Commission, or the ministry, in all sources of energy in the province. So there's merit in having Hydro doing its study, starting from the same point as the ministry, with some basic assumptions.

You mentioned solar energy or solar technology, and you said you're going to send me articles. I think they're from the New Yorker magazine, and my staff has provided me with them. I don't know whether they got them from you or whether they had them on file. I haven't had the opportunity to read them yet, but I have them here.

In regard to energy conservation, you're aware that we signed a $27 million agreement. This, I think, will go a long way in assisting us to become more energy-efficient in looking at the solar energy scene, the geothermal research that is going on, wind energy, wood waste and tidal sources. All are areas we can look at in regard to research, technology, demonstration, et cetera.

The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) is probably familiar with the organization — Wooex Systems Limited — which deals with wood waste pellets. I met with that company some months ago, and I asked them to send me some more information. It's the same process as dehy pellets for alfalfa. One plant in British Columbia is producing some 75,000 tons of these wood waste pellets, which is equivalent to some 200,000 barrels of oil, and is a process being used in the United States, where their sales are going.

I've had them meet with an outfit called Kootenay Dehy Products who work some of the alfalfa pellets. This is the same concept, and maybe we can have a dual purpose for that plant that suffers some financial difficulties.

I'm not sure, Mr. Member, whether I've answered all your questions but those are the ones I made notes on.

MR. SKELLY: The minister mentioned economic problems with hog fuel and the availability of hog fuel on Vancouver Island — that was also outlined in the Helliwell and Cox report. Some of the problems they were facing with the economic area are presented by B.C. Hydro and the fact that Hydro wouldn't pay a sufficient price for power generated on Vancouver Island by using hog fuel. Because Hydro refused to purchase at the cost of production — and Hydro themselves sell below the cost of production — that was an economic barrier to the production of energy or to the co-generation on Vancouver Island, using hog fuel. Helliwell and Cox's report also mentioned that because of certain changes taking place in the industry on Vancouver

[ Page 463 ]

Island it's likely that more hog fuel will be made available. For example, in the Alberni Valley, due to the fact that they're changing to a more efficient process — two of the sawmills are now being revamped — more hog fuel should be available as a result of those changes.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

An article came to me from an information newsletter published by the Swedish Pulp and Paper Association in April 1979. A plant in Sweden is changing over by 1980 to complete wood energy generation — and I hesitate to try to pronounce the names of the companies involved — but the cost of capital to change over is about 80 million Swedish crowns. They're using wood waste, bark shavings and sawdust, as well as peat. They're also developing energy forests; that is, timber that's non-merchantable, that can't be converted to liner board, which is the production of this mill. They estimate they'll be saving some 50,000 cubic meters of oil, which they presently use annually. I don't know why it's possible to do this kind of thing in Sweden; the Swedes boast that they're far ahead of our forest industry in environment protection and in the generation of energy from wood waste. I can't see why we can't develop in British Columbia the same technologies that are being put in place in Sweden now, and will be competing with us, even though our forest industry continues to rely on high-cost electricity, on high-cost oil and on high-cost natural gas.

Eventually the economics are going to dictate that we have to switch over to burning an indigenous fuel like wood and using wood wastes. Yet it seems to me that we are delaying to the point where it's going to cost our forest industry even more, and we may lose the competitive advantage as a result.

The minister mentioned Woodex industries. It's interesting that about two years ago I wrote to Woodex, in Brownsville, Oregon, asking them about their process, and they sent me quite a bit of material on it. I then wrote to the Economic Development minister and to the B.C. Development Corporation, who said that the process was partially workable but the gasification process was a waste of time. Then, interestingly enough, one of the directors of the Development Corporation formed into a partnership with Mr. Madill to buy up the process. He received the licensing for it in Canada — a bit of a conflict of interest, it appeared on the surface. But then they set up Western Industries Ltd., which operates out of Duncan or Nanaimo to develop the process and use it here in British Columbia, and set up a plant in the Interior, although I believe the ownership has now changed on that. Doman may be out of it.

The minister also touched very lightly on solar power, and the availability of solar technology. It seems to me that this minister has an orientation towards nuclear power. He said so himself, and there's an article in the Osoyoos Times, a reputable newspaper, in the minister's own writing, I believe.

In any case, the minister said that he was one of three in that cabinet who is in favour of the development of nuclear power. He included the Minister of Education. Science and Technology (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who's easily intimidated, but he's not here at the moment.

One of the things we are concerned about is that if the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and this government are predisposed to the kind of energy technologies we've had in British Columbia up to the present time — large. centralized generating facilities, extremely expensive transmission facilities that are increasing rapidly in cost — they are eventually going to price British Columbia out of the energy market.

I pointed out to the minister that article in the New Yorker to show that some solar technologies have an advantage. By increased utilization of those technologies, the price goes down. The article written by Barry Commoner mentions that a study done in the United States, under the Photovoltaics Research Development and Demonstration Act of 1978, shows that by government involvement in that technology the cost for a peak watt — using photovoltaic cells — goes down from $8 to $12 a watt when the program first starts, to something like 50 percent for a peak watt after five years. The idea of that was just to demonstrate that while the cost of some energy technologies is increasing, and the cost of non-renewable energy fuels is increasing at a geometric rate, the cost of solar technology is declining. Certainly in British Columbia we should be taking advantage of low-cost solar technologies if they are available to us.

The other advantage of these technologies is this: those technologies will be far more exportable to Third World countries because of the fact that they don't already have in place the electric grid systems and the centralized generating systems that we have here. There's a tremendous trade and market advantage — in fact the exact reverse of what's going on now — to sell these technologies in the Third World countries because of their better adaptability in those countries. The thing is that now we're spending something like $90 million a year through government research and development on nuclear energy. On renewable energy we're only spending something like $13 million. On conservation we're spending S16 million. So there's a tremendous bias in the way we spend money in this country on research and development in favour of nuclear power and centralized generating technologies, which really don't have that much of a market in the Third World.

If we were to concentrate on solar technologies — wind, Photovoltaics and passive solar systems — we could be developing products which would have a tremendous market in those Third World countries in the future, and it would mean tremendous business generation here in British Columbia and Canada in the form of exports to those countries. So I'd just like to encourage the minister, when he's considering developing an energy policy, to took at that aspect of solar technologies.

MR. D'ARCY: I would like to welcome the minister to his portfolio.

I have just a few questions, some of them actually involving Mines and Petroleum Resources as well as Energy. I know the minister is one of the few on that side of the House who usually answers questions in a reasonably forthright and articulate way.

Mr. Chairman, for three and a half years now we've been hearing from the minister and his two or three predecessors as Energy minister that the government was in the process of establishing an energy policy. Are we going to be in a position where the government doesn't want to ruin a good announcement by actually doing something about it? Are they actually going to formulate an energy

[ Page 464 ]

policy? Or are they going to authorize some other competent body, perhaps including the B.C. Energy Commission, to bring in recommendations on energy policy that the government and even the Legislature can have a look at? Certainly when we look around the province and around North America today, a comprehensive energy policy is something that is of premier importance, particularly when we look at the increasing shortages in North American supplies of liquid fossil fuels, petroleum resources, our undeveloped coal resources and the various non-glamorous options that my friend from Alberni (Mr. Skelly) was recently mentioning in the House, which have not had research and development put into them in any way, shape or form.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister whether he and the government that he is representing in this capacity in the House have any policy for facilitating the delivery of either offshore oil to North America or the delivery of Alaskan oil to what is commonly known as the "lower 48." Or do they simply plan to drift along and wait until British Columbia gets into the kind of crunch that we have south of the border?

I think we in B.C. certainly want and need an alternate source to Alberta crude not only from the point of view of assuring an energy supply, but also in terms of our bargaining power with the government of Alberta, whoever it is. It's rather important that we have alternate sources, either Alaskan or our own Canadian North Slope oil, both of which are, geologically speaking, substantial reserves, although they are unproven as yet. And we should certainly be looking at any offshore oil that may be available to us from Asiatic countries.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to ask the minister whether or not he has any knowledge of an application by Westcoast Transmission Co. to the National Energy Board for the right to complete the looping of their major gas line from the Peace River country into the lower mainland. The province has a pecuniary interest in this company through BCRIC, and the Premier, I believe, is attempting to negotiate an even greater pecuniary interest through acquisition of the interest held by Petro-Canada in Pacific Petroleum. I'm wondering if the minister can give us any indication whether, when Westcoast Transmission applies to complete the looping of their major line to secure natural gas supplies not just to British Columbia, but also to satisfy contracts which they already have with our neighbours to the south, the government is going to support that application, or whether it will do as it did last year and go before the National Energy Board and oppose the application of Westcoast Transmission to complete that looping, thereby denying substantial sales of natural gas that were already under contract to the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make some rather brief comments regarding potentials for thermal power. Certainly the subject has already been covered to some degree by my colleague from Alberni. If we look at the existing pulp and paper operations on Vancouver Island, we have six potential major biomass sites. I use "biomass" as being the currently popular term for energy derived from wood waste and garbage.

Mr. Chairman, I think the House and the people of B.C. would have an interest in knowing whether or not the actual development of industrial bulk-use energy from these sites as well as the recovery of base metals from garbage, both in the lower mainland and on Vancouver Island, should be looked at, particularly in view of the much higher base-metal prices that we are currently enjoying in British Columbia. I hope that they continue for the sake of our mining industry; and I hope that the reasonable advantage of the international exchange rate continues as well.

Can the minister indicate to us whether or not we really have an accurate assessment of what is available, or what could be available, in terms of biomass energy resources on Vancouver Island located near to source and near to load centre, and what the potential for recovery of base metals from these operations is? Perhaps the minister could also give us some indication of whether there has been, or whether he is doing, any investigation into the potential for biomass energy within the lower mainland. We already have two major thermal operations in the lower mainland — they don't run all the time, maybe only part of the time — the Burrard thermal plant and the one at Port Mann.

Perhaps the minister could tell the House if he is considering at least investigating the maximization of our energy sources, particularly from renewable energy priorities near load centres. It has, Mr. Chairman, long been a concern of mine — and this is going back through two or three governments — that British Columbia Hydro has never done an accurate assessment of the cost of transmitting power. We know what it costs to generate power at the site of the Shrum powerhouse, say, on the Peace River, or at the Mica powerhouse; we know how much of that actually arrives in load centres such as the lower mainland through the 500-kilovolt lines; and we know what it costs to distribute. But there has never been an accurate analysis of what it actually costs to transmit that power, in losses in the line, in the capital cost, in depreciation and in maintenance costs of the powerlines. Unless we have that figure, we can never look at the relative economic feasibility of biomass generation close to load centre.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the time is overdue when we have to maximize all potential power sources, especially if they are near load centres. Certainly we would not be in the situation that we now are in on Vancouver Island — or are going to be in on Vancouver Island — if that had been done in the past.

Staying briefly with Vancouver Island — because, in a way, it is a microcosm of the provincial energy problem — can the minister give us any indication as to whether or not B.C. Hydro is seriously considering the potential hydroelectric sites on Vancouver Island? I'm not recommending them at this point; I don't think there is enough information at hand. If, as my colleague for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) says, the Cheekye-Dunsmuir line is not attractive, desirable or necessary, then perhaps the minister could give us some indication where the Kokish, Ladore 3 and Duncan Bay projects stand. Certainly there are fishing and environmental considerations with any of these; but they also produce energy near at least one of the major requirers of bulk power, that being the Duncan Bay expansion of Crown Zellerbach Ltd. near Campbell River.

Mr. Chairman, looking at other energy resources around the province, I would like to ask the minister whether they are continuing to examine potential geothermal sites — and

[ Page 465 ]

one in particular near Terrace — on which reserves were put during the former government's time in office. Perhaps we could have some indication of where the Kemano 2 project stands.

I would also like to ask the minister, since he is the minister reporting to the Legislature for British Columbia Hydro, when the government is going to take a fair position on the question of real property taxation from British Columbia Hydro. Certainly the government last year, in a very creditable move, removed any special privilege that government-owned property had from the point of view of real property taxation. Government-owned property in B.C. now pays its taxes exactly the same way as privately owned property. It may come as a shock to those on the other side that I've always felt that government should never take or keep unto itself privileges which they are not prepared to extend to the private sector. I would also say that the time is long since past when Crown corporations in this province should take or keep privileges which they are riot prepared to extend to the private sector.

In particular, Mr. Chairman, my complaint — and it is the complaint of many people in the Kootenay area and in the Peace River — against the government's policy regarding B.C. Hydro has been that B.C. Hydro, while it does pay full taxes on most of its property in the province — certainly it does in your constituency, or anywhere else in the lower mainland — only pays school taxes and not general purpose taxes in other parts of the province. And on a few projects, Mr. Chairman, they don't pay any taxes whatsoever.

I would like the government to keep its act together when it comes to B.C. Hydro property taxation. There are private companies producing power in this province that pay full taxes, and always have. There are major Hydro owned properties that also pay full taxes, and there are a few that don't. Most of those that don't are in the Kootenays, and one major project is in the Peace. A very liberal estimate of what it would cost B.C. Hydro to equal up the ante would be I percent of the total gross revenue. The recently issued B.C. Hydro annual report showed that the corporation's net return after all costs was up substantially over the year before. I see absolutely no reason why this continued discrimination against certain parts of the province should continue to be allowed to exist. I hope the minister has something to say on that subject.

Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if the minister, in his capacity of being responsible for the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, can give us any indication whether Mr. Lechner may be resigning. If he is, can the minister tell the House who his replacement may be? Certainly the B.C. Petroleum Corporation with its huge staff of around 24 has been a very worthwhile endeavour for the province, and I would like to see a firm hand at the helm. I wish, if indeed the rumours are correct that Mr. Lechner is resigning, to see that there's a firm hand going to be at the helm there.

I have one last item. I referred to it earlier before I invited the minister to answer some of these points. Can the minister give us some assurance, on this side of the House and his own party as well and all the people of B.C. that we are not likely to run into a serious gasoline or heating oil shortage in the foreseeable future in British Columbia? What steps are he and his ministry taking to ensure that this kind of situation is not likely to arise?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can answer some of these questions before the next speaker gets up.

The member for Alberni talked about wood waste and the Helliwell Cox report. I think the report and the member said that maybe the price of gas or electricity should be increased to force the forest industry to use wood waste. If that happened, of course, that increased cost, to a certain extent, would make it uneconomical. The use of wood waste has to be competitive in the marketplace with other sources of energy. I think you're seeing, probably, a move in that direction as the cost of oil moves higher.

The reason that Sweden is moving to wood waste, or making much more use of it than we do, is for that very reason — the cost of alternative sources of energy. They haven't got, I guess, the domestic protection for a barrel of oil that we have in Canada. Our price for a barrel of oil is much lower than the world price for a barrel of oil.

The member mentioned solar energy or solar power on a number of occasions. That is really the key to the $27 million agreement, and B.C. was the first province to enter into that type of agreement with the federal government. It deals with renewable energy sources, and the assistance research technology, demonstration, et cetera. We can possibly make better use of those renewable energy sources as opposed to making use of a non-renewable resource such as natural gas or oil. In dealing with that subject — and I did speak to the Solar Energy Association in Victoria not too long ago — hot water heating is one of the areas where solar energy can be used fairly efficiently. I'm going by memory, but hot water heating only makes up, I think, about I percent of the total energy requirement. In other words, it's all right for an individual residence to make use of it, and some buildings, some apartments, et cetera. But in the total picture, when you take all sources of energy or the need for all sources of energy, it only makes up 1 percent.

Regarding the fact that we have not specifically earmarked more dollars for solar energy research in our energy agreement, the allocation of those funds has not been definitely made. There have been suggested allocations, but in that $27 million agreement, we can adjust.

In regard to the member for Port Alberni's (Mr. Skelly’s) question about the energy policy, I recognize it's a long time in coming. Maybe I can look back to the years 1973-75 and raise a question or two. I have made statements generally outlining what I see for an energy policy for British Columbia, and we have had a good cross-section of staff members from my ministry, Economic Development, B.C. Hydro, the Energy Commission, the Petroleum Corporation and consultants working to put it together and, as opposed to having what I call a considerable amount of verbiage on paper, attempting to bring in an energy policy because of the pressures that are on us today to have more direct proposals for action in British Columbia as opposed to some broad statement that really doesn't give an indication to industry, trade, commerce, et cetera, in this province as to what the future holds for them.

To talk about the key elements to that policy, there's an article in the Oilweek magazine, Mr. Member for Rossland-Trail. You and I each wrote one article.

MR. D'ARCY: I never saw mine.

[ Page 466 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, I want to read you a paragraph from it because I found another ally in regard to the famous quotations we have around this province about nuclear power.

What I really wanted to touch on was the item on the proposed policy statement on energy. It touches on increasing the security of oil supply and reducing the demand for oil; encouraging the economic development production of the provincial energy resources leading to production of energy at realistic prices; encouraging substitution of natural gas where practical, particularly for oil; encouraging cogeneration; encouraging efficiency in the use of all forms of energy; managing energy surplus in the best interests of the province, including obtaining the best price for exported energy; ensuring the energy future of the province is adequately protected before future energy exports are authorized; and encouraging energy research and developments. These are broad statements, but I'd like now to put some meat on the bones and come out with some pretty definite statements as to where we are going.

Just to refer to an ally, Mr. Member, I'I just read this paragraph in "Natural Gas: Key to B.C.'s Self-sufficiency." It's written by the MLA for Rossland-Trail. There is one paragraph in here that talks about nuclear power:

"Evidence of recent weeks in the United States put nuclear power generation in British Columbia on the back burner. While we have viable alternative sources of power, its use should not be contemplated. The unknowns are many and the risks are great. Simply put, at this point in time it is neither necessary nor desirable."

I'm not sure what I can read into that. You're really not against it; it's just that at this point in time we don't need it. Is that what you were trying to say, Mr. Member? Nod your, head.

MR. D'ARCY: I'I answer in my estimates.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Anyway, it was a good article.

The energy policy: I'm hoping that we will be able to "have the meat on the bones" very shortly. I set a target before the election. By the end of June I thought we would be in a position to have something down that could be presented, but I've sort of backed off a bit and figured that by September we should be in a good position — hopefully before then.

Delivery of the offshore Alaskan oil: I think you talked about B.C. refineries. Of course, Alaska oil is basically heavy crude as opposed to the sweet crude we get from Alberta, but the security of supply of oil is a concern. There are four oil ports that have been suggested for the west coast of the North American continent. No decision, of course, has been made on that as yet.

Concern about the tanker traffic along the coast: The United States wants to get the Alaskan oil to the United States, and there are a number of alternatives to be looked at. But there is that reserve up there of Alaskan crude. However the final decision is made, it will have to be made fairly soon because of the pressures on the United States due to the cost of imported oil.

The Westcoast Transmission Co. application for looping: They did make an application and they withdrew it, Mr. Member, not too long ago. I think you asked whether we would support it if there was an application put in. We have expressed concern with regard to the load factor for our export of natural gas to the United States. As you know, we've been caught in that "take or pay" clause, and we feel that our load factor should be improved if any additional exports go to the United States.

Biomass in Vancouver Island and lower mainland: Again I refer to the $27 million agreement, and some of those studies will certainly be directed in that area.

Vancouver Island hydroelectric sites: To my knowledge there has been no presentation at the director level of B.C. Hydro in regard to what I think you called Ladore 3 and the Duncan Bay project.

Geothermal: You mentioned Terrace — are we talking Meager Creek? I guess it's between Pemberton and Terrace. Where's that project? Hydro has spent some dollars on the research of it. They've done some test drilling and there'I be additional work done. Out of the federal-provincial agreement, some of the first dollars to be spent will be on that research to see whether or not it can be feasible.

I'm attempting to get some information regarding B.C. Hydro and taxation or assessment. I will certainly review the matter, Mr. Member, regarding whether or not they're getting any unwarranted breaks. I'm looking at the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) here because he's probably made a note of it, too.

B.C. Petroleum Corporation: Mr. George Lechner has advised he will be resigning. In the interim period, I have had discussions with him that he may be able to carry on on a per diem basis in order that the transition can be made smoothly.

Your final question dealt with a gas shortage in B.C. The Energy Commission and my ministry have done some studies on it and the position is that we don't have a gas shortage in B.C. We can handle the demands for gasoline and we've taken into consideration the amount of tourists that may come into British Columbia because of the gas shortages in the United States. But this year we can meet the demand. That's according to the staff report that reported on that to me.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the minister's statement that we have the potential for four oil ports in British Columbia. Does that mean that one will be selected or none, or is there still a potential? Can we perhaps have some clarification of what he means by that?

Of course, whenever an oil port is mentioned, there is some considerable concern expressed by a number of private citizens and various groups in British Columbia about economic and environmental impacts, not just of the port on the coast but of the potential for spills and of the problems which may or may not exist because of pipelines going through certain areas of British Columbia. Perhaps the minister could clarify the locations and where the discussions are at on that.

Mr. Chairman, when I mentioned the potential Westcoast Transmission application for looping, we weren't talking about increasing the load factor. What we were talking about was the fact that Westcoast Transmission's first requirements naturally are to supply its British Columbia customers, particularly in the lower mainland.

When we have a very high natural gas demand such as we had for a number of months last winter because of the nature of the winter and the increasing costs of other forms

[ Page 467 ]

of energy, we find that Westcoast Transmission cannot meet its contractual obligations for exports because of limitations in the line. It doesn't have a shortage of gas in the Peace. It doesn't have an increased load factor. It has a bottleneck because part of its line needs to be looped; most of it, indeed, is already looped. It needs to complete the looping in order to meet its contractual obligations to its American customers.

So that's why we're not talking about increasing its load factor; nor are we talking about increasing the contracts of Westcoast Transmission. What we're doing is allowing them to meet their contractual obligations with gas which is available in British Columbia, as well as cut down not only the cost to them but the energy requirements and pumping costs of getting the gas through a line.

Regarding geothermal power, I was referring to any projects in British Columbia that the minister may have knowledge of. It appears that neither he nor B.C. Hydro have a significant interest in investigations, let alone development, into geothermal power. Certainly there's a Meager Creek site, the Lakelse site and several others that would be appear to have had some potential a few years ago in B.C. I don't think geologically British Columbia has changed significantly in the last few years. I'm wondering why those investigations aren’t continuing in a significant way.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, comment was made in regard to load factor in the export of natural gas. I recognize you're talking about the west coast looping. I mentioned to you that they have withdrawn their looping application. It isn't before the NEB at the present time. What we are concerned about, of course, is any increase in export of natural gas from Canada to the United States. We should get a better load factor because of the problem that we're in at the present time with the "take or pay" situation. We always consider, of course, that the domestic demands must be met in British Columbia for British Columbians, so we're dealing with anything over and above what our anticipated requirements are.

You mentioned the oil ports. They're not all British Columbia oil ports. These have been known for a number of years, and there's no decision on them, but there is concern, as I'm sure you've read in the paper, down in the United States regarding getting that Alaskan crude to the United States.

There are the Skagway oil ports. Going through the Alcan, there is the Kitimat proposal, which was studied some time ago. There is the northern tier pipeline that crosses the northern United States. And there is Transmountain. Those were the four. I think that answers the question.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, first I'd like to compliment the minister for making a commitment to introduce a comprehensive energy policy by September or October of this year. It's a big assignment; it requires a lot of technical and economic information. But even more. a comprehensive energy policy requires considerable input on the transportation side, on the environmental side and particularly on the economic development side. There are a lot of jobs at issue here. Any development in the energy field affects the local environment. Also usually it involves long-distance transportation. So all of those aspects — environment, transportation and economic development — have to be considered, and I'm glad to hear that a committee, including representatives from the other ministries, Transportation, Environment and Economic Development, will be making contributions to this policy.

Also a policy that's worthy of the name answers tough questions. It simply doesn't describe the easy issues or the panaceas for the long-term future; it deals with the issues which are current and which people in the political arena don't often like to deal with in a forthright way. For example, to what extent will we use price as a way of rationing energy? That’s a very important issue it's been an issue in all countries. It's been less of an issue on this continent because Canada and the United States are unique in that they have prevented their consumers from facing the world oil price. They've alternatively allowed the internal price to rise slowly and in stages and used tax money or subsidies to bridge the gap between their internal prices and world prices. I think a policy paper that's worthy of the name must address this question: will price be used to ration consumption?

Oil is our biggest problem in British Columbia. We do produce a small amount. But nearly half of all the energy we use — 45 percent — is in the form of liquid petroleum products, oil. We bring it in from Alberta. The Prime Minister of Canada in Tokyo said that Alberta's production — at least from conventional sources — will be declining over the next ten years. So hopefully British Columbia will be able to draw all of its oil from Alberta, but that's a source which is declining in terms of its volume of output. The tar sands will make a contribution, but so far the performance of the plants at Fort McMurray using the tar sands has been disappointing — hence, I think, there are reasons for pessimism, as expressed by the Prime Minister in Tokyo.

Therefore I think we as British Columbians must also look north and we must hope that there are other developments in the Northwest Territories and Canada, particularly in the Beaufort Sea, whereby Canadian oil can be brought down using the Alaska Highway route. The British Columbia government, I think, did more than anyone else to ensure that the Alaska Highway route was the route to be used for Alaskan gas crossing Canada for the lower 48 states. Fortunately Ottawa heeded that British Columbia advice, and fortunately the United States agreed. So currently we have Ottawa and Washington, D.C., both supporting the Alaska Highway route for natural gas. But the Alaska Highway route also makes a lot of sense for oil, particularly for oil which British Columbia may tap en route. There is a lot to be said for an oil pipeline in the same right-of-way as a natural-gas pipeline following the Alaska Highway route, and a lot to be said in British Columbia for a development which would see oil and gas crossing British Columbia territory before it crossed that of other provinces. It would mean that British Columbia would be the first on line, not only for Alaskan oil, but oil and gas which, hopefully, will be found in considerable volume in the Northwest Territories and off-shore in the Beaufort Sea. In other words, an energy policy which is forward looking would not only look to Alberta but look north, and I believe would look at the Alaska Highway route as not only the route for a gas line, but also for an oil line which is very much in the interests of the province of British Columbia.

Still on the matter of oil transportation, we should press for oil to continue to flow westward through the Transmountain oil line — Alberta oil. Perhaps even oil from the

[ Page 468 ]

Northwest Territories in the long run would flow down across British Columbia, as it has for 25 years now. We should be concerned with increasing that volume. If some of that oil is destined for the United States — being, say, Alaskan oil — so much the better, because it will help to pay our transportation charges down across British Columbia. In other words, we'I get something of a free ride, as we did for many years on our oil transportation costs across this province. We'd have our oil transported along with other oil, U.S. oil, destined for the United States.

Very few people in this province are aware of the Canadian energy policy with respect to oil transportation. There's a fantastic subsidy going into oil transportation to eastern Canada. We don't get a subsidy to British Columbia. Alberta oil moving into British Columbia pays all the costs, and the consumers pay that in the price of gasoline, house-heating oil, et cetera. But eastern Canada is subsidized because the whole cost of a new pipeline from Sarnia to Montreal is home by the federal taxpayer. That transportation cost is not in the price of oil in Montreal, for example. I believe we should concern ourselves with equity in that respect. Either Montrealers should pay the full cost of transportation of Alberta oil, or British Columbians should receive federal tax dollars to defray the cost of transporting Alberta oil to British Columbia.

Today the cost of transporting oil from Edmonton to Vancouver is around 60 cents a barrel. It's a lesser figure to Toronto and Montreal simply because of a very heavy, federal tax-supported subsidy; and we help pay those taxes. So I think we must be concerned with federal transportation policy when we talk about oil movements, and particularly the cost of moving oil in this country.

We've got many times the amount of coal that we have of natural gas, and natural gas is, perhaps, our next best resource after hydro power. Yet we're using only a tiny amount of coal in this province; less than 2 percent of our consumption is coal. Oil is 45 percent; natural gas and hydro are around 20 percent each. We talk about this abundant coal resource. How are we going to tap it? An energy policy worthy of the name sees a way of utilizing that coal, and using it productively. The only acceptable way of using that coal in any quantity, at least in the next decade or so, is in the form of electricity.

We must begin to produce electricity from coal. We've plenty of hydro power, so perhaps we don't have an internal B.C. requirement in the short term. But in the middle term, and in order to get experience with the generation of electricity from coal, I still think we should be burning the waste coal available in the Kootenays, and exporting it for a term, and always having it available for our own domestic consumption. It's an environmental problem now; it doesn't involve a transportation problem, because it can be transmitted immediately across the border. There's no native land claim problem; there's no fish problem. It's a type of development which can provide jobs in the short run, and power and electricity from a wasting resource in the long return. I think that's a valuable project, and I think, along with the Alaska Highway development in respect to oil and natural gas, it should be discussed in any longer-term policy paper for this Legislature.

Finally, I'd like to deal briefly with the question of forecasts. Forecasts are central to any policy paper. A recent set of forecasts produced by the B.C. Energy Commission showed oil consumption continuing to rise in this province. That flies in the face, at least, of the forecast made by the Prime Minister in Tokyo, so one wonders whether this will, in fact, happen; whether oil consumption will continue to rise in British Columbia. It shows natural gas consumption rising, but at a very modest rate. I suggest an effective policy in this province would encourage the use of natural gas, especially where that natural gas would allow us to conserve oil. The forecast really shows no improvement in the use of coal; in other words, we'll use very little coal 10 or 15 years from now. That resource will remain relatively unused. I hope that policies are developed whereby coal can be used. At least we can obtain some experience through converting waste coal to electricity — and exporting it, as long as it's surplus to our provincial needs.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

There are other issues that have to be addressed. I think one of the most important, from a regional point of view, is energy supply for Vancouver Island. The economics of gas transportation to Vancouver Island are very lean. However, Vancouver Islanders, being the only British Columbians who really don't have this alternative, and this relatively secure source of energy, should have access to it; and that problem should be addressed in an energy policy paper.

So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I don't have pointed questions for the minister. But I do look forward to a paper this fall in which all members must be very interested — one which, I hope, will deal with some of the more difficult energy issues in this province, particularly the manner in which our future oil will be supplied, how it can be made more secure, and how we can begin to use coal as a substantial source not only of energy, but of jobs in British Columbia.

MR. SKELLY: There were some points addressed by the minister, and by the member for North–Vancouver Seymour (Mr. Davis). When the minister is answering those questions, I hope he will enlarge on them.

I would like to apologize, first of all, for reading a misquote out of the Osoyoos Times which mentions the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) as one of those in that cabinet over there who supports nuclear power.

Some discussion has transpired about an energy policy for British Columbia that we can expect to see produced some time later in the fall. Now the previous Minister of Energy, or at least the one before the Premier, gave us some indication that when this policy was produced, there would be circulation of a White Paper around the province. The public would have an opportunity to look at it, to discuss it, to comment on it, to criticize it and perhaps to improve it. In what format does the minister plan to deliver this energy policy? Will it be delivered as a White Paper for public discussion and public input? Will the results of that public information process then be incorporated into the policy and brought back to this Legislature? Just how does the minister plan to do it? In particular, as the policy applies to Vancouver Island, where we enjoy a unique situation, will there be a regional orientation so that people in various areas of the province can decide what type of energy they would prefer to use or what type of system they would prefer imposed upon them?

[ Page 469 ]

The minister mentioned in passing that he could have asked the question why an energy policy wasn't developed between 1973 and 1975. I think it's easy enough to answer that question. When the NDP took office in 1972, there was no minister responsible for energy. There was no Ministry of Energy. There was no B.C. Energy Commission. There was no B.C. Petroleum Corporation. The government at that point seemed to have no concern about energy whatsoever, with the possible exception of a division of the Ministry of Mines, which related to petroleum resources and to natural gas. There was very little done, I think, prior to 1972.

I'm not attacking the previous government. The fact was that energy costs seemed to be declining all the time prior to 1973 and 1974. Up to that point energy didn't appear to be a problem. It only become a problem with the changes brought about by OPEC and by the American oil companies in 1973 and 1974. But I would definitely like to hear the minister's plans on how that energy policy will be presented.

Helliwell and Cox in their report did say that price increases would have to take place in order to justify a changeover from gas and oil used in process needs and power generation in pulp mills, because at the present time those fuels are subsidized. Also electricity is being sold to pulp mills at lower than the cost of production, and that's a problem. Helliwell and Cox mention that if those products were sold to pulp mills at or near the cost of production, there would be problems experienced by those mills, and they would have to switch over to cheaper forms of power. They also mention that there might be undesirable fuel substitutions, so the government would have to establish a policy to assist those pulp mills — financially or whatever — to change over to hog fuel energy production or waste wood energy production. I think it probably would be a much better investment of the capital that we're now borrowing to build transmission lines and dams and that kind of thing instead to assist pulp mills to develop more efficient means of energy generation. I definitely think that prices have to increase.

If we are to remain competitive with other countries, certainly we should, as a government, make it a part of our public policy to encourage changes to more efficient energy generation techniques.

The minister also mentioned hot water heating and that this represents only 1 percent of the total energy requirement in British Columbia. But even so, 1 percent is a significant amount of energy that is used in this province. It's 5 percent of the electricity that we produce. It represents a fairly significant percentage, and it's the largest user of residential energy in the province. Very little is being done to decrease the cost or to decrease the energy requirement in home hot water heating. Hydro should be congratulated for what they're doing here in Victoria. They are taking one circuit out of a substation in Victoria, and they are putting a switching apparatus on volunteer residential homes on that circuit. They're shutting those hot water heaters off during peak power demand periods. I think that's a dammed good idea, but that's something that we should be doing on a fairly broad scale in order to conserve energy on Vancouver Island.

It appears that Hydro has done very little except in crisis situations to handle the problem of peak load here. Now Mr. Marzocco, who is one of our officials in B.C. Hydro on Vancouver Island, has mentioned that at times he's had to call the wood room at a pulp mill and ask them to shut down operations because a crisis situation has developed over that 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. peak period.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Well, no, the other way is to manage the load properly. It's not necessary for the wood room in a pulp mill to operate all the time. It can be managed across a 24-hour period so that the wood rooms aren't operating on that small two- to three-hour peak load period — or in the same way that Hydro recognizes that home hot water heaters should be shut down during that period of high electrical demand. So we could be doing much more at almost no cost to change our peak demand habits so that we wouldn't require that 500-kilovolt line for some time.

The member for North Vancouver mentioned the jobs that would be created by shipping Alaska oil and gas across British Columbia and across Canada. But I think that we should look at what our best investment is in creating jobs. A number of authorities have discussed this, including the Economic Council of Canada, and have shown that to create a single job in one of these massive utility projects such as a pipeline or a dam or a transmission line, it requires an investment of something like a quarter of a million dollars per job or better. The only job-creation effort that requires a higher capital investment across Canada is in mining. To create a single job in mines requires a heck of a lot more than $250,000. Yet to retrofit houses, to improve insulation, to conserve electricity produces a job for every $19,500 invested. So there's a significant improvement in the job-creating ability of capital by selecting the lower technology alternatives. This is one reason why this party is so concerned that the government's energy policy reflect the ability of that energy policy to create jobs at the same time that it saves the government money, and at the same time that it makes use of the available renewable energy. So could the minister possibly comment on some of those concerns?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I just want to comment on a few items that were raised by the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy), He asked about the Kokish, Ladore and Duncan Bay hydro potentials on Vancouver Island. All those have been studied, Mr. Member. They rank well below the 500-kilovolt transmission project. They could provide a delay of that transmission line project if they went ahead, but only for about one year, a very small delay. They also, if they were to be built, would have, of course, some significant environmental problems, and their unit costs would be fairly high. So the research and investigation have been done and they rank fairly low on the list.

In regard to taxes, on page 5 of the annual report of B.C. Hydro, I'I just read the quote: "Taxes, grants and water rentals paid to the provincial government, municipalities and related school districts totalled $81 million in the year ended March 31, 1978, up 16.8 percent from the previous year. "I don't have the breakdown as to what went for property taxes and what went elsewhere, but the increase in one year to B.C. Hydro was 16.8 percent, which is more, I think, than the inflationary rate.

[ Page 470 ]

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) asked a question in regard to the energy policy. Yes, we have, as I mentioned before, the Ministry of Economic Development and other ministries involved. In regard to transportation, Mr. John Lewis, who I'm sure you're probably familiar with, is our transportation expert and he has been adding his expertise to it.

Regarding the use of gasoline, and how you stop the trend, because the statistics indicate that our oil and gasoline usage is climbing — and the Prime Minister of the country has said we've got to curtail our usage — I think, Mr. Member, that price is going to be a factor in the controlling or slowing down the demand for oil-based products. I think we'I see at the end of this year, December 31, instead of the dollar increase per barrel, when the federal government's through reviewing it all, we'I probably come in with a higher figure than that just to keep pace with the increase that has come through from the OPEC nations.

Energy policy with regard to the use of coal — that will also be considered. You have mentioned before the use of coal waste in the East Kootenays. Those all have to be measured up, I think, in regard to the cost benefits. One of the costs, of course, may well be the environmental impacts and how we overcome some of that.

Our policy also will indicate — and I haven't made this statement before — that to some extent we will be encouraging the use of natural gas in the province of British Columbia. We do have those reserves and we are not self-reliant on oil. We will find that we are going to have to give some encouragement, some incentive, to residential homes and to industry for conversion to natural gas, as well as to renewable energy resources such as wood waste. We are going to have to stimulate that transition; along with the cost of oil going up we may find a fairly reasonable trend away from it as a source of energy.

The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) raised a question in regard to the energy policy. I did make some comments about the possibility of a White Paper myself. I think I may have to reconsider that and possibly have a comprehensive statement made by the ministry concerning the energy policy, and invite comment on that statement.

The real concern I have is that we haven't time to keep delaying this. Now is the time for action. If we are going to turn around the reliance on oil-based products, we are going to have to do it fairly quickly. So whether we take the approach of a White Paper and float it out there for a while and then go back to the drawing board and revamp that energy policy, or whether we make some comprehensive statement and invite comment and proceed from there, we have to move fairly quickly. I'm hopeful we will have that energy policy available before September, but I've set that deadline.

The B.C. Energy Commission and the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, which the previous administration brought into being — they're there, and they're a vehicle; they serve a purpose. In regard to the Energy Commission and its forecast and regulatory performance, we had a regulatory body before. It's doing a function and with the reorganization of the ministry, that whole scheme is being looked at. But the Energy Commission does play an important role in the province with regard to energy matters.

The B.C. Petroleum Corporation is a tax-collecting agency to a great extent. The system was in place before it was brought into being, so it is not the be-all, end-all; but it too does play an important role. With the reorganization we will be looking at that also.

In regard to the slowdown of the wood room, he didn't mention where that was. Was that in Alberni or on Vancouver Island?

MR. SKELLY: At a number of the pulp mills.

HON. MR. HEWITT: At a number of the pulp mills. I would say, Mr. Member, it seems that would indicate a need for a reliable source of power. It indicates to me that that 500-kilovolt line is needed on Vancouver Island, and that we should have started it a little earlier than this, because I believe it will be late '83 before that is available.

I think your comments about having a representative of B.C. Hydro saying, "Close down your wood room," affect not just the fact of saving energy; with it you can see problems with shifts, employees and additional costs. If you have to go to non-peak times you run into shift differentials and all that, so there is an economic repercussion there. Your comments have indicated we're well advised to proceed as quickly as possible with that line.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, the minister has indicated there will be an overall energy policy for British Columbia some time this fall. But what has to concern us is that events in the world are overtaking us. By the time the minister and the government have come up with a policy we will be locked into, due to events in the world, an energy crisis involving the pricing of petroleum products.

The minister has suggested the way to regulate the use of energy in British Columbia is through pricing. What worries me about that statement is that the wealthy and the people who can afford to pay higher prices for petroleum products and energy use will increase their profits, and will probably do quite well. But the ordinary working people, the people who must drive automobiles to get to work because of the terrible transit policy of this government, will, in effect, use more of their disposable income in those policies.

What is happening as the price of petroleum products in British Columbia rises to meet world prices — which was a conscious decision made by the federal government and this government — means windfall profits once again for the multinational oil companies. That's what it really means.

I wanted to spend a moment or two discussing Hydro. I won't take long; I've discussed this in this House before. The fact is that Hydro is a monster and we all know it. And now we have the opportunity to ask the minister what he is planning to do about the managerial and decision-making process of B.C. Hydro. What are you planning to do — leave it the way it is, or add one or two more people to the board of directors, which we know won't make any difference? Our party has suggested, Mr. Minister — through you, Mr. Chairman — that the functions of B.C. Hydro should be to install and supply the energy requirements of British Columbia, but not to make the policy decisions. Those policy decisions should be made by a separate and independent body, such as, perhaps, the B.C. Energy Commission, or some other body.

Furthermore, under the present setup — and this disturbs me greatly in a number of projects which I'm going to be discussing very briefly in a few minutes — Hydro

[ Page 471 ]

makes their decisions; they know what they're going to do; they eventually hold a few public meetings to comply with the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat's regulations; and then they go ahead and do what they want anyway. That has been the pattern of Hydro.

The whole system of public hearings is designed so that we can have public input. And just to get back to your proposed energy policy for British Columbia, Mr. Minister — through you, Mr. Chairman — you suggested that certain ministries are involved in developing this policy. But I would suggest to you, Mr. Minister, that the majority of people in British Columbia are interested in having a voice in developing such a policy. Are these groups — some of them environmental groups, and many, many other groups in British Columbia — going to have a voice in helping to formulate an overall energy policy for British Columbia? I doubt it. I'm really concerned, and I hope that when the minister gets up he'I give us a positive answer to these questions.

The other day my colleague, the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), raised the question of the proposed 500 kilovolt transmission line across the Sunshine Coast to Vancouver Island. I've discussed this matter in this Legislature on numerous occasions, and we'll spend a lot of time on it; but I do wish to add my voice. As you know, we have asked as a party — and my constituents along the Sunshine Coast requested well over a year ago — that a two-year moratorium be placed on this particular project. Certainly some of the figures that we have received from the British Columbia Energy Commission have indicated that we can wait two years while the B.C. Energy Commission and B.C. Hydro look at energy alternatives for Vancouver Island — and I won't go through that again.

But what I'm concerned about in this particular question, Mr. Minister, is that I have a report that the Environment and Land Use Committee is preparing an environmental impact report on that proposed 500-kilovolt transmission line. I would like to know whether the minister has a copy of that report in his possession. Has that report been completed and forwarded to the minister? If not, how can the government and B.C. Hydro decide to proceed with the line without that report?

My information certainly indicates that the Environment and Land Use Committee is calling for a moratorium, as we have in this party. The people who are being directly affected by this line, Mr. Minister — through you, Mr. Chairman — have asked for a public inquiry as well. They've never received a reply to this correspondence, as they were told verbally that it would be time-consuming and of no value anyway. They're right, and I'I tell you why it would be time-consuming and of no value. You've indicated that a definite route for that proposed transmission line has not been agreed upon, yet this morning I received a press release stating that you have agreed on a route for that transmission line. Furthermore, in correspondence I received from Mr. Bonner....

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. who?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The current chairman of B.C. Hydro, Mr. Bonner; he's the man who's going to put nuclear energy in Vancouver Island eventually.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Are you making up facts again, Don?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, you won't give me any facts, Mr. Minister, or any answers, so I've got to make them up.

In any event, Mr. Bonner does state:

"Though we have met with groups and considered their opinions, up and down the Sunshine Coast — environmental groups, energy experts from all over the province — the fact is we are going ahead with the line, and it now appears that we may not even be able to avoid the crossing of certain parks, recreation centres, lake areas...."

In other words, what Hydro is doing is going back to its original route in spite of the fact that we were given assurances at a certain meeting that took place on Pender Harbour some time ago. Attended by hundreds of people, the meeting went on all day, and they were assured that the route would be changed to comply with some of the concerns of the people living in that area.

What Hydro is now saying is that they're going back to the original route. All of those public information meetings with the residents are a complete shaft. That's in effect what you're saying.

I wonder if the minister could perhaps discuss that matter briefly. I don't see how he can; obviously Mr. Bonner has made a decision and that's it. But I would like to hear from the minister. There's no question that Hydro has to be shaken up. I think the people of this province have a right to know how you're going to handle Hydro and how that operation is going to be brought to heel.

It's been public information that the government is considering a proposed natural gas line to Vancouver Island. I will just discuss that briefly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why are you for that and against the other?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Like my colleague, I'I answer your questions in question period.

I want to set the record straight on one small item, if I can find it. During the course of the last campaign, the Premier, particularly in locations on Vancouver Island, made the statement that it was the NDP who stopped the studies of the proposed natural gas line to Vancouver Island. That is not true. That is complete nonsense and the Premier knows it. He has the information and said if it hadn't been for the NDP, the gas line would have been there some years ago. Mr. Minister, you haven't been there that long, but certainly people in your ministry know very well that the original proposal was scrapped because there was not a security of supply of natural gas for the province at that time.

I recall having long and serious discussions with Bob Williams, the former Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, on this question. During our term in office studies were undertaken. We looked at possible alternatives. It was not until late '74, going into '75 and to '76, when these large new natural gas fields were discovered, that it became possibly viable to have a natural gas line to Vancouver Island.

The people on Vancouver Island do deserve the energy requirements to meet their rational economic development

[ Page 472 ]

plans of the future. I'm with you on that. I have in my possession a study which I'm sure you have, a prospectus issued by the British Columbia Engineering and Power Authority, gas engineering division. It was presented to the B.C. Energy Commission on December 1978. It discussed and recommended that a natural gas line be built to serve Vancouver Island.

I do have some difference of opinion on the root of that proposal. This study, by the way, like many other studies that this government has commissioned, was paid for with taxpayers' money, one way or another, i.e. through B.C. Hydro. This is the same company that is responsible for 71.5 percent of the debt in this province. This study, which was never made public, indicates that the preferred route is the southern route.

The minister has met with and received submissions from the municipal council in Powell River and the manpower adjustment committee. They have made a very sincere approach to that minister to have the government consider routing that proposed natural gas line through Powell River. There are a lot of good reasons, both geographic and technical.

The initial cost may be somewhat higher, somewhat more expensive, but what you'I be doing for that whole area, which is economically depressed — particularly since this government came to office — is to stimulate some rational economic development. They presented a brief to the minister and myself. I won't read the brief; it's a little lengthy. The minister's got the darned thing, and the fact is that it would produce jobs for many of our people. We have 14.5 percent unemployment in that area at the present time. I think that route should be seriously considered.

While we're discussing studies, there is another study that the minister has had on his desk for over three months now regarding this proposed natural gas line. This study was commissioned by the B.C. Energy Commission. I've asked the minister to make this study available to me, to the people interested in this project and to the public of British Columbia. Once again, it was a study paid for, one way or another, by the taxpayers of this province. I'd like to know, Mr. Minister, now that we have a chance to question you, why you will not make that study public. What have you got to hide? I know it's a preliminary study, but make the study public. It's our money and we have a right to know. We had a member kicked out of this House the other day for demanding the right to know. The people of this province have the right to know these things.

Honestly and very seriously, Mr. Minister, I'm deeply concerned. This government commissions these studies and they hide them. Why can't our environmental groups, our chambers of commerce, all of these people interested in these matters, have the right to know what's happening in this province on these matters? I hope the minister comes up with a suitable answer.

One last question to you, Mr. Minister. As the minister is fully aware, there is a proposal now that involves B.C. Hydro, the government and the Crown corporation of Ocean Falls. The proposal originally is — and I'I just bring you up to date very quickly — for a 110-mile transmission line from Kitimat to Ocean Falls over some very rugged terrain. I want to tell you right now, Mr. Minister, that I'm not necessarily opposed to that transmission line. The original estimated cost for that line was $18 million. The cost has escalated now to some $46 million. And I suspect that if the line goes ahead, it will cost between $80 million and $85 million in the final analysis. But if that community of Ocean Falls is to survive and to grow, there is no question that that transmission line will be required.

What I would like to know, Mr. Minister, is whether your ministry or B.C. Hydro or whoever has made an agreement with the Ocean Falls Corporation through its chairman, Mr. Williston, to construct that transmission line at government and corporation expense so that when the Kruger Corporation, who are currently negotiating with the provincial government for the purchase of that community.... Will this whole thing be turned over to Kruger when that deal is completed, presumably within the next six weeks? Will that transmission line be a cost, once again, to the taxpayers of British Columbia for the benefit of a private corporation? And do you have a time frame on the completion of that particular transmission line?

I don't know if you've got any questions out of that. I hope to get as many answers as you've got questions. Thank you, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I'I try not to be too long. The comment about Hydro as a monster.... I guess one of the problems Hydro faces is that it has to supply energy pretty well for all of British Columbia. I think you mentioned that all they should do is to provide the energy, and they should not make policy decisions. Well, I don't know, but I'd be a little worried if you relied on B.C. Hydro to supply power to British Columbia on the longest and coldest night of the year and not have an organization with an administration body, a policy-making body, and executive decisions being made on a monumental task such a supplying power. You know, if they have the responsibility to do it.... Any business management course always indicated that if you gave the responsibility, you should give the authority.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: And the accountability — right, Mr. Member. I'm not saying Hydro is perfect, but for heaven's sakes, we have to recognize that we're not talking about something that you can just go away and forget about. You're talking about a corporation, an authority — it implies that in its name — that has to provide that power, has to plan for that power well in advance, as you know, and make sure that when the wheels of industry want to turn, there is power there to turn them.

It does have, under this administration, two additional watchdogs, you might say. One is the Committee on Crown Corporations, which was brought into being by this administration and which has come down with some criticism on B.C. Hydro. But that's put into place to monitor such organizations as B.C. Hydro. It has the auditor-general, who has that responsibility as well. So there are two avenues that can be used to ensure that they aren't the "monster" that you implied they are.

But we always have the problem, Mr. Member, in regard to the alternative you go to in supplying the power. B.C. Hydro has to look at some pretty large installations to make sure that they can supply the power ten years down the road.

If you look at Site C in the Peace River country, you've got a reaction there, because of the concern of the people in

[ Page 473 ]

the area and the agricultural land that's involved. If you talk about Hat Creek coal, you've got a problem there. There's concern about air pollution and the ranching industry in that area — two major problems. You talk about the 500 kilovolt transmission line. The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) is talking about the fact that they have to shut down a wood room. You've made some comments about the transmission line coming across the Sechelt Peninsula.

The people in the industry on Vancouver Island that creates the employment and improves the economy on Vancouver Island are saying: "We need power." Crown Zellerbach, in making their statement of their expansion, said its announcement was subject to that transmission line coming across. So there are demands here to have the power on the Sechelt Peninsula and there's concern and demands to the effect that: "You don't put the line across in our area." That's the unfortunate part: you have the impact on people who live in one spot, and at the same time demands in another area saying: "For goodness' sake, B.C. Hydro, do your job and provide us with the power." If we took a two-year moratorium, as you suggest, on that 500-kilovolt line, we would then be looking at 1985 or 1986, and by that time you would have serious brownouts on Vancouver Island. As you know, the time is very critical at the present time.

In regard to the announcement that B.C. Hydro made on the 500-kilovolt line, you made mention that Hydro's made the decision. Well, basically, that's right. B.C. Hydro selected a preferred route for the Sechelt Peninsula portion of the planned Cheekye-Dunsmuir transmission line to Vancouver Island. That's their board's decision, but they also go on to say:

"Hydro's decision has been communicated to the Sunshine Coast Regional District and the secretariat to the provincial cabinet Environment and Land Use Committee, and the secretariat has indicated to Hydro that the Environment and Land Use Committee will meet to discuss the matter as soon as possible, after comments on decisions are received from the regional district and provincial government resource agencies."

So you know that the Environment and Land Use Committee is going to discuss and express an opinion to cabinet in regard to whether or not the selection that B.C. Hydro's board has taken is, in fact. the one that this government considers to be in the public interest. So although the decision has been made by B.C. Hydro, that doesn't necessarily follow that that is the end decision. They still have to refer to the Environment and Land Use Committee for approval.

Regarding the natural gas line to Vancouver Island. I did meet with the people from Powell River and they did give me an excellent submission. We discussed the fact that it is costly. I indicated to them that there are two reports that my staff are studying, and to release one and/or the other I think would only confuse the issue. So what we are doing is weighing the advantages of the reports, and we'I be able to come out with a decision or a comment as to what the economics are in providing that power line.

It seems to me that when we're talking about the public good you have to weigh up the costs and the benefits of such a transmission line. If you find that the costs are just too high at this time, then you have to consider delaying it until the economics work out. It's the same problem we have in getting industry, say, to convert from residual oil to natural gas, or competing in an export market against residual oils and natural gas. The Leader of the Opposition was talking about the $3.20 a thousand cubic feet for natural gas in the United States. If they have a quantity of residual oil down there, and you're competing with that in the marketplace, if you raise the price of your product you can't sell it. That's the problem we have with the natural gas exports. You've got to be realistic in setting your price, and that's what the NEB is doing.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

It's the same with the natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island. What are the costs? If you say, "That's fine — the government should subsidize it, and put it in anyway," that means all the people in the province of British Columbia are picking up part of that cost. If the economics work out close, then you can take those benefits of additional industry, I think, on one of the islands. I think, Mr, Member, you probably know where they were looking at a cement plant or something like that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right.

HON. MR. HEWITT: If you took into consideration the additional employment, you could say: "Okay, the costs aren't that far apart, and with this additional benefit we can proceed at this time." I think that's the approach we have to take; otherwise we're spending a lot of taxpayers' dollars and we're not spending them wisely.

MR. SKELLY: This is just to respond to a statement that the minister made. where I suggested that Hydro shuts down loads during peak periods. One of the major drawers on their supply is wood rooms at pulp mills, so those are the first that get shut down. This results in no job losses, and what Hydro could do, rather than attempting to manage loads at crisis periods, is to manage the load in order to maximize the availability of power on Vancouver Island. This they have chosen not to do.

You talk about having to weigh the relative costs, and you mention shift differential. Well, I can tell you, Mr. Minister, that the cost of paying shift differential in all the pulp mills on Vancouver Island won't come near equalling the $640 million that Hydro is now considering as the cost of the Cheekye-Dunsmuir project. The cost of shift differentials won't even approach that. Even if the various pulp and paper companies on Vancouver Island change the wood room structures in order to accommodate more wood and increase production at off-peak periods, it still would not cost as much as building that 500-kilovolt Cheekye-Dunsmuir project.

So I think that we have to look at the other alternatives, and this is what Hydro appears to be refusing to do. They're not looking at the need for power on Vancouver Island. They're looking at the demand for power on Vancouver Island. I would recommend to the minister another interesting piece of reading material that came out of the Porter commission in Ontario. Porter agonizes over whether we should be meeting actual needs for energy or whether we should simply be responding to demands for energy. Hydro doesn’t seem to feel that they have the mandate to seek out need for energy instead of simply responding to demand. If

[ Page 474 ]

they did so, they would be looking at reallocating loads so that they could take some of these functions in industry off the system during peak load periods and reallocate those to off-peak periods.

So that was why I was referring to Hydro managing crisis loads by shutting down wood rooms. I don't recommend that as a policy for Hydro but they should be into the whole picture of allocating the load across the whole 24-hour period. I don't think it would cost a tenth or a thousandth or a millionth as much to pay shift differential in wood rooms in pulp mills as it would to build that 500-kilovolt line.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're comparing apples and oranges, as you well know. Let me just throw this out to you. Maybe I'm flying right in the face of disaster — I don't know.

You're right in the sense that if we go by the demands for energy we can overbuild. I sometimes wonder why we don't take advantage of additional energy power and why we don't take advantage of the export market of energy. At this time, considering the need that the United States has for power sources, it seems to me that if we have that source and we can sell that energy and sell it at a price which is competitive but well above our cost, then it helps to keep our domestic price down.

Hydroelectric power, it seems to me, is one commodity that you can sell and get a good return out of on the export market. It holds the cost down not just to our industry but to our pensioners, our welfare people — everybody. Costs of heating our homes are kept down because we are getting a good, fair export market price. So let's not talk about holding down development. Sometimes I wonder why we don't get more aggressive and why we don't go out and develop some of our Hydro energy capacity and sell that for the benefit of all British Columbians. I just told that point to you and I'm sorry because I'm probably going to start a real good argument now, but I think sometimes we should be a little more aggressive.

MR. SKELLY: I'I say this and leave. Mr. Speaker, I agree 100 percent with the minister that we should produce more energy and, if there is adequate energy in the province of British Columbia, export that to the United States to our best advantage, to help pay off our debts on B.C. Hydro's system.

I agree with that 100 percent. What we're talking about, though, is the best way to produce that surplus. The cost of producing extra energy through nuclear power is $2,000 per installed unit; the cost of releasing energy through conservation is $200 per released unit. So when you're thinking about the cost of producing energy to export to the United States, it's to our best advantage to save energy and export that surplus. We can do that by proper load management and by energy conservation, but it does require an aggressive program which the government doesn't seem to have and which Hydro definitely doesn't have. That's why our side differs from your side. We would like to see Hydro develop a much more intensive and aggressive energy conservation program in order to free up that electricity for export if it is available. The more money that comes back to this province from exporting surplus Hydro power, the better it is for us here, certainly.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I obviously didn't make quite clear one of the points I attempted to make, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman. This is the matter of Hydro's method of consulting with the interested parties when a project has been proposed. Hydro comes up with a plan, or whatever; and Hydro has been proved consistently wrong in its energy projections over 10- or 15-year periods. Even another government agency, the B.C. Energy Commission, will tell you that, and they're supposed to be on the same side — approximately. Hydro doesn't consult people, whether it be on the Sunshine Coast, Lasqueti Island, Vancouver Island, or anywhere else. They don't consult until after decisions have been made. They go through a routine, because they're obliged to under certain regulations such as the Environment and Land Use Committee, et cetera. But the fact is, even after consulting and getting well-informed opinions from people in the community — experts from UBC, wherever — they go ahead and do what they were going to do in the first place.

It's a sham, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman. The one thing you could tell this Legislature today is that at least the process of public information — gathering and respect for public opinion — will be changed. If you're not prepared to change Hydro, if you're not prepared to take into account the executives' summary of the Committee on Crown Corporations, if you're not prepared to do any of those things, at least give us, the people who are paying the bills in this province, the opportunity to comment on those changes before they are put into effect.

One last question — very straightforward. Have you assured the Crown Zellerbach Corp. at Elk Falls they will have the required energy resources they say they require for 1982 so they can go ahead and buy their $500 million, or whatever, machine No. 10? Have they been given that assurance? I'd like to know.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In regard to the energy policy we are developing you mention some control on B.C. Hydro and its projects. I envision in that policy we will have a project review committee made up of interested ministries — for example, Environment, my ministry, Economic Development — where Hydro projects will be reviewed to take a look at their need for it — why they say they need it — and analyse it before final approval is given. We will try to put a handle on it, which is your concern to ensure that we don't get into the position of being overbuilt.

We will be looking at a possible increase of B.C. Hydro's board of directors to get a greater cross-section on that board. Those are two things I mentioned to you....

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Will the public have input before decisions are made?

HON. MR. HEWITT: In regard to the projects, yes. As you know, the B.C. Hydro dam at Revelstoke had a tremendous amount of public input. You are also aware that the 500-kilovolt line had public hearings on the Sechelt Peninsula. One of the problems is, Mr. Member, people don't want their environment changed. A transmission line does not have any pollution. What it really has is a site impact. A line has to go across lands that formerly were pristine, and a swath has to be cut through; it has to go across a lake, or whatever, and, as a result, it does, you might say, destroy the aesthetics of some of the summer and

[ Page 475 ]

permanent homes in that area. Unfortunately that's one of the prices we have to pay for ensuring that people on Vancouver Island will have power.

You ask, finally, the comment about Crown Zellerbach. No, a guarantee hasn't been given to Crown Zellerbach at this date, because B.C. Hydro hasn't got the final approval. But they're attempting to meet that date — and I think it was 1983, Mr. Member, not '82 — that the line should be in place. They still have to get the final approval for that location through the Environment and Land Use Committee. Once that is given cabinet approval they will then be proceeding.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: One last remark on the minister's analysis of environmental impact on a proposed Hydro line. Everybody in this province knows that wherever Hydro builds a line, particularly a transmission line of this magnitude, widespread spraying takes place through watersheds. And this particular line will be going through at least eight watersheds, Mr. Minister. Chemicals will be used in these watersheds where people have to drink the water, where fish are reared, or whatever. If that isn't environmental impact, I'd like to know what the heck it is.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I am quite concerned, especially when I hear the theorists at work, and this afternoon we were again told that we need power but we don't have to have it, and we're going to get power to the Island by burning woodchips. I tell you that the theory is plausible, but it is not factual. There is not enough power in the woodchips in Vancouver Island to, in effect, give any substance whatever to the theory-and that's a well-known fact. It's very nice to have power by wood waste, but there is not enough power. It's only a trivial matter and it's not worthy of consideration. I wish the theorists would stop talking about that; it's a pointless discussion.

I am more concerned with our government's position on nuclear power. It has been clearly stated in the throne speech, and stated here in the House. Yet we hear from the opposition that we are toying with nuclear power on the back burner, as it were. Well, it has been clearly stated that we are not toying with nuclear power. We have no intention of having nuclear power, and that should go down. But it will never be accepted until we create the alternatives.

One thing that concerns me very greatly is the nuclear power plant that is proposed in Sedro Woolley, a very short distance from our populated area. When this plant gets on line it will be one of the dangerous factors we have to contend with. I hope we will make some arrangements with the Americans and give them an alternative, whereby they will find no need to establish the nuclear power station at Sedro Woolley.

I make the following suggestions. First of all, there is the Skagit Valley of long and arduous debate in this House. I hope this government does not ever consider paying off the Americans with power from our resources for not flooding the Skagit Valley. I hope that we realize that this valley, if it is flooded and when it is flooded, will be a benefit and will increase the value of property in British Columbia and, at the same time, will give valuable power to the Americans. Those who speak so highly of the Skagit Valley — that beautiful, natural, pristine resource — are the ones who have never been there. But those who have been there know that you could flood that valley and it would be an asset to us in British Columbia, according to the terms of the agreement previously created by this government.

It is time that we recognized the importance of developing power and did not fall flat on our face every time an environmentalist got up and said: "You can't do it." I believe in the environmentalists’ judgment in some cases, but we must not respond too quickly. There is an immense supply of power there that was provided for in an honourable treaty between the federal Canadian government and the federal American government in 1941, and we should honour that treaty without question and without beating around the bush and trying to avoid it. That power should go to the Americans. We should flood that valley. It would be of benefit to British Columbia.

Instead of the Sedro Woolley atomic power plant, the next thing I would suggest is that we make available to them, at a proper price, thermal coal by the thousands of metric tons. Enormous amounts with no other use are available in the East Kootenays — Fording and Kaiser. Give them a corridor to take the coal to the United States by belt or whatever, and use it to supply power. Across the East Kootenays the Americans have what is known as a solid grid. They are right on the grid and they can develop the power and send it to all their transmission systems.

Give them an alternative. We have the alternative. Not only that, but we sell our coal, and the coal has to have a sale. It's just piling up in the East Kootenays.

Interjections.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Our honourable friends will laugh. They might as well laugh about something else. But at the same time I'I tell them that the metallurgical coal is only a small percentage of the coal that is mined in the East Kootenays. That must be used. and it can be used for making power.

With those two things we could cancel the necessity for an atomic power plant — if we got busy and presented the proper alternative. and that could be done.

The next thing we should do — and this is vital to get ourselves off this nuclear kick.... May I say to the government that there is no use denying it: we've got to give an alternative. And the alternative would be proof that you could produce power at Hat Creek economically and properly. We could produce a small pilot plant of 80 or 90 megawatts to produce power and prove that the development of power at Hat Creek will work. And then we could produce enormous quantities of power from that coal — for 500 years, if necessary.

That is the course that should be offered: no more theories, no more programs, no more talk; develop the alternatives that are there for us to use. They can be used. It can be done today. We should be on that road now. We should be saying to Hydro: "Get your pilot plant going at Hat Creek. Let's see it work." Then we could go on with a bigger program.

Furthermore, as I've said before in this House, we have a greater resource than oil. We have the northern rivers, with great potential for power, that we should be developing now for sale. Just as Alberta is selling oil, we should be selling electric power. Those enormous rivers flowing into the Arctic Ocean promise enormous quantities of power — I don't know how much. We have a resource more usable than oil, and we should be developing that today.

[ Page 476 ]

We should stop the talk and get on with the action, but first of all we should give the Americans an alternative to Sedro Woolley. Let us get out of the nuclear power age on our borders, and we can do it with that one little step. I urge the minister to take some action in this regard.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, this committee is having some very important deliberations this afternoon. I think there's a possibility that some committee members who are on the treasury benches may inadvertently be missing some of the discussions. Therefore I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 28

MR. NICOLSON: I have a couple of very brief questions. First of all, I'd just like to draw the minister's attention to Hydro's lack of respect for private property.

After all the public hearings are said and done, and things go ahead, particularly with power line rights-of-way, the bulldozers go in. Of course, they put themselves in an arm's-length situation by having a contractor do the work. But I can think of two incidents within maybe a mile of each other on the same power line.

One was a case where they disturbed a water supply and have absolutely refused to listen to the property owners about what has happened or to offer any sort of remedy. They did completely disrupt a spring, and this is a property right. When people get water rights and register them with the water rights department, they have an individual property right.

Perhaps it's a bit of a mistake that we should have moved that the committee rise, because it did bring in some seat mates for the minister. I hope the minister is listening to this because it is a very, to my mind, annoying type of a thing. When people go to all of the trouble of registering their water rights and they get their conditional water licence and then their permanent water licence, they don't want to have B.C. Hydro come along blasting, bulldozing and, in this one case, putting in an access road to look after the power line. And then they refuse to negotiate in good faith with these people toward a resolution of the problem.

Another instance involved mining claims. Hydro did not research the titles properly. They built a power line right over some existing mining claims. The miner then went to the supreme court because Hydro, of course, with all of its financial backing, could afford to go the limit. For his rights, this poor, small miner was also forced to go to the legal limit. This matter was finally resolved a couple of years ago as far as the courts are concerned, yet the matter itself is not resolved.

I think that as a director of Hydro, there should be some consideration given to a better way of handling these things.

In contrast, another constituent of mine was similarly inconvenienced by the construction of the Inland Natural Gas pipeline in the Creston area. It was, of course, the fault of a contractor that was doing this for Inland Natural Gas. I phoned Mr. Cadillac because the people lower down were too busy. The president was the only person who had time to talk to me.

In about three or four days he actually had a negotiator at the home of the aggrieved person, and a settlement was reached almost instantaneously. I feel that Hydro should treat these things with a little bit more respect. Certainly other utilities have a better track record as far as my experience is concerned.

I do have a couple of names here which I won't bother to bring out, but I would be interested in the minister's response.

The other thing is in the field of mining. In the Kootenays there are several small mines that do produce. Sometimes when we say how many mines are producing in the Kootenays, we just tend to look at the Sullivan mine, and we think of the HB mine which just closed. But there are some small mines that do get out a few loads of ore. One thing that seems to be a grievance of all of these small miners that I've met with is that they only get 55 percent of the net smelter returns. There's a system, if you take it into the smelter and so on.

I would like to ask the minister to look into a couple of things that might enhance the lot of the small mining company and the individual involved in mining. Sometimes these are individual privately owned operations.

Could the minister have a few thousand dollars set aside to look into a feasibility study on custom milling and even possibly custom smelting? The one might be dismissed out of hand, but I don't think it should be. I suggest that it be publicly advertised, at least through the various chambers of mines, and that it travel around and hear from interested groups to see if there could be something done. I suspect that perhaps thousands of jobs could be opened up if something could be done.

Really, Cominco does have a stranglehold in our area. There are two choices: you go to Bunker Hill, down across the line, or you go to Cominco, and both of these outfits have, in the minds of some of the people who are involved, a bit of a stranglehold. They very much question sometimes the returns that they are credited with. There are even some rather large properties that might be put into production if such a thing were done. So I think that an investment of a few thousand dollars would be very wise. Perhaps technologies have changed; perhaps people have heard of various things. One way or the other it would at least either point the way for something that could open up a lot of jobs, or it

[ Page 477 ]

could maybe put to rest some of what commonly might be a myth. But I think it's fairly widely held, and it certainly would seem to make a lot of sense to a layman such as myself.

So there are two matters: my concern for the respect of the private property rights of people affected particularly by Hydro rights-of-way, and this concept of maybe having a little mini-commission going around. It could go to very selective audiences. In terms of its hearings, I don't think it would entail a great deal of expenditure, but in its research it might.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I am going to be fairly brief too. I don't want to hold the minister up too long. But I did want to talk about a few things in connection with his responsibilities as a director of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority. Basically I have just a number of fairly short questions I would like to ask the minister. Number one, can the minister give us any estimate of the cost overruns related to the problems that the contractors have had with the bedrock at the Revelstoke Dam site? I believe an early estimate was in the area of $30 million, and I wonder if the minister can confirm that amount or indicate whether the amount has risen beyond that.

I understand that a similar problem with the poor rock the rotten rock or whatever it is that's creating the problem — is involving the highway construction program in the relocation of Highway 23 north to Mica Creek. I understand that there are similar cost overruns related to that highway construction program. I would like to have an estimate from the minister — some ballpark figure, if he could give it to the Legislature — with respect to the expected overruns of both the highway and the dam.

The other point I'd like to make in passing, that seems extremely curious to me, is the fact that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has signs all the way up Highway 23 between Revelstoke and Mica indicating that this is a Ministry of Highways project, an improvement project by your friendly Minister of Highways — good old Alex.

AN HON. MEMBER: Unfair.

MR. KING: Yes, I agree it's unfair. It's most unfair, because that's an appropriate and proper cost to be assessed against B.C. Hydro, not the Ministry of Highways — not directly the people of British Columbia. That should not be subtracted from the Ministry of Highways budget. Rather that budget should be used for the maintenance and upgrading of our existing highways system. This is a replacement road made necessary by the dam construction, and therefore it should be totally paid for by B.C. Hydro, and it should have been estimated in the cost appraisals for the whole project. So I would like the minister's reaction to that.

I want to support the request made by my colleague from Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) and also, I believe, by my colleague from Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) with respect to assessing school taxes on the Hydro dams. Revenue should have been accruing to three or four school boards in the Interior area that have borne the burden of all of the dam construction to provide power for the rest of the province. Those dams are exempt. It is a burden, a tremendous dislocation. The school districts should be receiving the benefit of taxation from those dam structures. That was promised in this Legislature in 1968, and then they were removed by order-in-council by the Minister of Education at that time, one Donald Brothers, after it had been promised by the Premier's dad and other ministers that revenue would accrue.

HON. MR. BENNETT: What happened between '72 and '75?

MR. KING: Well, I can tell you, Mr. Premier, what happened between '72 and '75. I pursued this matter very vigorously along with my colleagues, and we had agreed upon a formula by which taxation would be paid to the school districts.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Sure, we did a great many good things during that time frame. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, we were not able to cure all the social and financial ills with which the previous Social Credit government had beset this province. I regret that, but I have no doubt that we'll have another opportunity and will be vigorous in our approach to resolving those problems again.

Be that as it may, the Premier and his cabinet talk about equity in terms of taxation. If they have a commitment to equity, then they have an obligation to make sure that those dams pay their fair share of taxation to the school districts.

The Kootenay diversion wasn't mentioned. I wonder what the minister has to report to the House with respect to the Kootenay diversion. It's an interesting topic. I know that Hydro has done a good deal of work on environmental impact studies in the East Kootenay region and spent a good deal of money at this point in terms of finding out what the impact would be from that diversion. I would think that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources would want to enlighten the House at this particular time as to whether or not Hydro intends to proceed with that project, after having spent the taxpayers' dollars on these impact studies, particularly in light of the fact that one of his colleagues has threatened to resign from the cabinet if the Kootenay diversion proceeds.

I don't know which minister has been intimidated and which one has won out, but there seems to be a real battle going on over there between the pro-nukes and the anti-nukes and the pro-Liberals and the pro-Socreds. I don't know which minister has the most muscle and the most clout, but the public of British Columbia are out there waiting with bated breath to see who has the most political clout — whether it's the Liberals who crossed the floor and left their principles on this side or whether it's the old-time Socreds who have been in and out of the cabinet like yo-yos over the years. I'm wondering who is going to win that fight.

Nevertheless, it's an interesting proposition, Mr. Chairman, and the people have a right to know. The people have a right to know what their destiny is going to be up in that East Kootenay area. I doubt that they are very secure that their member, the late-comer into the cabinet, has the kind of political clout to give them assurances that the Kootenay diversion will not become a reality. So I would like to hear from the minister who sits on Hydro's board in that regard.

[ Page 478 ]

Mr. Chairman, I heard the minister talk about the proposed pipelines to carry petroleum from the North Slope of Alaska or other potential development areas in the north. I was impressed by the minister's familiarity with the routes and the options for transporting that oil through British Columbia and to south of the border.

I wonder if the minister could tell the House which one of those proposed routes he would favour. I would be very interested in learning from him what his preference is and whether or not he will be making any submission to the National Energy Board with respect to support for one of those proposals. I hope the Premier doesn't have to counsel him on this. Mr. Chairman, every time I ask a question in question period, the Premier has to turn around and counsel his ministers. Has he no faith in the minister's ability to answer the questions that are put to him? I would suggest that if that is the case he should be looking through his backbench. He has some people down there with experience and great enthusiasm. They're very willing and able and available. If the Premier has no confidence in his existing cabinet, he might well look down the back bench and find some fresh blood and bring some expertise and some talent and constantly save the Premier's neck from having to swivel around all the time and counsel his ministers when they are asked a question. It's within their responsibility to answer.

I would appreciate some responses from the minister on those questions. I ask them in all seriousness.

MR. PASSARELL I have some concerns about the proposed dam on the Stikine-Iskut River basin and some of the strange things that have happened in the past few months. When I brought this up before May 10 there was a publication going around, being circulated by a gentleman who is no longer here, which said that there would be no dams put on the Stikine as long as the sun shines.

Then afterwards I received a publication that talks a little bit about the Stikine and Iskut dams. There are some things in there I would like some answers to because the people in the area have not even been told about this proposed dam, even though a 7,000-foot runway has been built. There's been no inquiry; no one has come to the Tahltans and told them that there could be a possibility of dams built on their river that they use for their livelihood.

One quote I would like to read out of this publication, Power Perspectives '79, is that "development could result in reduced wildlife habitats. Mountain goat ranges in the Grand Canyon area would likely be affected." If anyone took the time to look into this, this is one of the last regions where the mountain goats in northern B.C. exist. We come out and say with this kind of quote that the wildlife is going to be affected by this. There are quite a few Tahltans who live in the area that have to exist as guides and outfitters, who go into these areas and have to exist for the mountain goat. Now we come out and say it's going to be affected.

A second quote that I'd like to mention in this publication is this: "However, migration habits and mainstream spawning and rearing could be affected by the upstream flow regulations. There are potential effects on the ecology of the Stikine delta in Alaska, especially in regard to the shellfish and migration of waterfowl."

Now we've never even come up to the Tahltans, who have to exist on this river for their livelihood, and we're coming out with quotes saying that the migration habits of the wildlife are going to be affected by these dams. Then I read other things that say: "Well, you don't have to worry until 1990 because we're not going to do anything until 1990."

The Hydro people that I talked with last week said that there's been an allocation of $20 million spent on this already. I would appreciate it if the minister could tell me if this $20 million has been allocated on something that's not supposed to be built as long as sun still rises.

Another aspect of this before the May 10 election was a telegram that was sent to Governor Hammond of Alaska suggesting that the north side of the Stikine River become a protective transportation corridor. I would like the minister's answer, if he has one, as to exactly what "a protective transportation corridor" means.

It's surprising that with all these things coming out the Tahltans haven't even been told about this. I would appreciate the minister's answers to some of the questions that I've just raised.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In regard to some of the questions that have been raised, maybe I can go back as far as the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem). He mentioned about nuclear power being put on the back burner. I wanted to mention to him that it wasn't this minister that made that statement; it was the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy), who said in Oilweek magazine that we didn't need nuclear power at this time. He didn't say that he was against it. I told him that he was maybe the third person that was involved in the controversy regarding support or non-support of nuclear power. But he may be misquoted; I'm not sure. The Premier has, you recall, contacted the Prime Minister of Canada expressing concern over the possibility of building a nuclear plant at Sedro Woolley in Washington state.

The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) mentioned the possibility of a feasibility study on custom milling or custom smelting, an interesting possibility. We might spend a few dollars just to look at such a thing. The only thing, in initial reaction to your comments, is that the capital cost to build an installation for the milling of the ore to make concentrates would have to be substantial. I'm not sure whether the economics would work out, but it might be an approach for a number of small mines that feel that they'd maybe like to have an organization that could serve a number of them as opposed to looking at Cominco.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) talked about the Revelstoke Dam and the cost overruns. In the preliminary drilling they found marble, if you recall the story. It came down underneath. They did further engineering studies, and it said $30 million additional cost. I don't have the figures on the road in front of me, but I'm sure you're aware that Hydro, in doing its estimates, provides for contingencies. At this particular time they have those contingencies available to cover the $30 million and others. They won't know the total cost and whether there's an over-run or not until all the contracts have been let. I can tell you that the contract that was just let a week or so ago for the dam and the powerhouse came in below the original estimates done by B.C. Hydro. So maybe there's a saving there that will offset some of the additional costs elsewhere.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the Ministry of Highways?

[ Page 479 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: I don't have a response now, but I might get that, Mr. Member, and let you know whether or not we should allow Alex Fraser to advertise up the highway, or whether B.C. Hydro should be paying for it. The highway itself, of course, is a transportation corridor and benefits the general public; as a result, there may be improvements over and above the way it was. Hydro may be having to pay for part of the cost with the ministry picking up the rest. But I don't have that information in front of me at the present time.

On the Kootenay diversion, the funds that are spent, of course, have to be spent in preparing for any application. I think the Premier made a statement in Cranbrook some time ago to the effect that any decision that is made is made by the government of British Columbia regarding a project like that, and he was very emphatic.... I understand, though, that the decision doesn't have to be made. It hasn't proceeded any further, Mr. Member.

The other thing that has come to my attention, Mr. Member, is that this was a Bob Williams project under your administration. He was the man who was going to proceed with it, and you mentioned that if you ever got back into power — or when you got back into power.... I'd be concerned. The people in the area would maybe have to face Bob Williams again, and he wouldn't even give them a chance for input — he'd just go and barrel ahead. So they should keep you out, instead of putting you back in.

I think you mentioned oil ports, and asked which one I would favour because I was familiar with the routes. Well, Mr. Member, when I was made Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources I was well briefed by my staff on all aspects of the ministry, and the various alternatives were not through British Columbia. There's one through Alaska, and the other through the northern United States, et cetera, that was in regard to the briefing of a minister so he would be aware of what was before him. There has been a fair amount of press coverage regarding the various routes, and the discussions they are having in the United States concerning how they are going to get that Alaskan oil to the United States.

The member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) mentioned that the people in the Stikine-Iskut area had not heard anything about this. Well, Mr. Member, we often talk about Hydro doing things and making decisions and not letting the people be aware. That booklet in itself is an indication that Hydro is making available to the people of the province of British Columbia, by the printed word, all the alternatives that face them that they can look at for future power generation in the province.

MR. PASSARELL: Yes, but what about the people who can't read up there?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, Mr. Member, I would assume that you as a representative would certainly be making yourself well informed so you could give some assistance to those people who are less fortunate than we are, who can't read. But at least they put those alternatives on paper.

You mention the salmon and the wildlife, and I agree. That's why the Environment and Land Use Committee and the Ministry of Environment are involved. I've mentioned that under our energy policy we'll be looking at a project review committee to consider the need for and the ramifications of such a project. I can assure you the public will have input in regard to any expenditure such as that.

MR. PASSARELL: I wonder if the minister is aware of the royal proclamation by Queen Victoria, dated 1903, given to the Tahltans, stating that the Stikine River would be left in its natural habitat. Another thing: what is the purpose of building these dams on the Stikine River? Is it to provide power for the people who live out in the bush? Or is it as this quote goes: "Hydroelectric development in the Stikine area would facilitate public access to the scenic and geological features of the basin."? Are we going to put in power dams that are going to affect the livelihoods of people just so some tourist can come up from Vancouver and drive around on the reserve? I'd like those two questions answered.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm not aware of a royal proclamation by Queen Victoria dated 1903. If you have a copy I'd be pleased to see it.

Regarding the purpose of the dam, the primary purpose would be to generate power for the people of the province of British Columbia. Presumably a side benefit to that installation would be the accessibility to the area. To some of the people in the area that may not be a side benefit, but a deterrent. It may be something they would object to very strongly. However. It could be a benefit in that it would create employment for them in that area. It would possibly improve their standard of living. Those are benefits that could be considered. But the prime reason for that would be the need of the province to have power.

MR. KING: I have one last question. When the water licence for the Revelstoke Dam was granted, it was granted as a conditional licence, and the water comptroller at that time at the public hearing gave an indication — in fact it was part of the conditional licence — that Hydro must present to him a satisfactory plan for securing and stabilizing the Downie Creek slide to ensure that there would not be any fast slippage of that slide area into the reservoir.

It remains a matter of some great concern to the residents up there due to the enormity of the slide-mass area. We have heard nothing, no public announcement from either Hydro or the comptroller as to whether or not such a plan has been presented to him, whether he found that plan satisfactory, what the cost of this stabilization plan was, or any other information.

Now, Mr. Chairman, that is a matter that the public is very concerned about. It was the matter that was raised a number of times during the water licence hearing. After receiving that undertaking, I think it's imperative that the public be fully advised of progress with regard to that major slide area.

I should appreciate the minister's cooperation in undertaking, if the information is not available now, to check with Hydro and make sure that there is a public statement regarding the progress that is being made with that plan as soon as possible.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I first want to make a correction. My learned colleague from Oak Bay has advised me that Queen Victoria died in 1901, and therefore she couldn't sign a proclamation in 1903. But that's an aside.

[ Page 480 ]

My information is that the rock bolts in the Downie slide had the desired result. I'm not going to say they're holding, because that would imply that maybe there is some doubt. But the engineers were pleased with the results of the rock bolts that they had to put in the Downie slide.

I don't have the information in front of me, but I would assume that the satisfactory plan had to be placed with the comptroller of water rights. I have to assume that it's been placed. The cost of that I can get for you. I may have it before the afternoon is out.

MR. KING: Would the minister agree to have the comptroller issue a press release or something giving some public information on what the plan is and what stage it is at? That's really what the public is after.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: One very last question the minister didn't answer. This is relating to the proposed 110-mile transmission line from Kitimat to Ocean Falls. There quite obviously must be government involvement in the planning of that proposed transmission line. I wonder if the minister could perhaps give us some times and dates and what the government involvement is in this proposed transmission line to that community of Ocean Falls. Is there a tie-in, for example, Mr. Chairman, with the government and the possible and potential sale of that community of Ocean Falls to the Kruger Corporation? Is there a tie-in with timber allocation? I don't expect you to answer on those things, but there are a whole number of issues involved here. This is a very key point. It's a transmission line that was originally estimated to cost $18 million; the cost has now escalated to a possible $80 million. Perhaps the minister could give us an answer on that project.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, to my knowledge, no agreement has been made on any transmission line. I am advised there has been a study done, but it certainly is not anything that is imminent. It's just a preliminary study, and there's no agreement or near agreement that I am aware of.

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like to comment briefly on the remarks of the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) concerning his interesting proposal that we offer to the United States a quid pro quo on the power they would forgo by not proceeding with their Sedro Woolley project. It is a very interesting proposal and, I think, worthy of some study. But it has within it a certain number of risks. One is that if the United States decides each time to propose a nuclear power plant and Canada immediately jumps in with an offer of power, then the Sedro Woolley proposal could create a dangerous precedent for us. From what the member for Dewdney had to say I got the impression he felt that the Sedro Woolley plant was a fait accompli. In fact construction hasn't started yet. The hearings are still on, and I know the Premier has made representations with regard to that particular development, which is welcomed by all sides in this House. I am quite happy that the Premier has made representations with regard to the Sedro Woolley plant. I'm a little disappointed that it took him two years to do so. That proposal has been on the books for a very long time; nevertheless, even late it's welcome.

The reason I rose to my feet was to deal with this proposal of selling power to the United States to avoid the consequences of nuclear plants on the border. That's something that holds within it the seeds of great danger for this province, which is still energy rich, but not that energy rich that we can afford long-term contracts for renewable power to the United States. Even when you try to cut the length of those power contracts, the United States develops its own infrastructure around that power. It develops its own industries around that power, it develops its own communities around that power, and then you can't cut that power off once you've sent it down. Where the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) and I disagree on his proposals in terms of power sales is that he still hasn't satisfied this House.... Those proponents of the sale of either water or power to the United States have never solved the problem that once it's gone, you can't shut it off.

If you have a long-term view of this country which doesn't just look at the immediate benefit on the sales of that power, but considers the use of this power towards the end of this century, then I think you come to the conclusion that it is premature to be selling power to the United States. In fact, we should be husbanding that power for the use of British Columbia, for the creation of jobs which are so desperately needed, rather than going for the quick buck. I rise merely to warn that the proposal with regard to the Sedro Woolley project is a very dangerous one. What we should be doing is using every bit of muscle we have, in terms of the United States and that particular regulatory agency, to see that the Sedro Woolley plant does not proceed. But don't go down cap in hand saying: "Here's the power, fellows. Now don't build the plant." That would be a very serious mistake, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I'm just going to make a brief comment. In most cases the export of power is a federal matter, and I often wonder why the MP for New Westminster didn't get more involved down in Ottawa and keep them straight down there.

MR. LEGGATT: I was. I'I send you my answers.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The only other comment is that I'd like to know, Mr. Chairman, how you save hydro. How do you save water? Do you build the dam higher and hold it for ten more years so you can use it up here? The NDP in Manitoba seem to have had a slight problem with overbuild. They built without a customer, and as a result they are trying to find markets for their hydroelectric energy. But the building was done under the NDP administration.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, would the minister mind filing with the House a report that was done on the Site 1 power project, regarding steel liners? I believe the steel was purchased in Russia, and there was a problem with that steel, and a report was done on it. Will the minister file that report with the House. Could the minister undertake to get a copy of that report and file it with the House in the interest of accountability, public information and sweetness and light?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 75 pass?

MR. KING: No, Mr. Chairman. I think the minister was going to get up and answer my question.

[ Page 481 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: I just said, Mr. Chairman, I'I look into it. I'm not aware of it and I'I look into it.

Vote 75 approved.

Vote 76: general administration, $1,321,106 — approved.

Vote 77: British Columbia Energy Commission, $2,123,499 — approved.

Vote 78: mineral resources branch, $4,651,457 — approved.

Vote 79: petroleum resources branch, $1,502,161 — approved.

Vote 80: Grants and Subsidies Program, $588,500 — approved.

Vote 81: Mineral Road Program, $700,000 — approved.

On vote 82: Prospectors' Assistance Program, $277,919.

MR. KING: I wonder about that mineral claim that was authorized — I don't think it's mining, but for prospecting for uranium in the Adams River. Could the minister give me any information on what his reaction is to that grant? I believe it's a federal government permit for mining uranium. What association or advice will we have to the national authority with respect to the mining of uranium in an area that's mainly sensitive for its fishery?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The Atomic Energy Commission issues permits for uranium exploration. But if there is any drilling to be done, they have to get a 1011 permit from my ministry. We have an inquiry into uranium mining, as you're well aware. This will certainly give us some of the answers we're all looking for in regard to the protection of the environment as well as the safety of the workers and the people in the area.

MR. KING: Will the minister undertake to advise the public before any application for drilling is dealt with by his ministry, so that there can be full public input into the question of mining for uranium in the Adams River area?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The confusion seems to lie in this permit for exploration. A 1011 permit allows companies to explore for any mineral, to drill for any mineral. So for the drilling for uranium they are asked by my ministry if it is a specific they are going after. In many cases they are drilling for other minerals, not just uranium. If they are drilling specifically for uranium, then the site and the area are monitored, and the drill holes are sealed, et cetera.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, I would like to apologize to the minister and the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Smith). Checking up on it, I find they are right; the Queen had died before that. But what happened was that the proclamation, made before then, was dated in 1903 and it finally arrived in Telegraph Creek in a covered wagon two years ago. [Laughter.] So thank you very much.

MR. SKELLY: One of the questions I asked the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources on Thursday last was how many AECB surface exploration permits had been issued and were current in British Columbia, and on how many of the areas covered by those permits had the minister authorized the 1011 permits for drilling uranium or thorium?

HON. MR. HEWITT: As of last May, I believe, 19 permits were issued by the Atomic Energy Commission. There has been none since then. I'm not sure of the number of drilling permits we've issued they come in all the time.

MR. SKELLY: So you don't keep separate statistics showing drilling permits on over surface exploration permits issued by the Atomic Energy Control Board? There is no correlation between those at all?

HON. MR. HEWITT: If they apply for a drilling permit they are asked if they're drilling for uranium. It they have an Atomic Energy Control Board permit, that's separate from ours. I don't have the figures in front of me. I could find out for you how many permits specifically relate to uranium — that's no problem.

MR. SKELLY: One of the problems with the uranium inquiry, Mr. Chairman, has been that the people appearing before the inquiry are having difficulty getting information from the mining companies as to what kind of work has been done, and whether or not they have conformed with the health requirements of the surface exploration permits. For example, Norcen Energy Resources has told the people appearing before the inquiry that they will have to check through their lawyers to try to get that information, even though the information is required to be filed with the Atomic Energy Control Board.

It's extremely difficult to get information out of the inquiry on these very matters, so I hope the minister can table that kind of information before the Legislature as well. Has the necessary information from these surface exploration permits, where drilling is allowed, been tabled with the Atomic Energy Control Board?

MR. HANSON: I would like to ask a question of the minister regarding the Purcell wilderness conservancy. I understand there are mining permits within the conservancy and that those are subject to renewal. I think there were claims within the conservancy when it was established in 1974. Can you give me an answer regarding the present status of those claims? They're subject to one-year renewal, as I understand it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are on the Prospectors' Assistance Program. I'm not sure that your question is appropriate under this, but perhaps the minister wishes to answer.

HON. MR. HEWITT: If I may, Mr. Chairman. I am advised that there are none in the Purcell wilderness conservancy. We can double-check, and I can let you know, but I am advised by my deputy minister that there are none there.

[ Page 482 ]

MR. HANSON: I would appreciate getting a response on that. I would also like to know, if they are being extended year by year, why they are being extended if it is a conservancy.

HON. MR. HEWITT: My deputy minister advised me that we've had a mineral reserve on the Purcell wilderness conservancy since it was created. Now I'm not sure if there were claims on before, but I would assume they wouldn't be renewed. They would have expired and there would be no claims. If there's a reserve on, no new claims can be filed. I'I check into it and let you know.

Vote 82 approved.

Vote 83: Mineral Research Program, $63,600 — approved.

Vote 84: Mineral Data Program, $399,123 — approved.

Vote 85: Mineral Employment Program, $60,000 — approved.

Vote 86: Energy Resource Evaluation Program, $551,225 — approved.

Vote 87: building occupancy charges, $1,225,000 — approved.

On vote 88: computer and consulting charges, $352,960.

MR. HANSON: We're going so quickly through these votes, but there is one question I would like to ask of the minister. I think it is probably not the appropriate time, because we slipped down through the votes, but has there been consideration given in your ministry to paleontology, to some recording of the fossil record? I realize the money is in the fossil fuels.

However, we're quickly destroying the fossil record in the province. I'm sure the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) would have some understanding of this. Recently fossils have come to light regarding the oldest bird remains known to man, and it seems that B.C. Is quickly doing away with millions of years of geological history.

I wondered whether you had given any consideration, either through discussions with the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr Curtis) or within your own ministry, to having someone concerned with the recording, the inventory, the preservation, the designation of sites, and so on, of the fossil record.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Ecological reserves are established by the Ministry of Environment or Lands, Parks and Housing, where they identify heritage sites — well, that's not true — where there are special species of flora or fauna or where there are fossils, et cetera. They designate those and protect them against any mining operation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not really appropriate under this vote.

MR. HANSON: I'I watch the members more carefully next time. The minister didn't quite answer my question; I understand the ecological reserves tend to look at a number of attributes and once they get the ministries to agree, then they designate, and they don't designate very often.

My point is specifically the fossil record which would come under your portfolio. B.C. is in the unenviable position of being one of the few places in North America that does not have a paleontologist working for the provincial government. There is no provincial paleontologist working in the Provincial Museum. There is no one charged with the responsibility. It does mention it in the Heritage Act. However, through the natural sciences, it is something that should be looked at seriously, soon. That information is going by the board. It is non-renewable and some government, irrespective of politics, should be taking a look at it because it will be lost forever.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Thanks very much, Mr. Member. I will review Hansard and maybe do a little bit of research into it to see whether or not we should take some action along that line.

Vote 88 approved.

ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

On vote 19: minister's office, $145,623.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I do feel a little bad hearing the former conversation. It was referring to fossils, and I'm the next speaker, which puts me in somewhat of an embarrassing position.

Firstly, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a few opening remarks. Perhaps this could be a message to those cabinet ministers who are in their own quarters, those who will be producing bills tonight. It would be appreciated if they could come to the House. There's a strong comment to follow.

I'd like to offer some congratulations, some commiserations and, indeed, some welcomes. I presume that pretty well everybody in the House has now recognized that there are really only two people for whom much appreciation is ever expressed, and that's the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker. I guess that's only perhaps by virtue of your meteoric rise to office within the chamber, notwithstanding the lineup at the golden gate for the job was a little less than impressive. One must conclude, Mr. Chairman, that the plaudits are either a remarkable tribute to the capacities of yourself and the Speaker or, as is more likely, ready, willing and able kamikaze pilots aren't that easy to come by these days.

I would very much congratulate and commiserate with each of you, and say as a member — and this is my first opportunity to make these remarks — that I hope we'I endeavour to do what we can to make this old job and all of our jobs in here more effective and pleasant throughout. In return, Mr. Chairman, we only would anticipate simple reciprocity and perhaps an accession at all times to all of our points, be they of order, of privilege, of urgency and importance, or whatever. I guess here endeth the lesson on Nirvana.

I would like to say how do you do to the new members and welcome them to this club. It's quite a bit different from the YMCA, as Rosemary would tell you; a little different

[ Page 483 ]

from the YWCA, as Walter would tell you. In fact, Mr. Chairman, it's the only club you'I ever belong to where you'I struggle to get in, struggle when you're there, and then find the members struggling to get you out. I don't think the Martians would ever believe it.

So to the new members, I bid the heartiest of welcomes, and particularly to those who are already suffering early withdrawal from reality and the beginning symptoms of what-the-heck-am-l-here-for. I suppose the greatest recognition would be to the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), who's just come into the House now. He was, of course, the most pressure-cookered in arriving here. I would like to say on his behalf, and to all of our new members, it's good to have you aboard on all sides of the House.

I would like, Mr. Chairman, to make one comment about the old members who are no longer with us, and to name one to convey our respects to all of them, and that was the predecessor of the member for Atlin, Mr. Frank Calder. He had the notable distinction of many firsts in here during his outstanding time of service and representation. He always spoke up very strongly for his constituency, and he had friends on all sides of the House and in all parliaments.

Mr. Chairman, I was going to send you a memorandum to pass along to the Speaker, but when I started to dictate it I got a little distracted by one of the members of the Fourth Estate who was shimmying up the drain pipe to ask me whether a judgment that was handed down this morning in Transylvania which authorized the vivisection of journalists would become B.C. policy, and whether a bill would be introduced in this session, and if that were the case would he have time between nominee contradictions to file his last story.

The suggestion on my part, Mr. Chairman, was that the new should meet the old. There are very many members retired from this assembly — members of all sizes, faiths and political directions — who have made great contributions to public life in this province and have helped to make B.C. as pleasant and thriving a place as it is. I think we should have something along the lines of a day of homecoming — I'm using those words very, very loosely — for the B.C. Legislative Assembly alumni of all sides, together with the gallery notables. I think we should ask them at least once a parliament to join us with an evening of information, discussion, debate, dinner and refreshment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would they come?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I think they would come, and I think we owe it to them. I think, quite frankly, we could have rather an interesting evening, Mr. Member.

You know, we could hear from Mr. Bonner. He could readily reminisce as to how he stunted Mr. Barrett's political career by firing him. Or the former NDP Whip, Mr. Leo Nimsick, could finally reveal the true cause of the greatest split in the history of the NDP, and that was the quarrel over who didn't pay for the egg rolls at the annual caucus dinner. We used to call him Old Cash-Register Eyes, and I think he quite appreciated that comment.

On the other side of the House we could have Wes Black, and he could either claim originality or reveal the true authorship of his oft-stated profundities: "Bores will be bores" or "Rome wasn't built in a day." Some of the old members will remember Mr. Black often speaking like that.

Oh, and the former Speaker, Mr. Dowding, could recant in living colour the state reception for the French Ambassador and inform us Who Ordered the Mace to be Lit in the Procession From the Dais to the Golden Gate.

Gordon Gibson Jr. could tell us a few things. You remember Gordon would always sort of speak like this, and when he got his thumbs stuck in his galoshes he became speechless. We've not yet found out the reason why, and he could reveal that.

Or we could ask former Deputy Speaker Herb Bruch, whom the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) can well remember, and Mr. Bruch could readily tell us how exactly he had the skill of restoring havoc in the midst of calm during a committee.

Or Scotty Wallace could detail his concept of speech protocols: "I wasn’t going to say anything, Mr. Speaker; however, on a point of principle...." And then he would launch off.

This is the story of old Gordon Gibson, and he was four years in the Liberal caucus. One night he took a look at the six and a half feet of B.C. statutes and he asked Ray Perrault: "You know, Ray, I've been in here for three and a half years and I've always seen them books. What's in them?" But that was after four years.

Then we have the member who, after a very long evening — we probably will be getting close to that this evening — drew the attention of the Speaker to the clock. Then he later demanded to know why the clock responded "Cuckoo! Cuckoo! Cuckoo!"

The story I like best of all is about Frank Ney, and this was remarked from the official opposition, as it then was. Mr. Ney was talking about conservation and urban sprawl in Nanaimo. He said: "Mr. Speaker, we no longer have any wildlife. They're all gone. Where have they gone? Where have the wolves gone?" That was followed by the quick response from that side of the House: "Into real estate."

Ray Williston one day called my colleague, the good doctor, an economic quack, and perhaps we could have the good doc tell us what caused him to take it to heart and in the older days produce a budget.

Bob Strachan could tell us how he got confused at the NDP leadership convention and why he thought the way to spell David Barrett was "Bob Williams."

Or finally John Tisdalle might at last say that his refusal in the House to explain the ad theorem was because he thought there was a letter in between the two.

To conclude, we could have Phil Gaglardi say grace and we could have Grace say Phil Gaglardi.

It would be a very anecdotal evening. I remember sitting where the member for Vancouver South was when I had just been in the House for the better part of four days and the former Premier was delivering quite a talk. Whenever he wished to vet a breath he would look down his ranks and the applause was absolutely thunderous. This particular day he was lacing into the opposition, going through their history of socialism and they were this kind of socialists and that kind of socialists. And he'd look down — you couldn't really hear what he was saying — so I thought: "Well, my goodness me, apart from anything else, one is elected to come to this assembly to hear what is going on." So I stood up as the new boy, got the attention of the Speaker and I said, "Those are extremely interesting remarks. Mr. Speaker, but it would be greatly appreciated if the Social Credit back bench would restrain themselves a little so we

[ Page 484 ]

could hear what the Premier has to say." Well, the Premier at that point forgot the NDP immediately. I was a Liberal in those days, and he just turned on the Liberals and he gave them every barrel that you could think of. He damned them from the days that Laurier was a pup to Expo, back and forth, and I was sort of looking over my desk like that hiding behind the trenches and I got a message. It was delivered by a Page, and a Social Credit backbencher said: "Dear Garde: This will teach you to think that you have the right to hear what our Premier has to say." So I learned a lesson fairly quickly.

Hon. members, I will open these debates with a short statement at 8:30, but at this point, Mr. Chairman, I would very much like to report resolutions and ask leave to sit again. .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just prior to putting the question, I might remind all members that the scope of debate is always determined by the minister who leads off his estimates. [Laughter.]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Introduction of Bills

NEW WESTMINSTER
REDEVELOPMENT ACT, 1979

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled New Westminster Redevelopment Act, 1979.

Bill 21 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.

EDUCATION STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

Hon. Mr. McGeer presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Education Statutes Amendment Act, 1979.

Bill 18 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.

PROVINCIAL HOMEOWNER GRANT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Provincial Homeowner Grant Amendment Act, 1979.

Bill 19 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.

Presenting Reports

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented the audited financial statements for the year ending March 31, 1979, of the British Columbia Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority.

Hon. Mr. Mair presented the report of the British Columbia Ministry of Environment for the year ended December 31, 1978.

Hon. Mr. Phillips moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.