[ Page 6485 ]

CONTENTS

Vancouver And Cowichan School Districts Restoration of Democracy Act (Bill M215).

Mr. Rose

Introduction and first reading  –– 6485

Tabling Documents –– 6486

Oral Questions

Fresh-Water Export. Mrs. Wallace –– 6486

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Skelly

Pesticide control inspectors. Mr. Skelly –– 6487

Okanagan red crape growers. Ms. Sanford –– 6487

Expo 86 Corporation president. Mr. MacWilliam –– 6488

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates. (Hon. A. Fraser)

On vote 67: minister's office –– 6488

Mr. Davis

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Rose

Mrs. Johnston

Mr. Howard

Industrial Electricity Rate Discount Act (Bill 28). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 6502

Mr. D'Arcy –– 6503

Mr. Lauk –– 6504

Mr. Williams –– 6505

Mrs. Wallace –– 6506

Mr. Davis –– 6507

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 6507

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

(Hon. Mr. Rogers)

On vote 22: minister's office –– 6508

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Mr. Lockstead

THURSDAY, JUNE 6, 1985

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House — and hope the House will welcome them — two great school trustees from the constituency of Dewdney: Sophie Weremchuk and Karen Linden. I hope the House will greet them.

HON. MR. PELTON: I think it might be very appropriate if I also welcome particularly Sophie Weremchuk to the chamber this afternoon, since I became quite well acquainted with her in the beginning of 1983.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, seated in your gallery this afternoon are two very fine people, Mr. John Woods and Mrs. Margaret Woods. John is the president of the Burnaby North Social Credit Constituency Association. He ran as alderman, and I understand he's going to run again in the next municipal election.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I am pleased to introduce to the House visitors from the state of South Australia: the Hon. Dr. Bruce Eastick and Mrs. Eastick. Would the House please welcome these honoured guests.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce Mr. Gordon Lang, who is in the gallery today. He is the owner and manager, I believe, of Eagle Power and Engineering Ltd., which is an oil treatment firm. He is located in Cassidy, just north of my constituency. I'd like the House to welcome him.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the gallery today are representatives of the Insurance Agents' Association: Mr. Harry Geddes, president; Mr. Barry Armes, immediate past president; Mr. Jack Lewis; Mr. Conrad Speirs; Derek Francis; and Bill Brown. I'd ask the House to bid these gentlemen welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm very pleased today to introduce the House to a member of one of the North Shore constituencies, Mrs. Jessie Cunliffe, and her friend from England, Mrs. Elizabeth Williams. I want you to know that Mrs. Cunliffe, is an outstanding British Columbian who has lived in all parts of our province but has contributed greatly to the northern part of our province. I'd like all members of the House to welcome this great British Columbian and her friend Mrs. Williams.

Introduction of Bills

VANCOUVER AND COWICHAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS
RESTORATION OF DEMOCRACY ACT

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of standing order 48(1 ) to introduce a bill to restore the elected school boards in Vancouver and Cowichan, entitled the Vancouver and Cowichan School Districts Restoration of Democracy Act. May I have two moments to explain the nature of this bill?

MR. SPEAKER: You are entitled to two minutes, hon. member.

MR. ROSE: Recently, Mr. Speaker, the minister fired the elected trustees and ordered an official trustee to impose a budget on each of these districts. Now that this has been done, the local trustees should be brought back and the official trustees terminated. This would put Vancouver and Cowichan in the same position as those boards who initially filed non-compliance budgets but are currently administering the Heinrich-imposed budgets.

The official trustees are not doing a proper job for those communities: public board meetings get cancelled; meetings are convened in secret, without public notice; public question periods are cut short and motions passed because the Chair announces them without discussion. Under the School Act this is all perfectly legal, but it's certainly neither acceptable nor democratic.

The minister has indicated, Mr. Speaker, that he had no legal means to reinstate the fired trustees. This bill provides the legal means to do so.

I would like to introduce the bill for first reading.

MR. SPEAKER: A division has been called, although the bells have not yet been rung. The member seeks a point of order now. If it is in regard to the division, hon. member, the point of order may be heard, but if it is on a point of order other than that, it can be heard at the conclusion of the division.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS –– 40

NAYS — 2

MR. MICHAEL: On the point of order raised earlier, Mr. Speaker, would this bill also apply to all the local unions in British Columbia that have been placed under trusteeship by international unions for failure to abide by the rules and regulations of their parent bodies?

[2:15]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 6486 ]

Hon. members, the Chair must at this time advise that while we have not yet had occasion to bring forth any specific ruling on limitations or otherwise during the two-minute introductory period allowed for a bill, we have not done so because it has, up to this point, not been necessary. Clearly, when the introduction aspect of a bill becomes debate, imports argument and in fact and in essence becomes part of second reading, the Chair is obliged to take a look at that, and will do so and bring back what will, hopefully, be a little more guideline interpretation for members, so that they will not stray from the clear intention of the committee that brought forward those same recommendations.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order, hon. member, on an observation by the Chair. If the member has a further observation...?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, was that a point of order?

MR. SPEAKER: No.

We are in the process of business at this time, hon. member, which now carries to the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose).

Bill M215 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.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt tabled the 1984 annual report of the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

Oral Questions

FRESH-WATER EXPORT

MRS. WALLACE: My question is to the Minister of Environment. On March 22 that minister signed an order-in-council setting fees payable for commercial bulk export of B.C. water via marine transport vessels. Can the minister confirm that he has received an application to export 9,000 acre-feet of water under this schedule from Freil Creek in Hotham Sound?

HON. MR. PELTON: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. WALLACE. A further question to the minister. Has he made any review of the effect that the removal of this amount of fresh water will have on the salinity of the sea water in the area under consideration?

HON. MR. PELTON: The application is under review.

MRS. WALLACE: Perhaps this will also get a laugh from the Socred back-benchers. Has the minister decided to hold public hearings before approving the application?

HON. MR. PELTON: The answer is no.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the same minister. Can the minister advise this House why he did not intervene on the issuance of this licence prior to environmental studies being conducted? The minister will recall that on May 15 of this year the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing issued a licence of occupation to Mr. Beach. I wonder if the minister could advise this House why environmental studies were not....

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

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Are you talking to me? I thought you were talking to him.

MR. SPEAKER: That's one of the best explanations we've had so far, hon. member. Nonetheless, the Minister of Finance has risen on a point of order.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention rules which have been standing for a long while in this House with respect to question period.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you know about rules? Come on, you're eating the clock.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I hope I'm not intruding in the time allocated for question period, but if I might finish, my point is that it seems to me that occasionally questions such as the one by the member for Mackenzie contain a lengthy statement — no question.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, as the Chair has stated on numerous occasions, if we were to interpret strictly the rules applying in question period, we would have very few questions. Nonetheless, it is desirable to follow some guidelines.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A question to the Minister of Environment. Will the minister assure this House that environmental studies will be undertaken prior to that project at Freil Lake Falls and Hotham Sound proceeding?

HON. MR. PELTON: Applications for the bulk export of water discharging to the ocean from coastal streams are being received and will be judged on their individual merits. Part of the test that will be applied will be environmental impacts and other land-use concerns and such other things as whether the water might be surplus to local requirements. I think that should answer the member's question.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: To the same minister. The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing has already assured myself and this House that environmental impact studies will be undertaken, but you're the minister in charge. I want to tell you, Mr. Minister, the company has already publicly stated that they are going to be dumping ballast and bilgewater in Georgia Strait. So I am asking the minister to assure this House that environmental studies will be undertaken. Can you advise the House?

HON. MR. PELTON: A licence hasn't been issued yet, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister advised me that he has not decided to hold hearings. Will he advise me whether he has decided not to hold public hearings?

[ Page 6487 ]

HON. MR. PELTON: My previous answer answered that question, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SKELLY: Does the ministry have a policy with respect to the export of fresh water from the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. PELTON: I think I said previously, Mr. Speaker, that each of the applications, or any application that is received, will be judged on its individual merits, and the parameters which will be used to judge these applications, I would suggest, are policies that relate to those particular applications.

MR. SKELLY: Supplementary to the minister. Would the minister be willing to table with this House the parameters that he's talking about, or is he saying that water licences for export will be issued on a haphazard basis?

HON. MR. PELTON: I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition is assuming something that hasn't happened yet. We have not issued any licences to this point in time, and I did state, and I state again with all sincerity, that each one of these applications will be judged on its individual merit. That is the policy.

MR. SKELLY: I can only assume that what the minister is saying is that there is no policy, that it will be done on a haphazard basis, and he's unwilling to table the parameters with this House.

PESTICIDE CONTROL INSPECTORS

MR. SKELLY: I have another question to the Minister of Environment, if I may. The minister was responding to questions about pesticides in the House yesterday. Will the minister advise the House how many pesticide control inspectors are employed by his ministry to handle duties assigned under section 9 of the Pesticide Control Act?

HON. MR. PELTON: Knowing what a horrendous error it would be to mislead this House, I will take that question as notice and bring the answer back as soon as possible.

MR. SKELLY: I'll assist the minister, possibly. Will the minister confirm that in the whole of British Columbia there are four pesticide control inspectors operating in the field under section 9 of the act?

HON. MR. PELTON: The very moment that I know that is a fact, I will confirm it.

MR. SKELLY: I'm willing to believe anything the minister says, if he says anything to the House. He very seldom reports to the House with any knowledge about his ministry at all.

MR. SPEAKER: Question, please.

MR. SKELLY: It would be helpful to know some of the things about that member's ministry.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SKELLY: Methinks they protest too much.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: In response to a number of questions yesterday, the minister gave the following phrases in his answer: "I would think it prudent to wait"; "I would like to wait until the investigation is completed"; "I really don't consider myself in a position to give any answers"; "I would like to give that assurance, but I'm not in any position." My question is, does this minister know anything at all about the Ministry of Environment and about the serious concerns in the province around pesticides, pollution, sewage disposal? This minister seems to know nothing about the ministry....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, it is not the intention of the Chair to have any member take his place in question period, but when a question becomes a a statement, clearly the Chair has no alternative but to intervene. I am reluctant to do so, but I will if the members cannot follow the very simple guidelines which apply to this very brief 15 minute period.

OKANAGAN RED GRAPE GROWERS

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Okanagan red grape growers are threatened with losing this year's crop, worth about $3 million, because a majority of the B.C. wineries have cancelled their contracts to purchase red grapes. What steps has the minister taken to assist growers — who entered into this industry on the encouragement of the government — to dispose profitably of this year's surplus of red grapes?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Several months ago when concern was expressed about a surplus of red wine, and therefore a problem for the grape growers with this year's crop, we established a task force with representatives of the wineries, the growers, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and my ministry. That task force's work is ongoing. With regard to the force majeur which has been put into place by the wineries to indicate they may not accept the grapes this year, as recently as this morning I had reported to me that the wineries and grape growers have had discussions and they may be in agreement. They're both looking at the results of that meeting, and they may reach an agreement which will allow for the force majeur to be withdrawn and the contract to be maintained. But I wouldn't want the member to think the problem has gone away. It hasn't. It may still be something that has to be dealt with; it depends. But I can tell you that the grape growers and wineries are discussing the problem.

Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to say that the changes in liquor policy that we brought in dealing with the wine shops, the wine stores that will now be coming into being, are an effort on our part to encourage the marketing of B.C. products to maintain that grape-growing industry in the province and the B.C. wine industry.

MS, SANFORD: We're having a lot of meetings, but I don't know that we're getting much resolved here; nor is the

[ Page 6488 ]

government assisting those grape growers very much, based on that answer.

Mr. Speaker, the contracts that have been cancelled and the minister reports about meetings that were taking place this morning — indicate that some of the wineries may in fact be willing to change their minds, but the information that I have is that most of them are not. Now I am wondering if the minister has agreed to reapply the regulations which applied before 1977 to restrict the importation of grapes by the B.C. wineries to 20 percent of the total grape purchases.

[2:30]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the 80-20 formula has always been in existence over the past years, and the flexibility was that, provided the wineries took all the crop, they could import raw product or concentrate to meet the demands for their product. They have done that. They have lived up to that commitment up to this point. There has not been a grape grower who has not been able to sell his grapes to a winery up until this particular point, and of course the crop won't come in until this fall.

I can assure the member that I and the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) will do everything possible to make sure that the grape growers are treated fairly; we must also recognize the marketplace and the problems that the wineries have as well. They're both B.C. industries which we support very strongly.

EXPO 86 CORPORATION PRESIDENT

MR. MacWILLIAM: In the strange absence of the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond), I'll direct a question to the parliamentary secretary. Yesterday the Minister of Tourism confirmed that he was unwilling to intervene in a matter of considerable public importance involving the dismissal of the president of Expo Corporation. Yet he was willing to intervene on behalf of the participation of the auto club. Why is the minister refusing to accept responsibility for the wrongdoings involving the misuse of considerable public funds? Why is the minister not even here in the House to answer to those questions? Where is he and what is he hiding?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question was in order; it is no longer in order. The bell terminates question period.

Hon. members, the member for Mackenzie has advised the Chair that he wishes to rise on a...

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Point of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: ...matter of privilege.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, during the course of question period, the hon. Minister of Environment made the statement: "No licence has been issued." May I, Mr. Speaker, just point out to you correspondence that I received from the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, which states: "Enclosed herewith is a licence of occupation, No: 232354, covering all the foreshore....." It goes on to explain the acreage involved, the terms and the fees for the licence. "The purpose of this licence is to ship and transport fresh water out of Freil Falls, British Columbia, to offshore markets." I'll be pleased to table this.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it would be appreciated if it would at least be forwarded to the Chair so we can have an opportunity to examine it.

Hon. member, I will undertake to bring a response back. Thank you.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

(continued)

On vote 67: minister's office, $224,728.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I have a few concluding remarks. They deal first with the Motor Carrier Act, and secondly with the Dollarton highway in my constituency.

The Motor Carrier Act as it stands now was passed in the 1930s. It was passed....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please, hon. members. Could we please have order. The member has taken his place and should be given every parliamentary courtesy to allow him to continue in debate uninterrupted, so that other members might hear him.

Further, I'll remind the hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour that debate during Committee of Supply does not allow for discussion regarding legislation or the necessity for legislation. I'm sure the member is aware of that and will relate his remarks to the administrative actions and functions of the ministry. The member for North Vancouver–Seymour continues.

MR. DAVIS: Re the Motor Carrier Act, Mr. Chairman, I understand that studies have been undertaken in the ministry to determine what changes may be desirable to that 1930s legislation in order to effectively deregulate the trucking industry and encourage competition, particularly in large areas like the lower mainland region. This is highly desirable. I'm sure that rates will be lower. There will be more private operators functioning in the province than if the current legislation continues to be in effect, and I'm all for change in that area.

The emphasis, in my view, should be on vehicle safety. We shouldn't be regulating rates, digging into costs and setting rates; we should be broadening the categories of carriage in that very important industry.

The Dollarton highway on the North Shore is still classed as a provincial highway. It reaches from the north end of the Second Narrows Bridge to Deep Cove. It should be turned over to the municipality, and it should be turned over in good condition. It's narrow, the shoulders are inadequate. There should be sidewalks in some areas. There is a substantial pedestrian hazard there at the present time. I hope that as a result of an agreement with the corporation of the district of North Vancouver, that section of provincial highway could be upgraded to modern standards and that it could then be turned over to the municipality with no further obligation on the part of the province. That's a matter of some priority because of

[ Page 6489 ]

possible loss of life, particularly the lives of young children who are currently walking on the very narrow fringe of that highway.

Finally, with respect to the approaches to the Second Narrows Bridge on the North Shore, some fine work has been done. A new crossing has been built substantially by the provincial ministry over the Seymour River, and the interconnector at the Coach House has been improved. There is further need for improvement in that area, particularly the very hazardous exchange between Keith Road and the Trans-Canada Highway in that general vicinity. I hope that, along with the Cassiar connector, those improvements will be given high priority by the ministry.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, I'm on my feet again to make my annual request to the Minister of Highways to come to his senses and finally restore mandatory car-testing for the people of British Columbia. This minister is showing the same stubbornness and obstinacy about the restoring of vehicle testing as he did with the testing restraints in the cars for children. He had to be literally dragged, screaming and kicking, to change his mind about the importance of that.

I would like to say to the minister: I'm pleased to see that one of his own government members has also stood in this House today, finally — I think he said something before, in letters to the editor; give him credit for that — and asked for some restoration. But I think it's shameful that there's only one government member over there who has ever stood on his feet and demanded that we have the return of mandatory testing.

I know that the minister, in answering earlier remarks from our debate leader, said.... I have the Hansard here in front of me. He's implying that in different states surveys have been made, and they're not sure whether there is any real effect on the accident rate, of having the testing stations. He says in the United States they can't tie the two together. I ask the minister to table those reports, for the benefit of the members of this House. We are dealing in the dark. This minister has not given us any statistics. He makes these statements, saying we don't have to worry: "Leave it up to me. Everything's all right." Everything is not all right.

I know that the minister can stand up and say to the members of this House: "Well, my statistics show that there has been a decrease in traffic accidents since the motor vehicle stations were closed." Let me point out to the minister that there is a major decrease also in the number of people — particularly in that age where there were many accidents, between 16 and 20 — who can now afford even to drive a car.

I want to tell the minister that the economic downturn and its consequences have to take major credit in the whole of North America for the traffic injuries and deaths being down. It's a tragedy, isn't it, that we have to say that the recession has done something good. Unfortunately, it's a very twisted way to look at it. Let us hope, though, that this recession will gradually improve, although I'm afraid we'll have to wait for the restoration of the NDP government for that. I can assure you that one of the first moves of an NDP government would be to restore the testing, because we believe in saving the lives of the people of this province.

That minister has just given us some vague replies to our concerns. May I point out that it is not just the members of the opposition who are concerned about the fact that this government stubbornly refuses to reopen those stations. The B.C. Automobile Association, which represents 415,000 drivers, has come out and called on the government to restore testing stations. Even ICBC thinks — and has said prior to the closing — that it would mean an increase in damage claims. At the time, of course, they were not aware of the terrible recession which this province would find itself in, primarily because of the economic policies of the government. Other groups across the province have asked for the restoration of the stations, including — and this is interesting, Mr. Chairman — the police chiefs of British Columbia. They too, the people who deal every day with these problems, have said we need to have it restored: yet that minister is showing obstinacy in the face of the concerns of thousands of people in this province, and refuses to restore them.

I am saying to the minister: even though you can stand up and reply and show your statistics, those statistics must be taken in relation to the economic downturn. Changes in traffic accident casualties have paralleled the fluctuations in the employment rate; that's something I would like the minister to be aware of. This trend has been consistent over the last few years. The impact of these factors in casualty accident reduction was particularly marked among the 16-to-20 age group.

There is one area where I do agree with the minister, and I think he stated it earlier: alcohol certainly is also a major cause. But there isn't one person in this Legislature who drives a car, as we all do, who doesn't go down the road, back and forth wherever your work takes you, without noting the number of junk cars that are on the road today. Cars can come at us at nighttime with a light missing. I've talked to garage station owners who say they have never seen so many cars come in for their gas which should not be on the road. There is no way, except for some casual checking when the minister decides to put on a blitz and have some spot checking done.... That is not good enough. I want to say to the minister that you owe it to the people of British Columbia to do something about this now, and I ask you once again to restore mandatory motor vehicle testing in the province of British Columbia.

[2:45]

MR. MACDONALD: I would yield to the minister in my few remarks if he would reply to the member for Burnaby North, who has accused him of ox-like stubbornness — and very legitimately so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, hon. member, we're really making personal references now, and I'm sure that in terms of parliamentary courtesy we could avoid such reference.

MR. MACDONALD: I suppose the English language will gradually disappear out of legislatures, but some of us will try to keep it alive, Mr. Chairman.

I asked the minister what.... I've looked through his yellow book here, and I'm asking particularly about Vancouver East. I'll be brief. Maybe it's my eyesight, but out of a projected $650 million that is going to be spent. I can't find anything for the Cassiar-Trans-Canada interconnect. We've been talking about it now for what? Three or four years at least. Either it's the city dragging its feet or the planning body dragging its feet, or it's a question of the tunnel or the open cut, or just an improved highway.

So I ask the minister to tell me what he is doing about this. There is apparently no authorization in these estimates for

[ Page 6490 ]

expenditure at the present time. He knows what I'm talking about, so I leave it there. Is anything happening?

HON. A. FRASER: I should go back here — maybe back to front. To the member for Vancouver East, I did report this morning where the Cassiar corridor was at. It is still in the study stage. In March, after all the public hearings, I wrote a letter to Vancouver city council giving our position, and it was acknowledged by the city that they'd get back to us within two months, which is just about now. That's where it's at. I think we're close to making agreements so we can get on and do some work — that's my version of it — but I have to wait for the city coming back.

I appreciate the remarks of the member for Burnaby North, but I of course don't agree with them; that is, our government is not going to restore testing stations. We're hopefully going to have a new system in for commercial vehicles. I don't know whether we can get it in before the end of this year because we've been dealing with industry, but we will improve on that. Of course, in the meantime we've stepped up our vehicle inspection throughout the province with roadside inspections. That's one thing I personally had against the motor vehicle inspection stations: they only covered part of the province. At least with the roadside inspections we definitely cover the whole province. As a matter of fact, I've had criticism that now we've gone too far the other way, and the roadside inspections are too frequent and too tough.

Dealing with the Dollarton Highway — to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) — we're just now starting discussions with the North Vancouver district council. In these estimates that member discussed things that have already been discussed here in estimates. Taxi licensing has been discussed, the Motor Carrier Act — which apparently we're not supposed to talk about — the ferry crossing from Point Grey to Gabriola Island, the Cassiar connector that the member for Vancouver East has brought up. That member also mentioned inspection of motor vehicles. I think that covers what we've had up till now in fast replies. I think that covers the items that have been covered by the members.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, once again I'm very disappointed. I had hoped that the minister might have a more open mind this year. But I want to bring to his attention that even to suggest that spot checking, no matter how you try to improve it to some degree, could ever take the place of annual mandatory testing is absolutely ridiculous, Mr. Minister. I asked the minister if he would give us some statistics to prove that....

In the United States they're saying that nothing has really proved that mandatory motor vehicle testing makes any difference. For his information, I would like to read into Hansard a report from the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., January — I haven't got the date here. I think it said January. I regret to say I don't have the date. "It has been proven that vehicle defects do cause accidents. Since inspection can identify and require the repair of defects, inspection can reduce the number and/or the severity of accidents." That is from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

I'm just saying to the minister that with the stroke of a pen and with very little money — when you compare the amount of money that this government spends on what we consider very questionable projects — you could improve the traffic health and safety of the people of British Columbia. I say to you again: can you not put aside whatever your personal ideology is about having compulsory testing? Can you not put that aside and think of the citizens of British Columbia first?

HON. A. FRASER: I have no objections to tabling that report. I think we're talking about the same report. The superintendent just advised me, regarding testing tied to safety, that that same report from the United States government says that it's thirty-seventh or thirty-eighth on the list of priorities to improve safety. I'm referring to motor vehicle inspections. But I'll gladly table the report.

MR. MITCHELL: I'd like to start off the debate by congratulating the minister for bringing in the child seatbelt regulations. I know I'm maybe one who is joining a number of other people and editorials in support of that particular piece of legislation. But I want to say that the real person who should be given the credit for child seatbelt legislation in this province is my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), because I know, since I joined this House in 1979, that we've heard her speeches in 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1984. I believe it was the continual battle for the protection of children that came from that hon. member which should get the real credit. In each of those years there was all the ridicule that came from the government benches condemning her positive solutions and suggestions, led by the minister who is now taking the credit for what should have been brought in years ago. It is a disgrace to the people of British Columbia that that safety regulation for the protection of children took so long, and that it took, by one person in particular, a battle year after year.

I'll get back to some of the major items that affect my riding in particular. The member for Burnaby North said she has been bringing up her annual request for the reinstitution of the safety checks on automobiles; I'm bringing up something that I believe has been brought up in this House since the Thirties. That is the completion of the West Coast Road into Port Renfrew, and bringing it up to a standard that is necessary for the proper development of that area.

What I would like to do is to take the need for road construction in its proper context. The proper context that I think we should be looking at is that it has a community need that is going to create jobs and create and build a better community. The minister and his deputy know, and all the staff of that ministry know, that since the road was first put in to Port Renfrew there is still that seven-mile piece in the centre that has not been paved. It is not being brought up to any highway standard. It's that centre bottleneck in that particular 20-odd miles of road that has been a detriment to the school buses coming in and out. It has been a deterrent for a potential tourist industry that would go into the community of Port Renfrew if there was a decent, driveable road for the whole area.

I cannot understand the millions of dollars that have been spent throughout British Columbia, while they continue to ignore the completion of that piece of the road. The main reason I am bringing this, again, to the attention of the minister is that Port Renfrew is changing its historical position. For years and years it was the centre of the logging community on the west coast in the Port Renfrew area. The main offices, the main repair shops, were located in Port Renfrew. Since then, because of different management of the

[ Page 6491 ]

company, the major offices and the shops have moved north to the Cowichan Lake area.

There is the potential for developing Port Renfrew into a retirement and recreational community. One of the greatest fishing resorts — I shouldn't say "resorts"; fishing areas — is out of Port Renfrew, not only for salmon but for groundfish, smelts and crabs. That could be a tourist destination area. A development of that type in that area would replace a lot of the jobs that have been lost. I know the few fishermen who enjoy it and are not afraid to go over the rough road may be opposed to my making this information general knowledge, but I'm convinced, Mr. Chairman, that with the proper development of a proper road in there, new jobs could be created, new industries, new settlement.

A lot of people are moving out of the area to the new locations of the logging offices, but there are homes that are affordable, that are available, and that, with a proper road in there, would make a retirement destination for a number of additional people. At the present time, people are retiring out there because homes are affordable, but there is a need to complete that road, a need to complete the development of that community.

We can't continue to build roads solely because they look good on political pamphlets at election time. We have to develop the highway system so it's going to have a regional impact, a community impact, and, in the long range, so the development is going to add jobs to British Columbia. If the minister would look at it in consultation with the community, with the area involved, he would find the necessary funds to complete it, and he wouldn't continue to forget it.

[3:00]

Earlier on, Mr. Chairman, the minister talked about the great job that private industry is doing in British Columbia. The other half of that west coast route — Jordan River to Port Renfrew, Port Renfrew to Cowichan Lake — is a forestry road. It's owned by a private company in there, and it's not maintained. Though there is access for those in the community, the condition of that road is getting deplorable.

I've attended a number of meetings with the Island Expo group that is attempting to promote the tourist industry on Vancouver Island in conjunction with Expo and the millions of people that are going to come to British Columbia. They have many proposals to encourage tourists to travel on Vancouver Island. One of the most obvious routes for tourists to take goes from Victoria, out the west coast road, through Jordan River to Port Renfrew, then a return trip through to Cowichan Lake, down into Duncan and up-Island. There's natural beauty there. There's the potential for fishing. There is camping; there are sights galore. There has to be some coordination with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, with the tourist industry, with the Ministry of Finance.

Those two roads should not only be brought under one ministry, but the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) should relinquish his hold on that particular road. The Minister of Transportation and Highways should look at that particular route and upgrade it so it is a circle route for both the people living in it, and for the rest of British Columbia's communities.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

This has been going on and on without any leadership from the government or that minister. He seems to bow to big megaprojects that look great and can be talked about. But they're not looking at how they're going to affect British Columbians. It's the smaller roads that have potential to bring in new work and new jobs that I think he should also be looking at. I implore him.... I know that he is following in the footsteps of many of his predecessors by continuing to ignore that road. I think it's about time the government and the Minister of Highways, whoever he is, took a strong stand on it.

I have another road I would like to bring to the minister's attention. That is the road into Willis Point. Part of that road goes through a piece of DND property on which is located Heal's rifle range, which is where the majority of the armed forces in this area go out to practise their rifle shooting. It is also used in a lot of cases by private rifle clubs for tournaments. I know the minister and his deputy are aware of this particular range. The butts are located at least 100 feet below the road. There is a buffer of trees between the road and the top of the hill. But there are regulations within the Department of National Defence that they have what they call their funnel, and it is unsafe for people to travel within this funnel area.

So what happens, Mr. Minister, is that every time the army or the navy are out on the range, or when private clubs are shooting, there are 20-minute delays on the road. I know that the minister would not like to jeopardize anyone's safety — which I agree with. But this particular area has been gazetted. They have sold lots in that Willis Point area, and a lot of expensive homes have been built there. It's a community there, but it's shut off many times a day in the summer when there is a lot of practising going on. It's shut off for 20-minute delays. There are times when it happens at 9 o'clock and people are late for work, or they're late for appointments.

The people in that community have requested the opportunity to at least proceed through the area at their own risk. I am not sure of the legal position if someone does proceed through that area at his own risk. Does the government or does the DND have any responsibility for it? But from looking at the area, I think it would be impossible, without a mortar, to put a shell from the area where they're doing the shooting up onto that particular road. I don't know. I've looked at it. I've walked it. I've travelled it. I've trespassed on it. When you realize that throughout British Columbia we have hunters all over the province shooting indiscriminately towards highways...and we still allow hunters out in the woods. I really don't know how many motorists are ever shot by a hunter. Maybe there is a chance that it could happen. But I've asked the minister, his ministry and the Department of National Defence, on behalf of the residents: why can't they have an opportunity to proceed at their own risk?

I see I have a red light on, Mr. Chairman, so if the minister would like to answer those questions, I will go on with the rest later.

HON. A. FRASER: Dealing with the road to Port Renfrew, you know we.... One thing I don't think you mentioned: we have done some work, and I believe the ministry have been concentrating more on replacing bridges than they have anything else. I believe a bridge was replaced last year. There is more to do. They are doing something. No doubt the people there and you aren't satisfied with the speed at which we're doing it, but we haven't stopped entirely; that is the point I want to make.

Regarding the forest roads, the government has just hammered out a new policy. It will go into effect in 1986. We have

[ Page 6492 ]

forest access roads all over this province, where people are living. Then the forestry pull out and leave the citizens without the services of road maintenance such as snowploughing or grading. Starting in 1986 in a slow way we, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, are going to assume these roads and the responsibility for the maintenance of them. I say slowly. We're not going to start building four-lane freeways or paving and so on, but the way it has been, really the Crown sells the land to the citizen in a lot of cases, they use the forest access road for access and then of course when the logging stops, they're on their own.

I think our priorities on that will be where people are living. I think you're talking of two different types in the area you're talking about, Mr. Member: one where there are citizens living and one where there are not. I'm talking about the branch road, as I understand it. So I'm saying that we will assume the maintenance where people are living, but it will be a pretty low priority where people are not living. In other words, the priority will be given where citizens exist, and we'll gradually work into and over a period of time have a better satisfactory arrangement for citizens who find themselves in this situation.

I haven't a great deal to say about Willis Point Road, other than that we had it solved last year. The developer was going to fix everything, and he went kaput. That was part of his subdivision approval, and the developer had financial difficulties, so he didn't go ahead. The ministry asked me to point out to the House, Mr. Chairman, and to the member, that through the rifle range is not our road. That's under the control of the Department of National Defence. You were talking about shooting regulations and so on, but it's my understanding they have complete control of that — ownership and everything else — and of course they can do what they want with that section of road. In other words, we have public roads on either side, but within the rifle range itself it belongs to the Department of National Defence. As MPs haven't got much to do, maybe you could get hold of the MP and see if he could solve it.

MR. MITCHELL: I can assure you I've talked to three MPs about this particular area. The minister says it's not their highway; it belongs to the DND. The ministry maintain it: they snow-plough it and do everything else. I'm quite convinced it must have been gazetted at one time as a highway, because they have sold lots and they have developed property on the west end of the road. They have encouraged quarter-million-dollar homes to be built in that particular area, and there is this continual bureaucratic safety regulation that the residents are prepared to drive through the area at their own risk. They're prepared to do it. I've talked to some of the local military people, and as one of them said: "We couldn't hit that road without a mortar." But the regulation is such that the highway is such.... The last time I talked to the officer in charge in Ottawa he maintained it's unsafe to drive through there. He's the only one, but he is the boss. The only thing the residents request is that they be allowed to drive there at their own risk. I don't know if that change can be accommodated by the ministry in cooperation with the DND. I know it's frustrating, because I was going up there one day on a Sunday; there was a private group who had a tournament on, and I sat there for 20 minutes and walked up and down looking for something coming through the woods and there's nothing. But there you sit on the side of the road.

He talked about having it solved at one time by — I take it — Murray Pezim's Windmill development. He left the impression at all the public hearings that you were going to solve it for him, and that you had given assurance that the new road would go in and everyone was pushing for the development because somebody besides the NDP MLA had the ear of the minister. But if the minister is now saying that the Windmill development is going to do it...that wasn't quite the impression that was going to be in conjunction with the CRD and the ministry.

[3:15]

The new road should go in. There's no doubt about it. It would open up a lot of other areas. I feel that although the Windmill development has gone belly-up, we can't continue to have this 20-minute delay through the summer months. It's inconvenient to the military, because they have to stop their shooting. They can't start until 9 o'clock in the morning, because they have an agreement with the school board that there will be no shooting between 7 and 9 when the school kids go through. But they are still in an area close to the city, near a well-built-up area, and you have these unnecessary bureaucratic — according to the people living there — shutdowns of the roadway that everyone believed was properly gazetted and would give them access 24 hours a day. But after they've built in there and invested a lot of money, it turns out that this particular area is still tied up with some regulations. I sincerely hope that the minister will look at it and talk to some of the officials to come up with an answer.

HON. A. FRASER: Your concern is justifiable, I might say. I'll clear up something I said earlier. This road is gazetted, you're correct. But according to our ministry, even though it is a public gazetted road, the defence act takes precedence over the Highway Act, and that gives the authority for the closure for shooting at the rifle range. Our ministry has tried, with National Defence, to have this nonsense stopped, because it's our opinion that it doesn't or shouldn't interfere with their shooting and that traffic could move on.

Mr. Member, you'd be interested in this. As I understand from senior officials, we did win. But I don't know if that's any consolation to you that they will allow traffic to go through there as long as it's rush hour, but after that, look out, you might get shot, which is completely unsatisfactory, of course. But they did back down that much. I'm quite prepared to pursue it further with the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Transport in Ottawa and maybe get some resolution, because I think this situation is ridiculous, to be frank with you.

Last but not least, referring to the developer out there that promised to build the roads, I don't know what he said. People talk about me all the time, you know, at different meetings. I can't understand it. I don't know what Mr. Pezim said about me, but I will tell that regarding building the roads, we had it in writing from him that he would build the roads at his cost.

MR. MITCHELL: Could the minister confirm or give us some explanation — and I brought this up in my debate on Lands, Parks and Housing — that the Ministry of Highways is taking over the cost of maintenance of the roads in Manning Park. Could the minister confirm that that is true? What is the approximate cost per year to the ministry of the taking over

[ Page 6493 ]

and maintenance of the roads in the park that were at one time maintained by the parks branch?

HON. A. FRASER: I replied to that question yesterday. Yes, we have taken over the roads. I'm not clear on the costs, but we definitely have taken over responsibility for the roads. The assistant deputy minister advises me he thinks it's about $11,000 a year.

MR. GABELMANN: One of the things that always amuses me about Highways estimates is that if we totalled up the value of the requests from every MLA, it would exceed the total budget of the entire province every year, I'm sure. I preface my remarks by making that acknowledgement, Mr. Chairman. I'm fully aware that funds are limited and in fact would argue that funds should be limited for highway projects at times like these.

Nevertheless, I am going to put a few things on the table in terms of North Island, which I know the minister understands. Before I do that, I just want to say that I had an opportunity a couple of weeks ago to do a four-wheel drive trip through the Coquihalla construction project, starting in Hope, going through Merritt and coming back via the canyon. Whatever one thinks of the appropriateness of spending the kind of dollars that are being spent on that highway at this time, I have to say frankly that, from an engineering point of view if not a political one, that's a magnificent project. I just have to say that. The level of construction, the work — and I, of course, don't have the discerning eye that one needs to make these kinds of judgments — that's being done in terms of looking out as best you can for that river....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Discussion with respect to Bill 2 should not be part of the estimates of the minister at this time.

MR. SKELLY: And the opposition should not be praising the government either.

MR. GABELMANN: That's right, so I am out of order on two counts, Mr. Chairman. I'll just very quickly say that there is some remarkable work going on, and that's going to be a remarkable route.

Going beyond Bill 2, it's clear that coming back to the canyon — and I hadn't been on the canyon road for more than a year I guess, although I've been on the Hope-Princeton a number of times in the last year — I was just in general terms quite distressed — that's the wrong word — but concerned about the state of maintenance on the canyon. I don't know what's happened, but just eyeballing it, while driving through at 90 kph, it seemed to me that the maintenance levels are not up to the standards that are traditional for highways in this province. However, that may have been just an uneducated eyeball response.

Inasmuch as it seems as if we're going to have a four-lane highway, virtually a freeway, from Alberta to Horseshoe Bay, notwithstanding the particular section, Cassiar and Hastings — hard to call that a four-lane — it seems to me logical to extend that freeway from Nanaimo to Campbell River as part of this project of yours that is ongoing.

If I can lead into the Island Highway bypass in that way, I recognize that the minister has made other priorities in terms of construction, and I'm not arguing that we should add yet another $100 million to the construction costs for highways in the immediate future. But clearly.... I know the member for Comox raised this issue earlier, and I listened in my office to the minister's reply in respect of the Island Highway bypass, but — at least, as I heard it — he talked about the Mud Bay–Menzies Bay route and didn't seem to refer to the route from Parksville to Mud Bay. But presumably when we're talking about the bypass, we're talking about the entire route and also the Nanaimo bypass. For those of us, the member for Mackenzie, the member for Comox and myself in particular, who drive that road two or three times a week, it's astounding. If I come through — just to give a personal aside to it — from Campbell River to Victoria in the middle of the night obeying the speed limit within the tolerance, I can do it in three hours or less. In the daytime in the winter, it's three and a half hours. In the daytime in the summer it's four hours. That's an hour extra in a three-hour trip. It is a dangerous road. It is a difficult road, and one that needs to be bypassed. The minister was saying earlier that it's difficult to do in sections, and I understand that: you're not building in the same location, and you're not going to be able to do parts here and there, particularly the northern sections; you're going to need to do it all at once.

I guess I'm standing to make my annual plea to the minister to give some early consideration to that project, particularly from the Alberni cutoff at Parksville through to Campbell River. It may be that parts of it can be done. It may be that, for example, from Menzies Bay south to somewhere in the Oyster River area a section could be constructed. At the present time we have a bit of a cow trail from Menzies Bay in to Campbell River. A lot of tourist traffic that might head north from Campbell River, anticipating going through to the end of the Island and encountering that road by the Crown Forest pulp mill as it winds along the waterfront there.... Before arriving at Menzies Bay you really anticipate a dreadful highway. Yet once you get to Menzies Bay you're onto a beautiful, first-rate, super, two-lane highway that goes almost to Port McNeill. But a lot of people are turned off because of that stretch from Campbell River to Menzies Bay.

Of course, in some ways there's not a lot of logic in spending a lot of money upgrading that particular road, because you're going to bypass that section. So I find it difficult to know what to argue. If the bypass isn't going to come until some unseen date in the future, then the upgrading needs to happen on that particular section. I think people would be happy to wait and not have that particular section rebuilt if they knew the bypass was going to occur. It might well be that you can do particular chunks like that. I think that the one from Menzies Bay to perhaps the Oyster River area could be done earlier than other parts of it — and maybe others. I'm not pretending to make any engineering-type decisions about this kind of thing, because I just don't know. But I would urge an early look at if not the entire route, then at least parts of it, as soon as possible. The existing highway is just atrocious, particularly going through places like Qualicum and other small communities along the coast really impossible.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

I mentioned that the minister will now have several letters, I'm sure, from various people about that road from Menzies Bay to Campbell River, which is part of Highway 19 and which won't be part of Highway 19 with the bypass. So I'd appreciate knowing what the plans are for that. I see on

[ Page 6494 ]

page 1559, I think, of the book — I don't know what you call it; the orange book, if my eyesight's right — that they were planning what you call Duncan Bay to Menzies Bay, which is what I'm talking about. A bypass study was done — under the section relating to design and survey. So I'd be interested to know what specifically the intention is there. Is it to upgrade or is it to bypass?

On another issue — and I'll just go through half a dozen other issues quite quickly, Mr. Chairman.... Let me just go back to the new road that's being built. This is more than Bill 2, because with much of the four-laning I'm in effect talking about a new route from Vancouver to Alberta. Will that new route be Highway 1? Maybe you answered this question earlier and I missed it. Will that be called Highway 1? What involvement does the federal government have, in terms of Trans-Canada cost-sharing, with any of the construction that's going on now on this new quick route through the province? I suspect the answer is none, but I'm curious to know what provisions.... I don't know the procedures under those old cost-sharing arrangements — and where the upgrading or short-cutting takes place — and why they shouldn't be involved, if they aren't.

[3:30]

Back to North Island and, as I said, half a dozen smaller issues — smaller in terms of the province, not smaller in terms of the people who live there. Now that the decision appears to have been made in the north end, if the minister will think about the Coal Harbour–Holberg–Port Hardy end of Vancouver Island, it appears as if the decision not to build a forest road along the Holberg Inlet from Coal Harbour to Holberg, inasmuch as Hydro is now putting its lines in from Port Hardy to Holberg, and one of the main justifications for going along the inlet, apart from lack of snow, was also a shorter Hydro line route.... But now that that's not happening, and the Hydro line is going in on the existing gravel road between Holberg and Port Hardy, it appears as if the idea of an inlet road is dead for the time being, and under these circumstances that makes sense.

The existing road from Hardy to Holberg is in pretty grim shape, and the regional district has recently written to the ministry about that. Parts of it need reconstruction; parts of it need widening, inasmuch as it's often a single lane. There is heavy industrial use on that road, and increasing parks use because of Cape Scott Park. In the summertime, you've got a mix of military vehicles, moving-vans — because the military forces at Holberg are always moving — logging trucks, shake trucks, and the regular 1,100 residents moving in and out across that road, plus Winnebagos and all of the other things that come with tourist traffic, and you've got a road that is often a single lane because of narrow spots and shoulders that are collapsing, and on and on. So there needs to be some significant work done on that particular road now that it appears it will probably forever be the major route into Cape Scott and that area.

While I'm talking about that end of the riding, let me just say again, without making a speech, that the proposed Tahsis-Woss road still remains a high priority. The road from the village of Tahsis to Woss Lake rather than out via Gold River remains a high priority not only with the residents of Tahsis; virtually every municipal council in the regional district and every local authority has indicated its support for that route. None of us are arguing for a superhighway through there. We're only arguing for a logging-road type of access in the early stages to replace that long and tortuous, difficult route via Gold River at the present time.

I mentioned that the minister and I have talked about it every year since I have represented North Island, so I don't need to make the long speech again, other than to say it's still on the front burner as far as the local residents are concerned. When I did the Coquihalla trip, I came back via Merritt–Spences Bridge and noticed bridge construction galore on that road — a road that I didn't think was a particularly heavily used highway, not one that I would have thought was so high in the ministry's priority list, except I guess for the circle route for those people who want to make a day trip out of Vancouver and back down the canyon. But it seems to me that if the kind of activity that can take place in Yale-Lillooet.... If we could just have what they spill in Yale-Lillooet in North Island, we'd be happy. Because that would enable us to have the Marble bridge rebuilt on the way into Port Alice. The Keogh Bridge, which is on Highway 19. It's the only traffic light in that part of the world. People up there don't quite know what to make of this red and green light. I've got a green light, too, I see, Mr. Chairman. I'm very nearly finished.

In Sayward, the Sachts Bridge is very desperately in need of rebuilding. I notice there's some money being allocated for partial reconstruction of some bad parts of it, but the whole bridge needs to come in. So there are three bridge projects that are quite urgent in that constituency.

The minister and I in the last few weeks have exchanged correspondence about the proposal for a park at Storries Beach. This is a regional district proposal, and the minister has been quite adamant and quite categorical in saying no to me, that this will not be turned over to the regional district for parks purposes, or any other purposes whatsoever, period, exclamation mark. In his last letter he says: "There is not adequate space for regional park and off-highway parking." The place is full of off-highway parking in the summer — dozens and dozens and dozens of cars parked off the highway, except they can't get off the road because it isn't developed. So you have an 80-kilometre-an-hour stretch of road with cars half on and half off the road, because they can't get off the road properly to go to what is Campbell River's only swimming beach. The place is already totally full, and what we're really arguing for is some order to be made out of this chaos that now exists. One of the ways is through a controlled regional park of some kind.

HON. A. FRASER: Thanks to the member for North Island, who makes some generally good observations. I just want to touch on a few of them. I am sure engineers will be pleased at your remarks that you made regarding the engineering of the Coquihalla. I agree with you. It's going to turn out to be another outstanding engineering feat, and they should be congratulated for that.

The condition of the Fraser Canyon — I hear pros and cons about it. It's not bad, but I'll just tell you that we've let two paving contracts there in the bad sections, and we're trying to keep up with it. Two paving contracts have gone through, one around Yale and the other one around Jackass Mountain. They'll start paving shortly. We should be able to arrange it just when the heavy peak season of tourism comes hold up the traffic for paving. But we're aware of that.

The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) brought up the bypass, and all that. We've got a real problem. I don't want to make any excuses. I was waiting for you to say where you

[ Page 6495 ]

thought it was the worst. One thing we haven't mentioned is Nanaimo. We have suggested so many things, and we never seem to get together. Now the council is trying to get their act together. It seems to me that that's one of the biggest bottlenecks to start off with, and that's a mammoth one in the way of acquisition of property and so on — to get better access. We're meeting with those people now. Whether we'll ever conclude, I don't know. I think the community is getting paralyzed by it, so I think that some action has to be taken.

The same thing applies at Parksville. It seems to me that three years ago we were all ready to go, and then Parksville said that they didn't want us around there: "Get away from here." This is on a curb and gutter job. They are now back, so I'm not standing here saying that we're going to start anything right away.

The one thing that you brought that is interesting, and that I'd like to get on the record here, is the cost-sharing — cost-sharing by the federal government with the province on road construction. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to get it on the record that they don't share five cents. They had a sharing agreement, I guess, years ago for the rebuilding of the Fraser Canyon Trans-Canada. That's long since gone.

But you know what else has happened? It's gone in reverse, and I resent it very much. During the previous federal administration they imposed an excise tax. Now that excise tax that you pay in a litre of fuel is deriving $250 million to $300 million a year, and it's all going to Ottawa. I want to tell you that we're real good citizens. Our highway system is completely maintained by British Columbians — and built — and yet they're using it as a revenue source. I want to repeat that we're real good Canadians. It's in reverse. They're not sending anything back. They're taking it all back there, and of course, there are rumours that that's going to advance further. I think it's two cents in September, and so on. So we are now starting to make representations, but again, I don't think.... The point that I'm trying to make is that vehicles that burn the fuel wear out our highway system, and part of the tax in that fuel goes to the capital of Canada. It doesn't come back to British Columbia; that's the point. So we have a complete cycle change in the period of 25 years with the government of Canada.

The Port Hardy road, as far as I know, is a public road. I guess maybe our maintenance is inadequate. We will certainly look at it, because that's another community in the province. Maybe we can improve our maintenance. Tahsis, Woss Lake: I appreciate your remarks, but as you know, that's a costly undertaking, according to our engineers, and we're not really looking at that.

Your comment regarding Highway 8, from Merritt to Spences Bridge, when you're on your trip.... That's correct. We're replacing three bridges there. They are old-style bridges. Two things happened. We're concerned about where the traffic goes. When the four lane opens at Merritt, we'll use part of Highway 8 and part of Highway 5 to disperse it. But the other thing that's been there for a long time is, believe it or not, that they're hauling logs from Gold River in the Bridge River country all the way to Merritt. These bridges — we had load limits on them — were impairing jobs in sawmills and in logging. Between the two, and under the umbrella of the Coquihalla, we're getting the thing resolved. That's what brought that up.

I'm not clear on Sayward. I think there's been something.... That again is another inadequate bridge. Stories Beach — I think you put a little different light on it. We are saying we won't turn that property over for a park, but if your problem is access, I don't see why we can't do something. If we're having a problem. as I gather from what you said, getting the traffic off the road into a park area — if that's the problem — I'd like you to clarify that.

MR. GABELMANN: To clarify that — the request from the regional district is to make a regional park. That's the initial request, and they would like to be able to have that area as a park for swimming and beach-related activities. When I was asked to come to the minister, Mr. Chairman, to help in this project, I came at it from a slightly different angle, and that was the angle of safety and of the present situation there. There are other sections on the Island Highway — and I think of south of Union Bay near Fanny Bay, in fact — where you have a rest stop, where there is an equally narrow area between the road and the high-water mark, and you just paved the whole thing and made a rest stop. I don't think we need a rest stop there. There's a rest stop at Oyster Bay, which is four or five miles south of Stories Beach.

But what we do need there, and it seemed to me that Highways could authorize..... Highways could do the planning; there's no problem with that. Highways could authorize the regional district to look after the toilets and the parking and the maintenance of that particular area, just by turning it over to them under some strict controls in terms of the Highways' needs for the proper highway control. The fact is that the area is heavily populated in the summertime, because, as I say, it is the only swimming beach around. There are people there renting those windsurfers, and there are all kinds of activities taking place, and it's all taking place virtually on the shoulder of the road. People drive into the driftwood and try to get off the road, and you can't. I live a couple of hundred yards from there, and it's not safe. I'm sure your people in that area would concur with my comments about that.

So what we're looking at is some ability to regulate that particular area a little bit. I thought the regional district proposal made sense — that they look after it. They wouldn't want to call it a park or whatever, but I don't see that that precludes Highways from saying: "If you do, it will be under these strict guidelines." Maybe it will be on a lease basis so that if you need it for future purposes, you've got that particular freedom at a later time. But something has to happen in there, whatever it is.

[3:45]

The only other comment was on the Holberg road. Half of it is now a public road, and half of it is a logging road which has public use. Your highway graders are on there spending thousands and thousands of dollars operating highway graders full-time, trying to maintain a bad road, and in parts of it trying to maintain a dangerous road. I'm sure that your local people — the Highways foremen in Port Hardy — can verify that to your staff, that there is an urgent need for not just maintenance but for some basic construction to bring it up to level. I'm not talking about even putting a paved road in. I'm talking about bringing the gravel up to a reasonable standard for the level of traffic that it has to handle now.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I'll try to keep an eye on the clock.

I'd first of all like to give a few kudos to the minister. It's very gratifying to see the old trusses from the old Taghum

[ Page 6496 ]

bridge being recycled and used in the Slocan Valley, replacing Bailey bridges and some old Howe truss bridges. Also it's very nice to see that Lower 6 Mile Road has a new bridge. It's a very small bridge, but it leads to.... I have occasion to travel on it once in a while, as I also live on Lower 6 Mile Road, so I thought I'd mention that.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest when the minister mentioned the ATAP program and $2.5 million. I know there's great demand for the program. In my riding we have four municipal airports, and two at the present time are in discussions with your ministry. I have in my hand a letter from Syd Carroll, pointing out the condition of the Nelson airport: the way the pavement is breaking up. It's beyond mere resurfacing, and something major has to be done. The city of Nelson is prepared to act. There is an excellent chance that they can bring back some of those federal dollars that the minister talked about us losing, through the MILAP program, and take advantage of what's on.

At the present time the proposal is for resurfacing. His ministry has cooperated in terms of some of the testing, and I think that things are ready to go. So this is a project which I think is almost immediately ready to go and would not be a phantom project if it were approved for this year. So I would ask the minister about what plans there might be for Nelson. Also Nakusp; I'd like to put in a good word for Nakusp. There is very important trade in terms of helicopter skiing out of Nakusp. There is a proposal now to further develop the Nakusp hot springs, and a lot of money could be poured in there. Some improvements have to be made at Nakusp. I would urge that the ministry work in close conjunction.... . I know that the Nakusp council has been in touch with the minister.

That's number one. Number two, I would like to bring up once again the resurfacing of what is the main street of Salmo. It is not called Main Street — Main Street is one street over, for some odd reason — but the former Highway 3 through Salmo. The minister is familiar with it. Last year he authorized some immediate work to be done in terms of planning. The village just has to go ahead with putting in storm sewers and gutters, even if the ministry is not in a position to do its part. But I think that would be undesirable. After five, six or seven successive years of people picking their way through about a foot and a half of slush in early and late winter months, flooding into adjoining buildings.... A considerable amount of provincial and local money has been spent on the Main Street program — another government program — which I think is reason to give this a very high priority, even though funds are very limited. This has been waiting for many, many years. So I would urge that that go ahead in Salmo.

A third thing is New Denver. New Denver and the mayor of New Denver have been in touch with the minister asking for assistance. They want to build a sidewalk through New Denver. I realize what the provincial government programs are, and that they would require curb and gutter; it would probably be beyond the tax base capabilities of New Denver. I would ask the minister then if they could not at least look at resurfacing, perhaps paving and marking a shoulder, or doing something that would improve the safety aspect in New Denver.

The next item is north shore improvements. There has been a lot of improvement work done on alignments, a lot of cutting of banks, yet I think there is some worry that there isn't enough money to really finish the job. This leaves some residents in a rather hazardous position, with inadequate access because the jobs aren't quite finished. Also, of course, it would be desirable to have the work completed and the paving and so on go ahead at the earliest possible opportunity. There is also a road just south of Lardeau and a bridge which again has been relocated. A Bailey bridge has been put in. The alignment is all off. Believe me, it's very dangerous. The first time I went up there.... I don't think it's even marked anymore; it has become part of the permanent highway. It's only been in that condition for about a year or so, but it would be desirable to get that put into proper alignment again and get it completed.

Those are the items. The ATAP program, both Nelson and Nakusp; I think Nelson is certainly ready to go right now. The Salmo program of resurfacing, and Salmo is probably going to go ahead with the curbs and gutters. I think the paving aspect of that really should go ahead this year. It has been delayed just too, too many years. I would hope there could be some help for New Denver. I think resurfacing would be timely. It needs it anyhow. I've discussed that with local officials, who tend to agree with me. Improvements on the north shore road — that is, Nelson to Balfour — and even various improvements going all the way through to Kaslo.

I would appreciate the minister's comments on those items.

HON. A. FRASER: We are just looking at all the ATAP program allocations now as related to Nelson and Nakusp. I haven't a note here, but I'm sure their applications are in there. As I said yesterday, a lot of rumours got flying around that the program was being eliminated, and that's not so at all. The government will continue to fund that quite popular program in the province.

We've had correspondence from Salmo regarding the problems there, and we're going to work with them. We've indicated to them that we'll have elevation available so they can install their utilities. The design work is not yet complete, but we're apparently on top of that now.

I got lost a bit on the others: New Denver, the road south to Lardeau and Nelson to Balfour. We'll just look into your comments; the senior staff are here. I think that pretty well covers what you brought up.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, as distinct from my colleagues and many other people in the House, who are always asking the Minister of Highways to come into their constituency and do something, I would beg the Minister of Highways to stay the blazes out of New Westminster. Every time he comes it's an utter disaster.

You know, I just can't believe the highway structure in B.C. After using New Westminster as the funnel for all the traffic from anywhere to everywhere in the province....

MS. BROWN: That's Burnaby.

MR. COCKE: That's Burnaby, my foot! It's New Westminster. We've got a six-square-mile area and....

That Ministry of Highways has the temerity to move into New Westminster — take a look at their motor vehicle office in New Westminster — and then they move out. Even they can't stand the traffic in that town. They moved the motor vehicle office from New Westminster to that illustrious riding of Maillardville-Coquitlam, I understand it's called, thinking that they're going to put it into a good Socred riding. Well, it's

[ Page 6497 ]

not going to be Socred very much longer. In any event, what a ridiculous thing! We've got a government that on the one hand says, through the ministry of small business and one thing and another: "Let's get New Westminster rejuvenated. Let's get things going in that town...." Every time they turn around they try to destroy it. You know, just moving that office.... And the minister says: "Well, it was too small, and there were no alternatives." I can take him around that town, and I can show him more alternatives than Carter has pills. Columbia Street is virtually empty as a result of this government's policy. Moving that motor vehicle office was, as far as I'm concerned, the last insult that was necessary from that ministry.

I just don't know. The city council wrote to him. As a matter of fact, there was no warning in the first place to city council until it was an accomplished fact. But they tried their darndest to get something happening there, and nobody has had any success whatsoever. So what did they do? They moved it out to the Lougheed Highway next door to Mother Tucker's. Big deal! You know, I just can't believe their attitude to our town.

Mr. Chairman, I was also listening to the minister pontificate about this whole question of stopping motor vehicle testing. He said: "Well, we didn't have motor vehicle testing everywhere. Therefore we'll cancel it everywhere. These roadside checks are great."

I saw a car.... I tried to get a picture of it; unfortunately I couldn't. This car was bought by a young entrepreneur next door to me in New Westminster. Remember, no motor vehicle testing anymore. He bought it from another kid who finally gave up on it. Now let me tell you what he bought it for. He bought it for the transmission and part of the motor. They brought it into the yard, and the father of this young genius calls me over — I'm talking about the guy who repairs cars.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I don't know the guy who sold the car. But the kid that bought it didn't care about its condition. Let me tell you something about that car. It was an old Honda or Mazda, or one of those. Underneath the driver's seat it had a piece of sheet metal — tin. That's what the driver's seat sat on. It was totally rusted out, and the only way you could keep the seat off the ground was on that piece of tin. There was no way that car would have got by motor vehicle testing.

Now it's not very likely that that car is going to find its way up to the summit at Rogers Pass and be stopped for motor vehicle testing, because it never gets outside New Westminster. But while it's in New Westminster it's a danger to every person there — an absolute hazard. This is the kind of thing that's going on on our roads since that minister closed down his motor vehicle testing stations.

[4:00]

If you can't afford it in the outlying areas, then why not get some local garages or roadside testing or whatever you want. But in the large urban areas we still should have motor vehicle testing. It's sheer nonsense to say that there is no difference. I can take you right now by the hand, and I will lead you around the densely populated areas at night. You watch. Every fifth or sixth car has one of its headlights off.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Getting back to that car that was probably sold by the member for Surrey....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will the hon. member comment from his own seat. Order, please.

MR. COCKE: Getting back to that car, it had no brakes on two of the wheels. It was an absolute disgrace on the road, and yet that car was driven until finally the kid gave up and sold it to this neighbour's son, who needed the motor for another car. But that's the kind of junk that's out on the road, since he quit motor vehicle testing. It's absolute sheer nonsense.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I'm not attacking the police, Mr. Minister; I'm attacking this worthless government in British Columbia — the most worthless government that ever occurred in this province, and that's saying a lot, because there have been plenty.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I would hope that the minister and this government will look again at that crazy idea of stopping motor vehicle testing. It's worth it. ICBC warned you to begin with that you shouldn't do it. I want to hear the minister promise to restore motor vehicle testing in this province.

MR. REID: Private sector stuff.

MR. COCKE: You know, here's a person who sells cars, and he should know better.

MR. REID: Private sector can look after it.

MR. COCKE: The private sector can look at it, but they don't, as usual. They never do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The second member for Surrey will come to order. The member for New Westminster continues.

MR. COCKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for protecting me from that marauding member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the estimates, please. Thank you.

MR. COCKE: One other thing I would just like to leave the highways department with is this land robbery that takes place every time a person wants to make some changes with respect to subdivision. I had occasion to deal with that department for some three and one half years with....

AN HON. MEMBER: Which government?

MR. COCKE: This government, this highways department. I have 600 feet of beach on Skaha Lake.

Interjection.

[ Page 6498 ]

MR. COCKE: That's right. I'm one of those Cadillac socialists — Mercedes socialists.

Anyway, because it was 600 feet long, we decided we would divide it into three lots instead of two, which it now is. It would just work out in the family situation just nicely. Anyway, I've put up with it for just too long. They said that they wanted to take one-third of that property all the way along for road allowance. It was narrow enough to begin with, because the road is fairly close to the lake at that point.

I have asked every practical person that I've met, including the Premier of the province, whether or not they thought that there would be a highway down that side of the road at that particular area. Of course there won't be. The road goes like a snake. Behind that next ridge is a clear valley, but that particular area being used for a highway is sheer nonsense. They know it's sheer nonsense, but they insist on getting their pound of flesh, and you know what? They're never going to get it, because I'm going to leave the property the way it is. If you want that land, you'll darned well buy it if, a hundred years from now, you decide to build a highway there. You know, that's the kind of preposterousness that people in this province put up with with that bureaucracy. It's just a bit much.

In any event, having told the minister how I feel about him and his department, I will now sit down and hope that he will at least say motor vehicle testing will be reinstated in B. C.

HON. A. FRASER: After that vicious attack, I'm a little shaky. I'll first of all apologize for moving the motor vehicle office from Westminster to Coquitlam, but it serves more people there and that's apparently why that decision was made.

On motor vehicle testing, I've told at least three MLAs we're not bringing it back. We'll be bringing back a different type of commercial vehicle testing but not motor vehicle testing.

Talking about substandard vehicles on the road, Mr. Chairman, I've said before in the estimates that that's against the law.

Interjections.

HON. A. FRASER: We have officers out there enforcing the law night and day.

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: No, sir, we sure haven't on RCMP. But they're out everywhere.

As I said here earlier today, we're now getting the reaction that there's too much enforcement. We're always going to have people who break the law; and it's a question of time when we catch up with them. You people know that.

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: Well, when they do that, they're breaking the law, and they get caught.

Mr. Chairman, I'm really concerned about that member's remarks about this government and the great old Royal City, New Westminster. He's trying to portray us as having forgotten the Royal City. The only thing he didn't say is that he wanted the capital moved over there. You never asked that, and I think you're deficient as the member for there. It used to be there, and you should be asking all the time, if you're on the job, to move it back over there.

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: No, but just a minute now, you gave all the downsides about New Westminster. I want to remind you of some of the good things we've done — and you never said a word about them. That's what really upsets me. You've got a new courthouse over there. Is that correct? This government gave you that. And a billion-dollar ALRT system. You didn't say anything about that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If he had, that would have been out of order, because it's not in your estimates. To the vote, please.

HON. A. FRASER: The last item — and I really enjoy this, Mr. Chairman.... I'm sure this falls within the parameters of the debate. That member attacked our approval process for subdivisions. It's what I've always been told, and it finally came out here: there's no bigger capitalist than a socialist. Imagine having 600 feet of waterfront property! And he said here today, right in the Legislature, that he isn't going to give up one foot of it for the poor public they're always talking about. That's what our approval process is doing: trying to protect all the public interest, not just the fat-cat socialist capitalists.

Anyway, I appreciate your remarks, Mr. Member, and look forward to them again at some future time. I know what you say. But, you know, Burnaby says the same thing — that all roads dissect their community — and New Westminster.... I guess, maybe, to summarize the thing, it's a matter of your location being so excellent that everybody has to move through and around there. The last thing I recall — and I don't know what happened — is that we offered to make the odd street in the city of New Westminster arterial, and I don't know whether we did it or not. We have offered the city arterial designation for some of the major roads, and I don't think they accepted our offer. But maybe you could pursue that.

MR. COCKE: Yes, it's in process right now.

HON. A. FRASER: Thank you.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, after that spirited exchange by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), followed by a vicious attack and rebuttal by the Minister of Highways, my intervention will be relatively mild. I was thinking, while the member for New Westminster was speaking, that the car he was describing I'm driving — and I bought it from the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid). So I'm a little pleased that we don't have these testing stations any longer, because surely I would be picked up for that. Even though I might be breaking the law a little bit, so far I haven't been apprehended — at least caught red-handed; nobody did to me what they did to Michael Bartlett.

I would like to suggest, though, that the minister's argument for removing the testing stations because they did not serve certain parts of the province, and therefore we should remove them all, is a bit like saying: "We don't have any schools in Quesnel, so we should close down all the schools in Vancouver." It's a fallacious, ludicrous kind of logic. It's

[ Page 6499 ]

based on some kind of lewd and archaic ideology, that somehow we're going to let private enterprise protect us from all possible transgressions. I just don't think it will work.

I would also like to ask the minister — since he has been actively prodded, kicking and struggling, into child restraint legislation, when he couldn't avoid it any longer, and imposed upon the poor people of British Columbia this great expense of child-restraint seats — if he would like to look into the business of laws protecting young children who are up there in those cab-over campers, who are lying on their little bellies looking out of the window while they are going 60 and 70 miles per hour down the highway. Anytime an accident occurs, then they would fly out the window just like a projectile. That's extremely serious. I'd like to prod him, kicking and struggling, into doing something about that, forbidding people to carry children in those cab-overs looking out the window. I think it's extremely dangerous. I've seen a few of them hit and they just break like matchboxes. I recommend that for his consideration in terms of traffic and child safety.

I do applaud him for coming to the conclusion that child-restraint seatbelts are extremely important. The former Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Strachan, once said, "Never give a guy hell for doing what you wanted him to do in the first place," so I don't want to do that. I'm guided by that advice. So I like what's happened there. I don't think it's a denial of freedom. Certainly there's a health and safety aspect to it that I think overcomes any particular loss of freedom. Frankly, people are ignorant. Until there's a law there, they're ignorant of the dangers. I see horrible examples all the time of young mothers with their kids in the front seat, and it scares the living daylights out of me. Making it illegal to transport children like that without child-restraint seats seems to me one of the best educative devices we could have; like the police stopping people regularly for seatbelts. I approve of that, because I happen to wear a seatbelt all the time anyway. It helps keep my back up against the seat of the car.

[4:15]

I agree with the member for New Westminster too, when he talks about the difficulties of getting yourself involved in subdivisions with the Highways department, or any other group of civic and civil bureaucrats, including the sanitation departments. It can be very time-consuming. Anybody who can streamline municipal subdivision applications while still protecting the public will certainly have my support. It's a lot of trouble, and it's extremely lengthy. My concern is that there are excessive standards applied in certain areas. For example, to bring a dead-end road up to Highways standards makes it $10,000 extra. It's ludicrous, unless your aim is to deter the subdivision, and I wouldn't think that any government with a developer's mentality like this one would want to do that.

I haven't got the subdivision complete yet, so I'm not going to identify where it is, although I will say that I had a very cordial relationship with the Highways department and all their personnel. They smiled as the thing dragged on for weeks and weeks. The longer it dragged on, the wider their smiles became.

Okay, now to get back to my riding. There are two or three little problems; they're called municipalities that I represent. I'd like to say a word or two about each.

In Port Moody, I understand, confirmed by either the deputy minister or the assistant deputy minister a few moments ago, the hope for a solution to their highway problems is a long-term proposition. I understand there are other priorities up around Merritt that are taking a lot of funds these days. Therefore some of these other places.... As far as they're concerned, the minister doesn't become the Minister of Highways; he's the minister of potholes. There are some serious problems in the lower mainland, especially with Port Moody, because Port Moody is almost like the hourglass, or the egg-timer: it's a very constricting access between two large population centres. Hundreds of thousands of cars go through there each week. We need some kind of bypass in that area. I understand it's long....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Charge them tolls.

Also, you have an occlusion there, and as the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Rogers) will know because of his experience with B.C. Hydro, they have a lot of problems there in terms of air quality. Not only is it in an area of some difficulty of occlusion; adding gas fumes to it daily doesn't help any. We need something there. We need to improve the Barnet. I understand that there are plans — and the minister can elaborate on them — to improve the intersection of Clarke and the Barnet to four lanes. I think that's important, because it's terrible during rush hours. It's absolutely maddening for people to be caught in that stuff. Besides that, it's very, very slow. I mentioned the pollution aspect. But the Barnet, once you get out of Vancouver, or just outside of Burnaby there, and start going down the hill by what used to be called Cass Corners — the cement people — is two lanes. It's virtually impossible there to go more than about 10 miles an hour during the rush hour. Improving that would be a big help in anticipation of more major work that I understand is going to be carried out in the long term — it will come down over the hill from Westwood — and some of those problems will be relieved. Of course, the immediate solution might be to put in commuter rail and try to encourage people to get out of their cars and onto the commuter rail, which is all set up for the people. Again, we've spent so much money on ALRT that there may not be any money for commuter rail, because the extension into Port Moody or the north part of Coquitlam by the ALRT system appears to be, again, a vision of the future the long-term future.

The Belcarra Park incident I raised in the statements period about a month ago. The people of Belcarra were somewhat encouraged by the minister's words. They were kind words. I would like to ask the minister if he would care to comment further on any further negotiations or discussions he's had with Mayor Drew on the subject. They just opened a new municipal hall there a couple of weeks ago and they were most grateful for the minister's encouragement, but would like to see a little more than just encouragement. Hopefully something might be done on that.

The Mary Hill bypass stuff. I believe the contracts have been let for both the overpass and the bridge over the Coquitlam River. If that's the case, I'd like that confirmed, along with the completion date. I understand too, from the deputy minister or the assistant deputy minister — I'm not quite sure of his title — that the contracts have been let for the hookup in addition to the two structures, one an overpass and one a bridge, and the completion date aim is something like December 1985. So with those few remarks, Mr....

Interjection.

[ Page 6500 ]

MR. ROSE: Well, it was, until it washed out. It's been the Bailey bridge ever since, but.... And that's been, I think, two or three years.

Anyway, it serves an increasingly large population and I think it frustrates a lot of Social Crediters, because they're all driving in to Dewdney, you see, so they get very, very mad at the government when they have to go across that old Bailey bridge that's been there for two years, with a light on each end of it. Massive amounts of.... I haven't stopped for the car count. I know it takes usually at least three lights to get through it at a normal time of day, so in rush hours it's even worse. And I wouldn't want to see any of those Social Crediters from Dewdney be angry at either the Minister of Highways, who's a jolly fellow, or the member for Dewdney (Hon. Mr. Pelton), who is jolly most of the time. He wasn't very jolly today, but you know we all get our jollies in different ways. But any way that the minister can enlighten us and give us some encouragement on these highway problems — these highly vexatious yet sometimes boring highway problems — I'd be grateful to hear.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I'll attempt to answer what he has brought up.

The occupation of campers. I agree with your remarks completely and I've asked the superintendent to look at that. I think we can allow the occupation of campers by people if there are seats in the camper with a seatbelt, but I agree with you, they shouldn't be up on the top deck, and I think we should look at it and do something about it. So I agree with you there. What we can do I'm not sure, but it shouldn't be too complicated. It sounds to me like just an amendment to regulations.

The problems at Port Moody. Yes, you bet there are problems at Port Moody, and the long-term plan was a bypass. I was out there a while ago and they said when I was out there that they hadn't seen their MLA for a year or so. But I don't know whether that's correct.

MR. ROSE: I'm sorry, I missed part of that.

MR. A. FRASER: I thought you'd missed it. I said I was out there in Port Moody a while ago, and one comment they had was that they hadn't seen their MLA for quite a while.

MR. ROSE: I can't get through on the road!

MR. A. FRASER: That's a good one! No.

Mr. Chairman, the long-term plan involves a new roadway along the Port Moody waterfront. I want to emphasize that it was real long term when I looked at it. I think we've got to go through a few grain elevators and a few railroad tracks and part of the ocean and so on.

MR. ROSE: You'll never see it, Alex.

HON. A. FRASER: You and I'll never see it, that's for sure. But that sounds like the long-term engineering side of it.

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: Yes, we want to get better additional capacity in what exists and that's on the intersection. Our engineers feel they can do that. Through you, Mr. Chairman, to the member, the Barnet Highway designed for the east half of the two-lane section is being completed now, and that design is for four lanes, so we want to get something started there.

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: I was afraid you'd ask that, but.... Well, we'll try to get it on a program, say, next year if we can get it in. I don't know what we're talking about in funds here.

The Belcarra Park. I want to clear up something there. To you, Mr. Member, that's correct that the.... What I said at the time — and maybe you could convey this so there's no misunderstanding.... I asked them to get hold of us, and they haven't done that. So maybe you could.... That was our understanding — that they would contact us. It's my information from senior staff that they haven't done it. But I would think that it's a misunderstanding, and maybe you could clear it up by contacting them and telling them to get hold of us.

The last item that the member brought up is a big item. I don't know where I put it here, but I'm referring to the Mary Hill bypass. Your observations are correct. After $15 million or $20 million and a long time, all the contracts have been awarded, including the bridges and overpasses. In the construction of the grade, it includes the pavement, which has to be done. We hope to open the whole Mary Hill bypass by December 1985.

MRS. JOHNSTON: I have a couple of questions for the minister with regard to problems I see in my area and my neighbouring constituency. The first problem that we have in Surrey, which seems to be taking a great deal of time to resolve.... I think that it is partially because of a lack of immediate response from the municipality. I would ask the minister when they are going to look at prohibiting the overnight and longer parking of semi-trailer rigs, particularly on the King George Highway in the Newton area and in other residential areas serviced by provincial highways. It's a very serious situation, in my opinion. There have been many accidents, not on the provincial highways but with these rigs that have been allowed to park on municipal roads. I think the sooner we get them off the provincial highways in residential areas, the safer it's going to be. I would like to have a response to that.

Secondly, I would like to know when we are going to institute the reverse flow at the Massey Tunnel. It seems to me that we've had enough studies done to suggest that we should be reversing the flow in the evening, and I would like to see that looked at.

Mr. Chairman, it's very interesting to hear the members opposite speak of the motor vehicle testing stations. If you recall, when the matter was up for discussion originally we checked some of the vehicles in the parking lot, and we found that even though it was the law to have a testing sticker on your car if you lived in an area that had a station, many of the MLAs did not have stickers on their cars. Just because you have a government-operated motor vehicle testing station, it doesn't suggest that everybody is going to abide by the law. I think it's something that members of the opposition should refresh their memories on when they bring this subject up again. But I would like those two concerns addressed by the minister.

[ Page 6501 ]

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I am not right up to date on the overnight parking of commercial vehicles. Maybe it's a combination problem with the municipality and ourselves, but we'll certainly look into it. I don't think it's according to the law on a provincial highway like the King George, but we'll just have to look into that.

[4:30]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

On the other item, that's a major item that has been brought up — the reverse flow of traffic in the Massey Tunnel. As you know, our ministry, about five or six years ago, put in the...so we can expand the capacity of the tunnel in morning and move the northbound traffic into the city. It has been a great improvement. But our engineers still believe that it won't work going southbound. They are convinced of that. But recently we changed the hours somewhat, I understand, where they were reversing about 8 o'clock in the morning, going back to the normal traffic lanes. They were doing it at 8 o'clock in the morning, so they extended it to 8:20, and now we have a problem with the southbound traffic building up, so we created our own.... And that basically is it.

I, quite frankly, can't convince the two members from Surrey on this. I appreciate their.... But all the facts show that it won't work. We've looked into it quite extensively and don't mind discussing it again, but we've had traffic counts taken and everything. We moved the switch a little further, and the engineers say that it vindicates what they feel that it won't work. You just have a buildup going southbound.

I think that motor vehicle testing has been discussed quite fully during the estimates.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I think first I'd like to, in an open, formal way — I did it with the minister by a note at one time — express my own appreciation for the fine work that the regional office and the district office in Terrace do in responding to requests for action from the Ministry of Highways. They don't always please everybody, of course, because they're not always able to respond favourably to the requests. But where it can be done, it is done. That's very much appreciated by me. It's certainly appreciated by the residents in the area who benefit from that kind of action.

I had occasion at one time to discuss a certain matter with the minister on the telephone, and if he had not have been available and been so generous and kind in his discussion with the people he spoke with, there would have been the acceleration of what could have been a very awkward situation for the community, the regional office, the district office and my own constituency office. I want to publicly thank the minister for taking the time to deal with that situation, and he knows of what I am speaking. There may not be any need for him to comment further, but I wanted to publicly acknowledge that.

I have two or three matters of community interest that I'd like to deal with again publicly, even though they've been dealt with at other times. One of them relates to the Haisla people and a Bailey bridge that is across the river into that village. It's something like a relative coming to visit and saying: "Look, I'd just like to stay for a couple of days." And then some years later, you find out that the relative is a permanent part of the family, when you didn't want him there in the first place.

That's what this Bailey bridge is into the Kitimat village to serve the Hysla people. It's been there so long that they feel it's almost a part of the geography. But it was temporary, as a result of a washout some years ago. It is becoming more permanent as every day goes by, and it's a very awkward situation for the people who live there. More people are building in the community. The use of that connecting highway is increasing. The village wanted to expand and establish a subdivision on the other side of the river front where the community is now. They had to proceed to do that in a way that they would not have ordinarily done if the bridge would have been replaced with a permanent bridge. So that's a crucial question. Even though the bridge is still holding up and is still usable, it doesn't make it any more satisfying to the people who have to use it. This situation has been going on for more years than many people can remember. So that's an urgent plea to the minister to deal with that question.

Rosswood is a community that the minister knows of because he was there at the ceremonial opening of the blacktopping of that particular road as a part of the connecting highway from Highway 16 north to the Nass River. There have been a number of difficulties with a portion of that road. Shortly after it was paved, it slid off into the take, and there has been another sloughing off in that area. I know the regional people and engineering people are looking at it and dealing with it, but it's going to require an extensive amount of work in order to correct that situation and to ensure that the roadbed stays in place and doesn't keep sloughing away and keep falling away and creating a half-a-width road where there was a two-lane road once earlier.

Some years ago, the road from Hazelton out to the Kispiox area was paved as far as the Kispiox village and has come to a dead stop since that time. The road continues further and serves quite a number of people further up the valley. It has served and will continue to serve the logging and the movement of trucks and the like, but more particularly the residents who live there. I've argued with the minister before in the House here that additional attention should be paid to the secondary roads and the back roads, more so than has been the case in the past. There was a move made in that direction, but it doesn't seem to have proceeded beyond that initial move. That is true with respect to the road farther up the valley. The roadbed does need rebuilding to blacktopping standards. If you could get started on that, you might be able to have it blacktopped in a reasonable period of time.

The other thing I'd like to ask the minister about is Carnaby crossing. A few years ago I raised Carnaby crossing, which is a railway grade level crossing on Highway 16 between South Hazelton and Kitseguecla. Two or three years ago the minister told me here in the House that yes, Carnaby crossing would be fixed within a year; that the road would proceed on the upper side of the railway track and cross below it down there. I went around and told a lot of people that. I said: "At the end of the year it'll be done." Now they keep asking me why it isn't done. I feel embarrassed to go back and say that the minister told me that, and so on so I'm trying to cover up as best I can for the minister giving me one bit of information and then not carrying through with it.

Seriously, it is a question of some concern, from my way of thinking anyhow, because it has persisted in being there for such a long period of time and no sort of apparent attempts — visually anyway — to deal with it. as is the case further down the Skeena River, where a road relocation and overpass systems are being put into effect. Apart from that I consider

[ Page 6502 ]

the Carnaby crossing to be the most dangerous one in the whole highway system there, because there are two extreme right-angle turns running on to and off of it across the CN Railway track. There have been accidents there, not involving trains, that I know of — at least not in recent years — but certainly automobile accidents. People are not able to negotiate that sudden switch in an S turn, and not being able to get through the second turn they end up in the ditch or against the guard rail, or against the cement buffers that are there; damage to their cars, injuries to individuals. That needs to be addressed as well.

I leave those with the minister. I'm sure each one of his responses will be positive and will say yes, that will be fixed very soon.

HON. A. FRASER: First of all, I appreciate the comments of the member for Skeena about our staff up in that area. They're excellent people working in difficult climatic conditions, and in types of climatic conditions different from a coast climate: 40 and 50 below zero and 20 feet of snow, all in a few hours. But they do an excellent job throughout the year for all citizens in British Columbia.

The Bailey bridge at Kitimat village — I call that community Kitimat village — happened with the 1978 floods, when we had $50 million damage in the general area up there in the northwest. I think I said myself that we'd replace the Bailey bridge, but we haven't got around to it. I don't think we should be very far away from the time that we do get a permanent bridge there. As you pointed out, the Bailey itself is fairly safe, but I think we should clean it up and put it back on a permanent basis. The other thing there is that that community is also concerned with the whole road, from there back to the main road. That presents another problem. I think the least we could do is replace the Bailey either with a culvert or a small bridge — I don't know what the engineers plan there — and get on with it.

Kispiox village: we did pave to the Kispiox village and then stop. The reason for that was.... I'm aware that logging and so on goes beyond that, but there weren't a lot of citizens living there and at least we got started. Right now we haven't got it as a priority item to go any farther.

On the Camaby crossing — that's on Highway 16 with the CNR — you're correct that that's an unsafe crossing. The reason we couldn't carry out our promise to eliminate the crossing.... This doesn't need an overpass, as you're aware; it's just taking Highway 16 and going straight ahead rather than going this way. But we've run into land acquisition problems and we haven't got it resolved. I can't promise when it will be. The ministry tells me that we're negotiating with the Indian band, and we're further behind with them than we were two years ago on acquisition and right-of-way. That's the situation there. It's one of the easiest level crossings to eliminate as far as we're concerned; but of course we must own the ground that we build the other road on, and we haven't been able to negotiate a settlement. That'll be done just as soon as we can.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can you use section 4?

HON. A. FRASER: No, we can't use section 4.

Vote 67 approved.

Vote 68: administration and services department, $10,814,278 — approved.

Vote 69: highways operations department, $478,803,665 approved.

Vote 70: motor vehicle department, $32,456,912 approved.

Vote 71: Motor Carrier Commission and branch, $2,693,472 — approved.

Vote 72: transportation policy department, $57,454,633 — approved.

Vote 73: air services branch, $8,446,603 — approved.

Vote 74: economic renewal, special highway capital construction project — $456,055,000 — approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

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

[4:45]

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 28.

INDUSTRIAL ELECTRICITY
RATE DISCOUNT ACT

HON. MR. ROGERS: It's my privilege to stand and move second reading of Bill 28, the Industrial Electricity Rate Discount Act. This bill authorizes the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to receive and approve applications from industrial customers who are large consumers of electricity for rate discounts on surplus hydroelectricity. The rate discounts authorized under this act will be a key element in the government's program for economic renewal.

The rate discounts will be available to firms which increase their output and thus increase employment by either of the three following things: increasing the capacity or utilization of existing plant, expanding plant capacity, or undertaking new investment. To ensure that the rate discounts fully serve our economic renewal objectives, they will be used only to support incremental economic activity — I would like to stress that — in other words, activity that would not occur without the incentive provided by this discount. On the other side of the coin is that the discounts will assist B.C. Hydro to market its surplus electricity, thereby improving Hydro's financial position and reducing the general rate increases.

Since the discounts will be available only for incremental electricity consumption — sales which would not otherwise be made — B.C. Hydro's total sales and net revenues will not be increased. It is clearly in the public interest. By strengthening Hydro's financial position in this way, the need to derive additional revenues from existing base-load customers is reduced and everybody benefits. The act also permits

[ Page 6503 ]

discounts for incremental electricity sales resulting from plant modernization or from the displacement of crude oil or related products. However, such sales are unlikely to result in immediate job creation, so they will be assigned a lower priority.

British Columbia is in a position to offer significant rate discounts because of surplus hydroelectricity. It is a characteristic of a hydroelectric system that, once capacity is in place, the operating costs are very low. It makes good economic sense to sell this surplus, even at a low price if necessary, when the alternative is to spill water and lose that energy potential forever. The discount sales will cease when this province's surplus is exhausted.

This legislation refers only to B.C. Hydro's surplus. That is simply because no other public utility in this province has a surplus which could be used to support discount sales. However, section 6 of this act provides for discounts to qualified customers in the service areas of other suppliers, which is West Kootenay Light and Power. That means that regions of the province not served by Hydro will not be discriminated against by this act. In fact, Hydro may supply discounted electricity to other distributors to pass on to their final customers.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The Utilities Commission Act, which governs utility pricing in British Columbia, requires that all customers in a given class rate be given uniform treatment with a rate based on costs — and this should be under normal situations. However, this does not suit our purposes at the present time, and new legislation is required to achieve our objectives. We need to be able to offer discounts on a highly selective basis, in order for the government to have the leverage it needs to effect the production and incentive decisions of industry. A few key discounts may be critical in attracting job creation and investments in this province.

This act provides the legislative authority we need to go out and negotiate with both existing and new industries to make the best possible deals to create new economic activity in British Columbia. B.C. Hydro's firm electricity surplus will exist for the next three to four years. In this period it is possible to make a number of discount sales that will benefit the province. As the economy continues to grow, the base-load electricity consumption will increase and the surplus will diminish. Although some surplus may remain into the mid-1990s, the quantity will be small.

We have the opportunity now to use our surplus in a constructive way to provide incentives needed to make British Columbia the first choice of new industrial investments. However, every time we make such commitment we bring forward the date on which our surplus disappears. Therefore we must apply tight eligibility criteria to ensure that the surplus is used effectively to support our economic objectives.

Firstly, the applications must be from major users of power who tap directly into B.C. Hydro's main transition lines, as opposed to receiving power through the normal distribution system. Such users are more likely to respond to electricity price initiatives. Secondly, the municipality in which the plant or operation is located must have entered into the provincial partnership agreement. This is in keeping with the partnership theme that underlines this government's overall approach to economic renewal.

In addition to these criteria which are spelled out in the act, it will be our policy to require applications to demonstrate that their plans will result in incremental electricity consumption. Indeed this is the cornerstone of the entire initiative. Thus the applicant will have to prove the following: that the discount is necessary in order to make the project viable, that the project will add to the overall economy of the province of British Columbia and that it will not simply displace economic activity elsewhere in the province.

It will be our policy to review applications for electricity discounts to ensure they meet these tests. The government must take responsibility for ensuring that discounts work in the public interest. However, once the government is satisfied this is the case, B.C. Hydro will be directed to lead negotiations with the applicant on the terms and conditions of the discount sale, which will be established on a case-by-case basis.

Finally, all discounted sales will be subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. With this program in place, we will be in a good position to convert our electricity surplus from a liability into a positive economic asset. We'll make the surplus one of the driving forces in the province's economic renewal.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the comments of the members opposite, and I move second reading.

MR. D'ARCY: Our side of the House will reluctantly be supporting the bill, Mr. Speaker.

The minister, in his opening remarks, indicated that this was necessary, he felt, to have economic renewal in the province. Because of the policies of his government over the last ten years, the entire province needs economic renewal. If this bill helps, so be it, but the fact is that the economy of B.C., particularly over the last four years, has been driven down by a number of bad policies of this administration. In particular, one has resulted in extremely high energy costs to consumers, whether it is large industrial consumers, small industrial consumers, the commercial sector or individuals' homes,

One thing nice about the bill.... I do have to say I'm pleased that the minister saw fit to make sure that the provisions were available to all users, regardless of whether they were on the B.C. Hydro system or not. I suppose technically even Alcan could qualify.

In any event, I am also very concerned about the permissive sections. In reading the bill — and I'm not going to go into it clause-by-clause; there will be time for that, Mr. Speaker — it allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, which in effect means the minister, to decide what companies within an industry should receive this kind of assistance, how much assistance they should get, what proportion is extra and what isn't extra, what is surplus power, how much is surplus and so forth. It's entirely permissive. I think we're all aware that heavy industry in B.C. has not been adding to our job base in this province; in fact, it's a declining part of our basic job base. Secondary industry, manufacturing and the service sector have been providing whatever economic growth there has been. There's been no growth; there's been a decline. Whatever has moved in to supplant the decline in the heavy industry job base has come from labour-intensive smaller manufacturers.

Mr. Speaker, I'd feel a lot happier if this bill allowed for the provision of electricity benefits to smaller manufacturers so that more British Columbians and more investors in B.C.

[ Page 6504 ]

could get in on the game of taking advantage of our plentiful and already developed hydroelectric resources in this province, which are already bought, already mortgaged — unfortunately not paid for. But we're having to pay for them, and I would like to see that area of our economy be able to take advantage of electricity discounts.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Of course, if I had my druthers, I would say that as we need to kickstart the economy in British Columbia, and if we do have all this surplus electricity, which we do have, we should be helping everybody. We should be using this as a lever to make our entire economy more competitive in terms of how we deal and compete with the rest of Canada, the northwestern states and the Pacific Rim countries. Going around and playing one community off against another, one industry off against another, even parts of one industry off against others, I don't believe, Mr. Speaker, is the way to go.

I suppose I have to concede, though, that the approach the minister is taking is better than nothing. We do have this surplus power. The minister says it's only going to be around for a short time. The fact is that domestically B.C. Hydro is selling less domestic power now than it was four years ago. Domestic sales are not growing. Fortunately export sales are, but domestic sales are not growing, and I feel that we may well have surplus power around for the foreseeable future.

Mr. Speaker, we should think of ways of getting at least a few cents on the dollar back on that, but the main thing is to stimulate the economy, because we all know that base industry jobs, whether they be in value-added manufacturing or in heavy industry, have a tremendous multiplier effect as far as the sellers of retail goods and services in British Columbia and the entire service industry sector, whether it's public or private, are concerned. It has been said many times in this House, and outside this House as well, that we're very foolish in this province not to have made use of our basic natural resources in a much more job-intensive way — the way our competitors have done and are continuing to do in western Europe, the Pacific Rim, and other parts of Canada and North America. We really need to orient ourselves that way, and if private sector industries are not entrepreneurial enough to move in that direction on their own, I do believe it's one of the roles of government to gently, or in some cases not so gently, nudge them along that path. Their fellow capitalists in other parts of the world and Canada are going in that direction and have gone in that direction, which is why, for instance, there are so many jobs per unit of wood in the forest industry in competing jurisdictions — so many more jobs than there are in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I want to note that Hydro's interim report that was just issued shows their revenues up $340 million last year. That's 22 percent. I don't think there are too many businesses in B.C., other than a regulated utility, that could say they had a 20 percent increase in gross revenue in 1984, which was not a great year in British Columbia. I have to point out, though — and I'm sure the minister knows this — that that 22 percent increase is 22 percent more money not available in the B.C. economy. In part it's increased exports and increased natural gas sales. I suppose a smaller part is increased railway revenue. As I said, domestic electric sales are not up, and most of that $340 million is because of rate increases to B.C. Hydro's customers — large, medium and small.

I do not like — and I've told the minister this in public and in private — what I call a seat-sale approach to getting rid of the surplus capacity, whereby people who have been in British Columbia for a long time and must buy electricity.... Their whole economy is oriented to buying electricity, and I include our largest industries down to families on social assistance. They must have that electricity to function, to stay alive. But if individuals, especially large companies — only large companies, some might say — have an extra need or even a frivolous need, they are going to get the special deal. I don't think that's fair to British Columbians who have invested and worked and provided for our B.C. economy through fair weather and foul. And most of it lately has been foul — economically, that is — over the last few years. This is better than nothing, but I don't think it's fair to the majority of British Columbia power users.

[5:00]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad that I heard the bill was coming on. When I heard that this bill was being called, I flew thousands of miles to be here to debate this bill. I have a comment about what the government is doing. I certainly hope that this minister — and I don't know why he was replaced as the minister in charge of B.C. Place and exposition — is not as much of a rube and a hayseed as the minister in charge of the exposition, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, personal references are most unparliamentary. To the bill, please.

MR. LAUK: Rubbish?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the bill.

MR. LAUK: Hayseedish? Hayseed-like, tending to be exceedingly naive, Mr. Speaker. As an exceedingly naive minister of the Crown, we had this embarrassing debacle with Bartlett....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We're on a bill, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: I'm leading into it right now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please do. The Industrial Electricity Rate Discount Act, Bill 28.

MR. LAUK: But why is it, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians are so embarrassed about their own skills and abilities, and we had this man as president of Expo for years without admitting that he was a Yankee carnival barker who was taking us for a ride?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, order. The member will speak to the bill, or the member will take his seat.

MR. LAUK: I admire your precision, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Please proceed on the bill.

MR. LAUK: Now to the bill. It seems to me that this government uses the people of British Columbia — ordinary working families — for its own purposes, which in this case is monument building. In this specific case under the bill,

[ Page 6505 ]

they are providing lower rates for electricity for the exposition period. I know the argument of the minister. I've heard him, or at least other of his colleagues have made it....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Now back to Bartlett. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to confront this minister and the government with.... You were too precise in your last instructions to me, Mr. Speaker. It's very difficult for me, even with all of my legal experience, to wend my way out of that. So I'm going to take my seat.

MR. WILLIAMS: It is a full moon. I hesitate to follow the last speaker, but nevertheless.....

It does seem to me that this is part of a pattern of legislation we've been getting this session — that is, basically a baling-wire and chewing-gum approach to our industrial strategy problem in British Columbia. It's a reflection on bad planning and bad management over a long period of time. There's simply no question about it.

Under this administration B.C. Hydro has not done the job that it should have, as a prudent manager. It didn't do the job in terms of anticipating what the demand would be; it was all inadequately done. The warning bells have been going on for a decade in terms of this problem. Nothing was done about it. Then when you finally realize, through Hydro administration, that you had a serious problem of oversupply, you scurried around for markets. You thought you'd pulled together a deal down in Los Angeles for cheap rates and at least some big bulk sales, and then you got thwarted by Bonneville and the intertie system and its availability.

They started quickly changing their regulations in order to close you out. It's some inheritance in terms of management incompetence; it just wasn't there. I happened to be in Seattle at the time and picked up the Seattle newspapers and was reading about this American deal that Hydro had pulled together, and Bonneville obviously blew a gasket over it. There was obviously no preliminary discussion, There wasn't the work done ahead of time in terms of handling that. It tells you volumes about the competence of management, when you've got a $2 billion facility at Revelstoke, and you've got the billions we put into our own transmission lines, and then you don't have a market. So hustle, hustle — we blow the Los Angeles sale. Bonneville closes us off. We've got to wait for the additions to the intertie system through eastern Oregon and Washington, and so on.

In the meantime, we've got water spilling over a dam. So what have we got now? More chewing gum and baling wire. Let's try to hustle some cheap-rate system for somebody. Under this minister that's happening across the board. It isn't just happening with Hydro and cheap electricity rates; it's happening in the form of gas and the rest of our provincial assets. It doesn't take a very intelligent person to sell stuff at fire sale prices. It doesn't take a smart businessman to sell electricity at bargain basement prices, or to sell gas at bargain basement prices, which he's also doing.

Talk about reluctance in terms of buying this kind of proposal. We've got a serious problem on our hands in terms of oversupply, and we're going to help the new boys. That's what you're doing with all the legislation you're putting before us. In terms of an industrial strategy, we're helping out the failures, through the doctor of critical industries, Mr. Phillips. We're helping out the foreigners in the form of the legislation on special economic zones; failures and foreigners, and now discount rates for electricity for who knows. It's a kind of quicksand.

You are the guys who talk about free enterprise. Free enterprise requires that the goalposts be clear and firm, You guys are in the process of changing.... I don't know how the member for Seymour can vote for half the legislation you're going to be bringing in this session. It's legislation that changes the goalposts and penalizes the good performers. The good performers who have hung in through your ten years of mismanagement will pay a higher price. The new boys will get a cheap rate here. They'll get a cheap rate in the BCDC's special economic zones, and there will be others under your so-called partnership for renewal.

But what it is is.... Ask the economists. What would the economists tell you about this sort of thing? They would argue for marginal pricing: that is, that you should price on the basis of the cost of the current new project. And you're doing exactly the opposite.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. The economists tell us that any new plant you put on stream should meet its price. Well, Revelstoke is probably one of the costliest simply because it's current and carried current interest rates, current labour costs and the rest.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, in U.S. dollars to boot — throw in another 36 percent, or whatever that is.

What does it tell us? It tells us that there has been gross mismanagement. Now you're patching together some kind of piecemeal thing and trying to put it under a nice label in red, white and blue — called a partnership for renewal — but it's an admission of gross mismanagement. Billion dollar projects that don't come anywhere near paying for themselves. As the member from the Kootenays says, that means that the heavy penalty is on the average Joe. So the small businessman, the small commercial consumer and the average residential consumer ends up picking up the slack. That's what happens.

But beyond that is the whole question of discrimination, in terms of who benefits. And that's throughout the piece in these new chunks of legislation. Who's going to benefit in terms of corporate tax benefits and tax holidays in the special economic zones? It's going to be decided somehow, and it will mean discrimination against all of the regular free enterprise, small, medium and large businesses that have prevailed throughout this decade and before. You're going to help the foreigners, you're going to help the failures, and Lord knows who you're going to help under this legislation.

This minister has been in the business of selling off cheap gas in terms of his new plants. He's discounting the future on a grand scale, in his gas operations, and he's discounting on a grand scale again the new Hydro projects of British Columbia. It doesn't take any business skill whatsoever to sell stuff at less than what it costs you. You people call yourselves a business administration, and you're selling our product, our electricity, at below the cost of production. That's not very smart stuff at all, and a real admission of mismanagement in terms of the main corporation in this province, the one that has historically, since the W.A.C. Bennett years, been the

[ Page 6506 ]

engine of the economy. It's sputtering away today under this ministry and this administration. All this bill tells us is that there it is; we've really failed in terms of running the main engine of the B.C. economy.

MRS. WALLACE: I certainly couldn't let this bill go by without having something to say about it. It seems to me that it is a discriminatory bill. I don't think I'm speaking too strongly when I say it's a pork-barrel bill. There is no way of controlling or having any authority or any discretion, as far as this Legislature goes, over what happens. The minister and his appointees are going to deal with this. They're going to decide who gets what and where.

They have put into legislation a few things about people who won't get it. If you have a load that's less than — what is it? — five megawatts, you're not going to be eligible. If it's jobs you're after, Mr. Minister, you should realize that if you're really trying to make jobs, any statistician in the world will tell you that a small operation is the employer of people; that's what jobs are all about. But you're not going to give those small outfits any power — anything that's less than five megawatts, as I read the thing.

Also, it's a kind of blackmail bill as well as a pork-barrel bill. If anybody is going to take advantage of this, they have to be in a location where the other bill relative to the municipal partnership, or whatever it is, has been accepted. So if the municipality, for whatever reason, decide they don't want to involve themselves in that — that they don't want to subject their existing industries to that kind of competition — then they're not eligible to get this. So it's a blackmail bill: you've got to sign up for the other one or we won't give you this one. That doesn't strike me as a fair and above-board approach.

You're not going to worry about all those residential people who are trying to meet power bills that are breaking them in some instances. The rate keeps going up and up. I've said almost 50 percent of the people in my constituency are living on reduced incomes, and yet they're meeting higher and higher energy bills all the time. You're not doing anything to help them out. What about the old-age pensioners in this province? What about the people on welfare? What about the people on UIC? What about the unemployed that have fallen through the cracks and aren't on any of those things? The self-employed who have gone bankrupt: what help is there for them? Nothing. All for the big boys, and at your discretion who gets what and how much. Nice pork-barrel, Mr. Minister.

Here it is: limited, under the control of the ministry, only for certain ones. He makes the decisions. If you don't go into the municipality partnership thing, you're not eligible. And all because that minister.... Well, I can't blame him; he wasn't the minister when it happened. But that government let Hydro go pell-mell, destroying our valleys, building up a deficit that.... What is it? Eighty percent of our provincial debt is B.C. Hydro's debt. And here you are, power coming out of your ears. You did nothing to direct them to do anything else. You and the manager of Hydro said: "Go ahead. Go to it. Build, build, build." And Mr. Bonner, of course, seeing you can't get the Bonneville bypass, would even have you go out and build a transmission line to California. What nonsense! What you'd really like to do is to get into firm power exports.

[5:15]

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm a supporter of Site C? Come on! You know better than that. That's the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) throwing his two bits in, and I have to respond to that.

This government has gone ahead and gone ahead. He was the Minister of Energy when all that was going on. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was the one that wanted to build Site C; he was right in there with them.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll ask the minister not to interrupt, and I'll ask the members to direct their attention to this bill. The principle is electricity discounting.

MRS. WALLACE: That's right. We're dealing with this electricity discounting to the big corporations in this province, because that minister over there, who keeps interrupting me, didn't have sense enough to stop Hydro from overbuilding. That's where it's at, right there. Here we are, and we're stuck with it. We've got this surplus and, as my colleague from Vancouver says, we're having fire-sale electricity all over the place: if you can't sell it in one place, sell it in another.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Sure, we've got too much electricity, but I'm not at all sure this is the direction we should be going. I'm not at all sure that we should be dishing that surplus out at low rates — discount rates, giveaway rates — to large corporations which aren't going to employ that many people. What they'll probably do is use that extra electric power to put in electrically operated equipment that will cut jobs out; that's been the past experience whenever you do anything like this. So if this is a job-creating program, I am most surprised, because I think the net result will probably be less jobs rather than more jobs.

I'm also concerned about the kind of unfair competition that this is going to put on the people who have struggled and built their businesses, and have managed to keep going. They're going to be stuck with paying those higher rates, or if they happen to be in a municipality that hasn't gone with the partnership, they're going to be stuck with paying those higher rates. If you're a poor person on UIC or social welfare, or unemployed with no kind of income, scratching out a living, you're going to be stuck with paying those same inflated hydro rates that have gone up and up and up because of the debt — what is it, 47 cents out of every dollar that we pay goes to cover the charges on the debt for B.C. Hydro? I think that's the figure.

Those residential people aren't going to get any relief on that. No way. Just the big boys, the big corporations, the big loads. The little fellow who wants to start up a small operation of some kind where maybe he'd employ a few people — no, no, he's not eligible. In the final analysis it's really that minister who's going to decide: "Okay, I'll let you have it, and I'll give you this kind of a rate. We won't tell anybody what you're getting. Over here, well, maybe you didn't support me quite as much in the last election campaign; yeah, we'll give you a little cut here, but we won't give you as much." But you'll never know that it's not as much, because you never know what the other guy got. It's a pork barrel, a

[ Page 6507 ]

giveaway, and it's going to the wrong place. And it's not going to create any jobs.

I'm surprised that the minister brings in this kind of a bill. You know, the problem is that we've got the surplus, and we have no alternative from that side of the House of what we're going to do with it except this bill. That's the unfortunate position we're in on this side of the House, because this is the bill you're giving us. We have no choice. If you're going to do anything with that electricity, this is it. Granted, it's better to sell it to somebody at a cut-rate price on an under-the-table deal than just to give it away or let it run over the dam. I think it might be better just to give it away to the people who need it; I'm not sure. It might be better just to give it to those poor people, those people on welfare and UIC. But we don't have that alternative on this side of the House, because you're not giving it to us. All you're giving us is the pork barrel or nothing — pork barrel or pour it over the dam. That's the choice we've got, and I think that's representative of the kind of legislation this government is so fond of bringing in.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. DAVIS: As I understand it, Bill 28, the Industrial Electricity Rate Discount Act, applies to particular situations, and I expect will be in effect for a limited period of time. This kind of legislation has been introduced in Quebec and Manitoba. It has been introduced in circumstances similar to our own, where the provincial utility had a large surplus of hydroelectric power for what looked like a considerable period of time — years at least — and the only alternative was to export it at a competitive rate, a low rate, to adjoining utilities in the United States.

The export of that energy to the United States, while it generates some additional income to the utility, doesn't necessarily provide any additional jobs in the province of origin. I know there are instances in Quebec where the special rate has been introduced to allow an existing power-intensive industry to operate full out, even to add some capacity and employ a few more people, often to export a product which had a large power component. In North Vancouver–Seymour we have two industries of this character. I'll call them power-intensive. They produce caustic soda, chlorine, chlorates. They use salt, for example, which is imported, process it through a furnace and generate these products, electricity consumed in large quantities meanwhile. I understand they have made submissions to the government, saying: "If we could get a special low rate, or a rate lower than the normal B.C. Hydro rate — the published province-wide postage stamp rate for B.C. Hydro — we could gain some additional export business for chlorates, whatever, overseas."

My understanding is that this bill really allows a lower rate to be struck for incremental or additional business, business which will provide some additional jobs in the province for some limited period of time. I wasn't here, regrettably, when the minister made his introductory remarks, but I assume that this legislation is really interim legislation, not the kind that would prevail over literally decades. These lower rates could not be justified in a period when there was no substantial surplus of energy in the province and when surplus was otherwise simply being exported from the province without generating more jobs.

To me at least, it's clear that this is interim legislation. It's to provide additional jobs in a few industries, in a few particular locations, where there may be some additional export business possible because the low power rate is available. I know that some of this export business has been picked up by Quebec manufacturers because they had these exceptionally low interim rates from Quebec Hydro, and I know that similar situations exist in a few other provinces.

So perhaps my question to the minister really is: is this a long-term policy or is it essentially interim? Is it essentially some additional jobs? Is it an attempt to take advantage of an opportunity which may not exist over the long term because we'd have to face the average costs of the utility and reflect them in the rates of the utility over the long term?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'll start off with the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy). The objective of this legislation is to.... We recognize the fact that we have surplus power. I think we can have all kinds of debate, and the member for Vancouver East puts forward an argument which in hindsight perhaps looks good. I think you have to temper that argument a little bit about why we have the surplus power. Yes, there is always somebody warning about something, but almost all of the utilities are faced with this problem.

The reason our immediate neighbour to the south isn't faced with this problem is that they have a rather poor choice of power plant. Had they not had the debacle with the Washington Public Power System, they would have had five nuclear plants, none of which they need at the present time, although we are able to sell them a little bit of surplus hydro electricity.

The object of this exercise, if I may put it that way, is that faced with the reality of today's problem — and we can go back and review how we got into this situation, and that's probably more appropriate in estimates.... Faced with that, what's the best way to turn this around? What is the best way to put people to work and to increase employment using this hydroelectric surplus that we have?

The decision of the government was that we would do it based on incremental sales on new construction and trying to induce people to come to British Columbia who need just that little carrot to get them into that first phase of their development. They know when they're going to come in with a manufacturing plant and stay for some considerable time that the most difficult time in any construction plant is in the first two or three years of production. If we can attract existing industry here to expand, if we can attract industry from other parts of Canada or if we can attract industry from overseas that will be involved not only in construction but obviously in operations, we will have succeeded to a certain extent with our objectives.

It's not my intention to use the surplus power just for the first people who come along with the proposal that would turn it around as quickly as possible and employ as few people as possible. The object of the game or the exercise is to see the maximum amount of operations that can be secured by this.

You mentioned something about Hydro customers. Actually there's a 21 percent increase in the number of Hydro customers. The overall sales of Hydro have gone down on the individual basis, but the number of customers continues to grow. That's out of the bill, but since you brought it up, I thought I'd mention it.

The member for Vancouver Centre made some remarks which I don't believe were relevant to this bill and don't require any comment.

[ Page 6508 ]

The member for Vancouver East puts forward some good points about poor decisions made by the management of Hydro. To go back and examine the decisions at the time they were made and the relevant information that was submitted by a number of people, including the Ministry of Energy and consultants hired by B.C. Hydro, it's clear that Hydro, along with other utilities, were very optimistic in what they thought the electrical growth was going to be. I don't pretend for a minute that they didn't make a big mistake. What we're trying to do is make the best of the problem now. If we want to review the mistake, there's another forum in which we can do it. Let's try to find out the best way we can solve the problem.

In terms of exporting power, when we exported power, we did have talks with Bonneville Power Administration about that. Mr. Peter Johnson of Bonneville Power Administration has a different political agenda than otherwise might be the case. There are ways to circumvent the Bonneville Power Administration which have recently come to the fore from other utilities. There are an enormous number of American utilities who would like to buy our surplus power. Portland General Electric, which owns a piece of the Bonneville transmission between the border and the John Day substation, has been able to contract to buy power from us. We're selling them this power at the kinds of rates that we sell to industrial people in B.C. just to get the cash, quite frankly. I would rather we make a nickel with the water than spill the water. Anything we do to raise the revenue for B.C. Hydro means a smaller amount of money we have to go back on — or maybe no amount of money — for increased rates next year. We're trying to salvage the best of the situation, and we are doing it on two fronts.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

[5:30]

Now if we're going to discount prices for electricity for domestic purposes in line with this act, we have to do it at a rate much less than we would actually sell that power to the Americans for. So we have the opportunity to sell the power at 40 mills or we have to give it away at four mills. We have to balance that with what are the job opportunities. Well, we had an opportunity to sell power at 40 mills two or three years ago, and did for a very short window. But quite frankly, it's much more like 21 or 22 mills and a little less or a little more on a daily basis.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Yes, when you were the minister it was 40 mills, because they were displacing oil-fired things. We're planning to try to make the best of it.

What I'm looking for in terms of industries that we're trying to attract — and there have been a number that have come — are ones that are going to come and make a major financial commitment, a major employment commitment. If this is the kind of carrot we can use to get someone to come here, that's exactly the way I'd like to see it done. In fact the sector that I would most like to see get involved is the construction sector, because probably it's the sector that's most heavily hurt. The aluminium manufacturers in Washington and Oregon are having enormous difficulties with their utilities. But aluminium companies don't use an awful lot of employment compared to the amount of electricity they use. I don't really think that I want to negotiate any kind of long-term power deal with an aluminium smelter that might come up here and employ.... A modern one employs almost no one. It's almost completely automatic. That's no way to do that; that's not what I'm interested in doing, either short- or long-term. If they want to come up here and pay the going rate like everybody else and employ people, fine, that's fair game. But that's not the kind of people we want to try and induce.

We have some indication of some industries. We have the industries that the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) mentioned, existing industries within this province that can get incremental export sales which would not otherwise be available. Where the municipality joins in the partnership, we are going to allow incremental sales in those particular areas for export power. We've already done it in terms of some.... The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) is here. The mill in your riding received a special discount of electricity last year for a special export sale of pulp that they would not otherwise be able to do. They were able to demonstrate to Hydro that that sale would not have gone forward without the special discount on electricity, and for the time that they were able to do that sale, we were able to do that. People got some employment out of this.

We must protect the base load of the utility and must try to take the surplus and get as much out of the surplus as is absolutely possible. As I say....

MR. WILLIAMS: What about Ocelot?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, you know, Ocelot's expansion will qualify, as will the LNG plant, for the short term while the surplus is available. If this helps make the decision on whether the LNG project goes ahead, and if this helps make the decision on whether the Ocelot project goes ahead, I think it's a wise use of electricity, because that's an area of the province that has very substantial unemployment. The skills and the work required to build those kind of plants are largely skills and work and engineering and manufacturing that will be done in British Columbia to assist that. So if electricity can be part of the incremental reason to get these things going.... This is no long-term discount. They are going to pay the standard commercial rate once the surplus has disappeared. But if you want to try to take that surplus and make absolutely the best use of it, if they can meet our criteria, that's what I'd choose to do and that's what I hope to do.

That, I believe, essentially answers the questions. I'm sure there will be some further debate in committee on this bill. I will be moving the amendment that is in my name when we get into committee and maybe one or two others.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 28, Industrial Electricity Discount Rate Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ENERGY, MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

On vote 22: minister's office, $184,214.

[ Page 6509 ]

HON. MR. ROGERS: Perhaps now we can get into some of the questions that might have been more relevant during the discussions that took place a little earlier.

In beginning my estimates this year in this particular ministry, I'd like to maybe take a moment or two to point out just how important the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is to the total economy of the province. From the perspective of industry, mining and petroleum make up over $5 billion in business in this province, providing employment to a number of people. It tends to be away from the major population areas, so it's not something that people are all that cognizant of. But I would like to make that point. It's also worth noting that the mining and petroleum industries together are the greatest contributors of direct resource revenue to the provincial treasury.

It is important that there be an orderly management of this resource. It's the job of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to run this comparatively small ministry, doing what I think is a very big job for the people of British Columbia.

I'd like to review a few of the highlights of the last year in the energy and mining fields. Coal really continues to be our greatest strength in the mining industry. I'm very pleased.... Members may not have seen today's edition of the Vancouver daily disappointment newspaper, but it would appear that the Gulf corporation has made the decision to go ahead with the anthracite coal-mine at Mount Klappan, which is a major coal expansion for this province. It's a type of coal that we have not previously mined in British Columbia or, in fact, in Canada. Anthracite will be used for exports to the province of Quebec, for titanium manufacturing, to the Benelux countries and also to Korea. This is a new private sector development in the northwestern part of British Columbia. Major beneficiaries will be in the constituency of Atlin — the town of Stewart and the people in that part of the province. I look forward to it being a great new expansion of our industrial operations in the province.

During the year I have been privileged to lead trade missions to China and to South-East Asia seeking markets for our products and also for our technology. We were very successful in both the People's Republic of China and Indonesia in securing sales contracts, especially soft contracts — the export of engineering services, and in the mapping and aerial survey work that was done. The trade mission had a major effect on how that happened.

B.C. Hydro, I'm sure, will come up more extensively during my estimates. We have had a major restructuring of B.C. Hydro to give it a more business-oriented focus. At the head of the Crown corporation.... I have described Chester Johnson as being to B.C. Hydro what Lee Iacocca was to Chrysler. If he's able to turn the company around, and he certainly has that kind of enthusiasm and effort, I think we'll see some very major changes there. We do continue to make major efforts to nail down contracts for firm exports of electricity. We have exported electricity as far as Kansas City and, of course, down into the southern California area, but, quite frankly, I'd.... The previous bill discussed some of the problems that we face with this.

There is a new intertie being made from southern California to John Day, but we still have difficulties with the Bonneville Power Administration in that particular capacity that goes between the border and John Day. There are ways, apparently, if we make a very small transmission line in the East Kootenay, where we can loop into the Washington Water Power system and bypass part of Bonneville. That is under examination right now, and Washington Water Power would like to continue those discussions. It's difficult when you're in the electrical utility business not to get along with your neighbour, because he's always going to be your neighbour and never going to go away, so we would really rather be on a more friendly basis with Bonneville. We've had good relations with them in the past, and I think their problem is probably more overshadowed by the fact that they have the nightmare of the Washington .... The WPPS projects have continued to bothered them. They are now being pressured by the American federal administration to start paying some of their interest costs, which will make electrical rates in Washington state — in fact, in the Pacific Northwest — totally outrageous when compared to British Columbia. Again, there will be more pressure on us to have sales.

We have introduced short-term discount rates for electricity to replace heavy oil when it's used to run turbo generators for the coast forest industry. As I reported earlier, that has been successful.

In the petroleum sector we have reinvested some of the fairly substantial earnings that we've had to build an all weather road into the Desan area in the northeastern part of the province, where we had a fairly promising oil discovery the year before last. It continues to attract considerable attention.

The income from petroleum rights totalled $62 million in 1984, compared to $26 million the year before. Much of that increase is due to the credit of Desan, because, of course, there's an instant market for oil, and people are quite interested in it. Almost half of the 198 petroleum wells drilled in B.C. were drilled in that area. We had a total of only 76 drilled the year before.

With Ottawa we have initiated joint environmental offshore studies on the west coast on the possibility of doing work on the west coast. We've also worked out the jurisdiction as to who owns the seabed of Georgia strait.

We will be continuing to have negotiations with the federal government over the offshore resources of the province. If we receive the same kind of treatment that was received by the province of Newfoundland, British Columbia can look forward to some exciting prospects in terms of offshore exploration, provided that all of the environmental and marine safety requirements can be met.

The province accepted the report of the Utilities Commission recommending we go with the southern route for the Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline because it would be $100 million cheaper than the northern route. I expect some discussion on that. We have undertaken a rather intensive campaign with Ottawa. They now agree with us on a whole host of the numbers, on which they did not agree with us before. But they do at the technical level. Of course, with the change in the western accord, we have had change in the numbers in that pipeline to make it look even more attractive.

We have approved an energy removal certificate for the Western LNG project that is proposed for the north coast, and of course the members will be aware of some of the very substantial press coverage that has received. The project was receiving what might be best described as palliative care about October of last year; most people were prepared to write it off. With the reintroduction of the Mobil Oil Co. and Petro-Canada, which our customers in Japan perceive to be a government of Canada operation — and I do as well, for that matter — I think this project will go ahead, provided they can

[ Page 6510 ]

successfully negotiate the price contracts. It would be a very substantial construction and a gas exploration boost in the province, and one that I look forward to seeing completed.

We have put the finishing touches on some legislation, which I have introduced, and at this time the most significant thing we have done is negotiate the western accord with the federal government. There is already a substantial increase in activity in the northeast. If you had booked an oil service rig four months ago, they would have been delighted to deliver it to wherever you wanted it in 24 hours. They are now letting the phone ring two or three times and giving you a number on a list. We're starting to see some of the oil and gas rigs come back from the United States that were once in British Columbia, and I expect we will see a major increase in exploration activity in the oil patch.

I also expect that that will result in more employment. If there is one thing I have stressed with the oil and gas companies, it is that when they are operating in B.C.... Under the constitution they can employ anybody from anywhere in Canada, but I would very much like to stress to them that I want them to at least let everybody in the province know if they are hiring, so that the people in this province, who have in the past not been aware of it because the hiring has tended to go on either in a local area or in Edmonton or Calgary.... I have their assurance, and I'll be monitoring that to see if that takes place.

[5:45]

The western accord bears a little repeating. It'll mean a phase-out of the federal energy tax, which had taken more than $100 million out of the B.C. economy every year. The oil and gas industry will now be able to reinvest that and are starting to do so already. The most punitive tax, the petroleum and gas royalty tax, or PGRT, has been eliminated over a three and a half year period, but has been already eliminated on the Vancouver Island pipeline project, the LNG, the addition to the Kitimat ammonia plant and the proposed ammonia-urea plant that will take place on the lower mainland. So all of those things have benefited already from the removal of the PGRT.

Two of those projects would not have proceeded without the changes that were made to our budget and the change in the PGRT, and that's the expansion of the Ocelot plant and the $600 million fertilizer plant with Union Oil and Westcoast Transmission. The proponents have made it clear that they would not proceed without that.

The move of world oil prices under the national energy accord has not significantly affected British Columbians directly, but indirectly all consumers will benefit from a revival of a healthy oil and gas industry. The government will continue to examine ways of using our surplus electricity, which I spoke of just a little earlier. We will be bringing in more than just electrical discounts to try and revitalize industry. We have also signed a $10 million mineral subagreement with the federal government, which is a result of the work concluded by my colleague the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. McClelland). The subagreement will focus on assistance for exploration, development and marketing of minerals.

We still face great difficulties in terms of prices of many of the minerals we produce. However, there is some bit of a firming in the molybdenum prices, and there has been some possibility of reopening some of the copper-molybdenum deposits and molybdenum mines. Where it's possible, if the electrical discounts which we dealt with earlier are of assistance in reopening either the mine at Kitsault or Brenda — or any of them, for that matter, that are shut down — I would be most pleased if that were to happen.

I continue to expend my personal efforts in trying to expand our industrial base. With that, I look forward to questions from the members.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The hour is late, and as we don't have.... The fact is that there's really no point in getting into the meat of the topics I would like to get into. I'm debate leader for mining, petroleum and natural gas, which I share with my colleague to my right, who will be responsible for leading the debate on B.C. Hydro and these kinds of things. I'm really not going to get into the meat of my argument for the next five or ten minutes this evening.

One of the first things I'd like to do.... I should say that while I don't philosophically agree with many of the moves that the minister and the government are making, it's obvious that the minister has quite a good grasp of his portfolio. In any event, I wonder if you would be good enough.... What I have here, Mr. Minister — I promised my constituents I would deliver these to you; I won't table them — are some 200 or 300 letters of protest regarding the rate increase by B.C. Hydro. You may or may not want to answer them. I did promise these people I would deliver these letters to you, so they are now delivered, it's in Hansard, and there you are.

AN HON. MEMBER: More reliable than Canada Post.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, they've been around for a while.

Just to utilize the short time remaining.... As I said, there's just no way we can get into any kind of meaningful debate in the next five minutes on either the mining situation or the petroleum situation in British Columbia, so one of the topics I was going to discuss with you is the proposed natural gas line to Vancouver Island. We've been through this so often, but I can use up five minutes very handily on that topic — or even five days. However, a number of things have happened since the last provincial election, Mr. Minister. You will recall that I had no less than seven cabinet ministers come into my riding during the course of the last election, and the big issue in the riding at that time was the proposed natural gas line to Vancouver Island and the proposed fertilizer plant for that area.

Every cabinet minister who came into my riding indicated, during the course of that election, that in fact the preferred route was the northern route, for a lot of added-value benefits that would accrue to the government of British Columbia, particularly to the people of Vancouver Island and Powell River. I might say right now, in view of the many statements that have been made, particularly in Ottawa.... And I know that you've chosen the southern route, as recommended by the Utilities Commission. I've read the report quite carefully. But the fact is, Vancouver Island will never see a natural gas line, probably not in our time.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, it won't, and there are good reasons why. And the minister knows this stuff. No, Mr. Member. The minister is much more aware than I am. First of

[ Page 6511 ]

all, there's an excess of energy on Vancouver Island now. The government chose, in its wisdom, to construct the Cheekye-Dunsmuir transmission line, through B.C. Hydro. We don't have a cost breakdown on that yet. Originally, when the Cheekye-Dunsmuir transmission line was proposed, we were told by B.C. Hydro that the cost would be about $350 million. We then found a secret memo that was brought to our attention — I don't know how we got it but we did — from B.C. Hydro, an internal memo, saying that the cost would be $700 million, but don't tell anyone; the public will get all upset. In fact, I have charged.... This figure has not been denied by the government. In fact, they had questions on the order paper last year which indicated that the cost could be somewhere — including distribution — in excess of a billion dollars. But the project is there. It is completed.

Mr. Chairman, I should relate to you a humorous little story about this, involving this minister. Just about the time the public hearings — which were a bit of a sham — were taking place, there was a large public meeting in the community called Pender Harbour. The hall was full to overflowing. We had people standing outside; they couldn't get into the hall. The minister had just been appointed to this portfolio.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, Environment; okay. He had just been appointed to that portfolio of Environment. He had been there less than a month, and it was great that the minister.... He could have got killed there. But, anyway, he did show up to the meeting. He had been minister for less than a month, and here he finds an effigy of himself hung in the hall. I don't know if that's humorous or not, but I remember the minister saying to me: "My God, I've just been in the ministry. I can't even find my people yet, and here I'm hanged in effigy."

The point of my remarks is this: in my opinion there will be no natural gas line on Vancouver Island. We do have an excess of electrical energy on the Island at the present time, plus the fact that most of the major pulp-producers have put in a certain type of boiler, where they can produce energy utilizing waste wood, at costs of millions of dollars. So they don't even need the natural gas. There are no fixed or guaranteed sales for natural gas on Vancouver Island at this time.

A number of people on our side, including the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy), our leader, the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) and many others have suggested — the government is not going to spend all that money to give us a postage-stamp rate on Vancouver Island in any event — that we should have some kind of preferred electrical rates, as we're giving to the large corporations. In fact, a bill just went through second reading here a few minutes ago. Residents of Vancouver Island and the mainland coast, which is essentially isolated, should receive some sort of reduced.... We do have an excess of electrical energy. We should have a preferred rate for electrical energy for people living on Vancouver Island — for residential purposes, in any event. Perhaps the minister will consider that, and if a bill is brought before the House we'll speak for the bill.

Let me say this: the government, in its wisdom, made one terrible mistake by proceeding with Cheekye-Dunsmuir when they should have proceeded with a natural gas line — the northern route to Vancouver Island. It would have accomplished the same purpose, would have released that electrical energy that's now being consumed by the people on Vancouver Island and the lower central coast. The reason they did that, Mr. Chairman, was that they all of a sudden found out that they had an excess of electrical energy. They completed the Revelstoke Dam, and they had to send the electricity somewhere, so they sent it to Vancouver Island. The cost to the people of this province has been horrendous. At a time when we're facing cuts in education, when we can't find bucks for our school boards and our health services, when we have people in food lines....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I know; I understand. Nonetheless, we've spent probably $1.1 billion or $1.2 billion on a transmission line that was not required — money that could have been spent to put in that natural gas line and a cleaner, cheaper fuel. So there you have it.

I wonder if the House Leader would accept an adjournment, because there's no point in.... I'm not going to discuss mining. I can keep going on a lot of frivolous things.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.