1986 Legislative Session: 4th

Session, 33rd

Parliament

HANSARD

The

following electronic version is

for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, MAY 9, 1986

Morning Sitting

[ Page 8129 ]

CONTENTS

Tabling Documents — 8129

Oral Questions

Pentachlorophenol plant. Mrs. Wallace — 8129

Government advertising. Mr. Hanson — 8129

Lottery funds. Mr. Hanson — 8130

Westar Timber. Mr. Lea — 8130

Sunday drinking laws. Mr. Ree — 8130

Gordon Neighbourhood House. Ms. Brown — 8130

Private Members' Statements

B.C. cruise ship industry. Mr. Parks — 8131

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

Mr. Williams

British Columbia film industry. Mr.

Reynolds — 8133

Mr. Williams

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

UBC entry limitations for Malaspina

College students.

Mr. Stupich — 8135

Hon. R. Fraser

Royal visits. Mr. Macdonald — 8136

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

International Commercial Arbitration Act

(Bill 20).

Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Smith) — 8138

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Lauk

Third reading

Commercial Arbitration Act (Bill 22).

Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Smith) — 8139

Mr. Lauk

Third reading

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Energy,

Mines and

Petroleum Resources estimates. (Hon. Mr. Brummet)

On vote 20: minister's office — 8139

Mr. Lockstead

Ms. Sanford Mrs. Wallace

Appendix — 8147

FRIDAY, MAY 9, 1986

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Speaker, in the

precincts today, and

later to be joining us in the House, are 20 students from the band

class of Princeton Secondary School, accompanied by their teacher Mr.

lannacone and by Mr. Dave Atkinson. I would ask the House to join me in

making them welcome.

HON. MR. KEMPF : In the members' gallery

this morning is a

fellow who is known well around these precincts, Mr. Jack Kelly.

Accompanying Mr. Kelly this morning is a visitor to our province all

the way from Houston, Texas, Mr. Barry Snyder. I would ask the House to

make them very welcome.

Hon. Mr. Waterland tabled the 1984 annual report of the

Ministry of

Agriculture and Food.

Mr. Speaker tabled the 1985 annual report of the ombudsman.

Oral Questions

MR. HANSON : I have a question for the....

The Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) was here and then disappeared. I'll

redirect the question to the Minister.... Mr. Speaker, I'm going to

yield to the next speaker, in anticipation of the Provincial Secretary

coming back.

PENTACHLOROPHENOL PLANT

MRS. WALLACE : My minister is always here —

a question to the

Minister of Environment. His ministry staff are presently, I

understand, reviewing an application from Bradbury Industries to

construct a plant to manufacture pentachlorophenol at Lone Butte in the

Cariboo. Inasmuch as the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon.

A. Fraser) has said that he's going to quash that application, has this

minister decided to so instruct his staff and ask them to discontinue

their investigations?

HON. MR. PELTON : Mr. Speaker, the answer is

no, but I'll

explain a little further than that for the benefit of the hon. member.

There is a process which we go through on applications of this nature,

and I think in fairness to everyone we should let the process follow

its regular course. However, I have instructed the ministry that before

any definite decision is taken I'm to be notified.

MRS. WALLACE : Well, it's interesting that

the minister is

prepared to spend the kind of money it must take to go into this

review, when the minister who is the representative for that area has

said no, it will not go forward. I'm wondering whether the minister is

prepared to tell us at this point whether he is going to take any

action to ensure that that plant will not go forward once his

investigation is completed.

MR. SPEAKER : Future action, hon. member.

MRS. WALLACE : Has he decided to do that'?

MR. SPEAKER : Has he decided on future

action? The minister.

HON. MR. PELTON : Mr. Speaker, I should have

mentioned when I

was on my feet previously that I am aware of the feelings of the

Minister of Transportation and Highways on the subject, but 1 must add

that in some correspondence I had from him he agreed that the normal

process should be allowed to take place with respect to the application

for the permit. l won't know what action I'm going to take until I get

a report from the ministry.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

MR. HANSON : Mr. Speaker, a question to the

Provincial

Secretary. A number of my constituents, and I'm sure people all around

the province, would like to know how much the saturation advertising

campaign selling the provincial budget cost. On March 24 the minister

said she would investigate the cost of the political ad campaign and

report to the House. The question is, in the intervening six weeks, has

the minister been able to locate the information?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : Mr. Speaker, I'm very

pleased to have the

question re-asked, because I have been trying to get some time to

respond to the member's question. First of all, the member for Victoria

has asked for information relating to the television and radio

messages. Government information services, under my ministry, is

responsible for the placing of government information and advertising,

and their budget allocation includes funding for all ministries of the

government — not just this ministry but all ministries. Fifty-three

percent of the information budget is allocated to the Ministry of

Tourism to help promote our British Columbia worldwide. As you would

know, that would be a very large part of the budget the member refers

to.

The opposition seems to want to convey the impression that

government information services exists as a single entity whose only

function is to produce TV and radio advertising material. That's isn't

true, Mr. Speaker.

lnterjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : I'd be very pleased to

continue with the

response to the question, Mr. Speaker, if the members would let us.

As I say, 50 percent of the advertising budget goes to the

Tourism

budget. The Attorney-General, Agriculture and Food, Counterattack and

safety and reports of boards and commissions — all of those are done.

Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Forestry, Health, Human Resources,

Education, Environment, Labour — every actual member of the government

that has a portfolio has a budget for it.

MR. SPEAKER : With the greatest respect, I

must ask the

minister to either respond to the question....

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : Mr. Speaker, the actual

amount of money

is in the budget shown in the accounts and will be debated during my

estimates, and it is a full amount of money. I think that was the

question asked. The member knows the amount of money in the budget, I'm

sure, because

[ Page 8130 ]

he's been looking at those accounts. I

believe that

was the question that he wanted answered: where does the money come

from? It comes out of my ministry...

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : ...for all ministries,

and it is prorated

between the ministries, and that amount of money will be made available

during the estimates.

MR. HANSON : Mr. Speaker, the people of this

province are

wearying of being partners in propaganda with the Social Credit Party.

If you think they've seen something happen in Alberta, wait until just

shortly in this province.

HON. MR. KEMPF : Fifteen is all you'll get.

MR. HANSON : You want to bet your hot-tub on

it?

LOTTERY FUNDS

MR. HANSON : Mr. Speaker, I have a new

question to the same

minister. Another matter of great concern to the people of this

province is what happens with their lottery money. The quarterly

reports that indicate the disposition of the various lottery funds has

not been published in this province for over a year. The last quarterly

report of the lotteries branch, which covered the third quarter of

1984-85, was issued in February 1985. There has not been a quarterly

report in a year. Will the minister advise what the government is

trying to hide by its refusal to publish quarterly reports on lottery

disposition grants?

[10:15]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : Mr. Speaker, I am

really amazed to hear

this question, and I will certainly take this question as notice and

come back and find out about the publishing of quarterly reports. I'll

be very pleased to do that. I'm surprised to hear the question, and I'd

be very delighted to get the answer for you.

WESTAR TIMBER

MR. LEA : A question to the Minister of

Forests. Does the

minister have any knowledge of any negotiations going on between Westar

Timber and any company for the purchase of the Prince Rupert pulp mill,

the tree-farm licences that Westar holds, or any sawmills in the

northwestern part of the province?

HON. MR. HEINRICH : Mr. Speaker, I gather

that question was

asked yesterday. It was taken as notice, and I would be pleased to

investigate the matter and bring an answer back to the House.

MR. LEA : Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I asked

the Premier and the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) whether they had any knowledge,

and they said they would take it as notice. What I'm asking today of

the Minister of Forests is whether he has any knowledge of any...?

AN HON. MEMBER : The parliamentary

secretary....

MR. LEA : That was not asked.

Does the Minister of Forests have any knowledge of any

negotiations

for the sale of the Prince Rupert pulp mill, treefarm licences owned by

Westar, or any sawmills owned by Westar? Are there any negotiations

going on that the minister knows about?

HON. MR. HEINRICH : Mr. Speaker, I thought I

said that I would

take the question as notice and report back to the House.

SUNDAY DRINKING LAWS

MR. REE : Mr. Speaker, a question to the

Minister of Consumer

and Corporate Affairs. Recently there has been some relaxation on

drinking-on-Sunday laws, allowing certain pubs and other establishments

to sell drinks on Sunday. What is the position with respect to various

private clubs, such as Legions? Are they permitted to also sell drinks

on Sunday?

HON. MR. VEITCH : Well, the position is

precisely this: all

licensed establishments are allowed to remain open during the Sunday

hours which have been stipulated, and that includes private clubs. The

problem with the Royal Canadian Legion is that their central command

has established through their constitution that they would only be open

four Sundays in the year. The problem there, hon. member, is internal.

They must deal with that themselves. It has nothing to do with the

government. It is a constitutional matter which they will have to work

out themselves if they wish to remain open on Sunday.

GORDON NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSE

MS. BROWN : My question is to the Minister

of Human Resources,

and it has to do with the very successful Davie Street youth project.

These are the kids whom the Prince of Wales visited when he was here,

and he was so impressed with what the project was doing. They have been

notified that the $43,937, which is their part of the budget which they

receive from Human Resources, is going to be terminated. What is going

to happen to the young people in this project during the time that the

ministry is reordering the tendering and the contracting out of the

project to someone else?

HON. MR. NIELSEN : Mr. Speaker, the Gordon

Neighbourhood House

is a contractor hired by the Ministry of Human Resources to provide

services to a certain age group of youngsters who may require some

assistance. The Ministry of Human Resources has a statutory obligation

to assist children in need of protection. My understanding is that the

agency which has been contracted has been concentrating on an age group

inconsistent with the needs of the Ministry of Human Resources. It is

the intent of the Ministry of Human Resources and the city of Vancouver

to put the contract out to tender when it expires, and if Gordon

Neighbourhood House wishes to tender on the contract, they are more

than welcome to do so — to provide services for a specific age group of

children in need of care or attention or services of some kind. The

ministry's requirement was for a service to be provided for children

between the ages of approximately 13 and 18. It is my understanding

that the emphasis by this association has been on people between the

ages of 18 and 24. It is my

[ Page 8131 ]

understanding that it has been

acknowledged that a

different target group has been serviced by that organization, and it

was clearly the intent that a different group be serviced by the

organization. We require services to be provided to a certain group,

and we intend to contract with someone who will provide those services.

Should Gordon Neighbourhood House or others wish to emphasize

service to a different age group, then they will have to contract with

someone who has the responsibility for that age group. It's coming up

for tender, and I think it is very healthy that any organization which

contracts with the government has the opportunity of tendering for that

contract, along with other associations which may feel they can offer a

similar or perhaps a better service. It's nothing more than the

contract running out. We're going to go to tender, and we will ask

people to tender services to that age group we identify. We can't have

an organization emphasizing care in an area we did not contract for.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : I wonder if I could

make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : I'm very pleased today

to welcome to the

House Mr. Morgan Smith, executive director of the Department of Local

Affairs in the state of Colorado. Mr. Smith is here with his wife

Julie, and he is attending Expo 86 with ten business leaders. I would

ask the House to give him and Mrs. Smith a very warm welcome to our

province of British Columbia.

Private Members' Statements

B.C. CRUISE SHIP INDUSTRY

MR. SPEAKER : The member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam.

[Applause.]

MR. PARKS : What are you anticipating?

During the past week my family, along with, I'm sure, many

proud

British Columbians, have not only had the opportunity of attending the

main Expo site, but have also been drawn to Canada Harbour Place —

where, naturally enough, the Canadian pavilion is — and also the new

cruise ship facilities for the port of Vancouver. As we're all well

aware, the Queen of the

North

took Their Royal Highnesses from Nanaimo to Vancouver and docked at

that beautiful brand new facility on the water.

It caused me to wonder just what the projected impact of that

new

facility would be on British Columbia's tourist industry. Upon doing a

bit of research, l was very pleasantly surprised to learn of the

fantastic impact on this province's tourism industry, thanks to the

cruise ship segment of it. In the past two or three years British

Columbia's cruise ship industry has blossomed into one of the most

significant sectors of our provincial tourism industry. In fact, in the

1985 cruise season the port of Vancouver was an operating base for some

182 cruise ship arrivals, and more than 290,000 cruiseship passengers.

These figures represent a growth of over 60 percent since the 1979

season.

Of course, we all will remember that since the 1979-80 season

this

province, along with the western world, has suffered a tremendous

recession. Notwithstanding those difficult economic times, the

cruise-ship industry, certainly in this segment of the world, has

illustrated a tremendous growth. In fact, it's recognized by the

industry that the B.C. Alaska cruise facilities now rank somewhere

between third and fourth. In fact, last year purportedly it was the

fourth most popular cruise itinerary, following the Caribbean, the

Mexican coast and the Mediterranean. With the events in the

Mediterranean this past year, with the disaster in the Ukraine this

past couple of weeks, even the current projections of some 230

confirmed bookings into Vancouver, and apparently some 40 to 50

inquiries within the past couple of weeks, illustrates how this

industry is becoming an extremely vital and important part of our

provincial economy. Looking back at the 1985 figures, they paint an

extremely rosy picture. Apparently the mere 300,000 cruise-ship

passengers translates into literally millions of dollars of economic

benefit to our province.

I know we're very concerned about the economic stimulus here

Victoria. I have just received a sheet of the confirmed arrivals in

Victoria. Already they have 63 confirmed bookings, the first having

arrived this week. Last year they had something like 21, I believe, an

extremely marked increase in the activity in this segment. In dollar

terms we're looking at apparently $1.6 million spent by 31,000

passengers here in Victoria last year. There was some $350,000 spent

ashore by approximately 13,000 crew members, and three-quarters of a

million dollars were paid for the port-related expenses, those indirect

costs and charges that very few of us take into consideration when we

look at those beautiful cruise ships as they come into the harbour.

With various other ancillary charges and miscellaneous

impacts, you

can extrapolate those figures for the British Columbia scene. People

who have much more sophisticated research than my crystal ball tell me

that something in the vicinity of $160 million went into this economy

last year thanks to the cruise-ship industry. That was with a mere 182

arrivals. If you take a look at the 230 confirmed, as I say, plus the

50 or so inquiries that are facing the Victoria-Vancouver ports at this

time, you're looking at somewhere between a 30 and a 50 percent

increase in this one year alone. Naturally, with Expo here, not only

are they going to be coming in for the two-to-four-hour stopovers, but

many of these cruise ships, this year in particular, are going to make

sure that they come into Vancouver, and some passengers might well take

the one leg into Vancouver, spend a few days at Expo, and catch the

ship as it comes back down from Alaska.

We have in Vancouver and Victoria the innate beauty, the

natural

splendour of our two harbours. Clearly the cruise community, which

apparently is growing very rapidly....

MR. LAUK : This is a Rotarian speech.

MR. PARKS : I think the Rotarians would be

very pleased to

take this type of speech. Most Rotarians are very concerned about our

economy; and very positive people.

MR. LAUK : ...this Thursday at the Kiwanis

Club.

AN HON. MEMBER : No, it was an Optimist.

MR. PARKS : I'm sure the members of the

opposition, if they

try hard, can get the various sectors of the service clubs clear in

their minds.

[ Page 8132 ]

MR. WILLIAMS : Maybe it was the Moose.

MR. PARKS : The Moose or the Meese,

whichever royal order;

they are also very positive people. Notwithstanding the attempts from

various members of the opposition, something about tourism that people

seem to take for granted and sort of slough of and smile about....

Tourism is probably going to be the number one industry in this

province. British Columbia has the natural beauty, and all we need is

positive British Columbians to offer those services, so that we can

take the benefit of those services.

MR. LAUK : If your government stays in power

it will be the

only industry.

MR. PARKS : The hon. member makes a

facetious comment about

the only industry. But I wouldn't be too surprised, hon. member, that,

with this government continuing in power, tourism might well become the

number one industry, not only in dollar volume but of course people

working, and all the important components.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to my rebuttals.

[10:30]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : Mr. Speaker, on behalf

of the Minister of

Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond), who isn't in the House today, I would very

much like to respond to the hon. member for Maillardville-Coquitlam.

The cruise ship facility which he has spoken of in Vancouver

and

also the one which is here in Victoria and brings so many jobs and

opportunities to the island are, and in fact the whole of the business

of cruise ships is, an outstanding opportunity for the economy of this

province. Although the opposition members have jeered a little this

morning regarding it, it is not to be taken lightly that this tourism

business and the cruise ship facility business is one of the

outstanding economic initiatives that the province has. It has been one

which has been contributed to not only by this government but also by

One has to remember that the cruise ship facility, this

facility

which is one of the finest in the world — I speak of the Vancouver new

complex, the Canada Harbour Place complex — replaces a facility that

saw our visitors arrive into what could only be described as very poor

and very inadequate, almost a cattle shed. It was a very poor, rundown

building. When one considers the contrast which we have now with this

very beautiful facility with all of the very efficient arrangements

that are made for baggage handling and for transporting people into the

shops and the city of Vancouver — off the tour ship into shops, leaving

dollars behind with them — I have to tell you that it is not only an

achievement for the economy; it is an architectural achievement. It is

an achievement which all of us in British Columbia should be very proud

of.

The concept of putting together the cruise ship facility, a

hotel

and a trade and convention centre on the waterfront in a design which

frankly rivals the Sydney opera house which it is often compared

with.... As our Premier said at the official opening of the Pan Pacific

Vancouver Hotel, our new Canada Harbour Place will be the facility

which others will be compared to in the years to come. It is an

outstanding project.

So there should be great tribute paid to the designers and the

builders. It is an architectural triumph. But it is more. It is jobs

for the future. It is jobs which will be interpreted throughout the

years. I can say that that whole complex, tied as it is to the SkyTrain

waterfront station and to a trade and convention centre and to one of

the most modern hotels in the world, with connections throughout the

world, is going to give to the city of Vancouver and to the province of

British Columbia — to this economy— the greatest impetus in the years

to come that the lower mainland will see. It is the sleeping giant of

the years to come. Those people will come by the millions to spend

money, and we must all congratulate our member for bringing this to the

House, to our Minister of Tourism for seeing it through and to the

province of British Columbia for initiating it.

MR. WILLIAMS : I just want to add a few

comments to those

preceding regarding tourism. There are a couple of issues that were

overlooked in regard to the promotion of tourism in British Columbia.

One is, in fact, a very basic issue. It is fine to have the resources

and the buildings and the structures that have been discussed. There is

no question in my mind that tourism has great potential in British

Columbia. But yet we must ensure that we have properly trained

personnel in order to service those facilities. It is okay to go out

and assess your market to determine what it is and to advertise, but

when you get the people here to the province, you must ensure that you

have the trained personnel to adequately service there.

Presently, Mr. Speaker, only one in five workers in tourism

has

received any formal training. As a matter of fact, only one in three

will receive any on-the-job training as it applies to the tourism

industry. There is a critical need for professional development and

tourism training in the face of what we consider growing international

competition, because international tourism is becoming a very

competitive industry. If we are going to keep up as a province with

this type of industry, we need to ensure that we can develop a trained

personnel to service the product.

MR. PARKS : I think the point that the

Provincial Secretary

made on behalf of the Minister of Tourism needs to be underscored. We

have the facilities at Canada Harbour Place and also here in Victoria.

But emphasizing the Vancouver experience, the cruise-ship industry has

very clearly illustrated that if you don't have what they call the

shore excursions, if you don't have the infrastructure to make the

tourists very welcome when they arrive, and very comfortable....

It's one thing to have a good docking facility, but you must have

something much more appealing than a very attracting docking facility.

They have advised me that Skagway up north has perfected the art of

welcoming tourism, and that is why that particular port is so effective

in always increasing and maintaining their tourism industry.

We do have the infrastructure in place in Vancouver. We have a

world-class port facility and world-class hotels. We have the

transportation infrastructure in place to provide for efficient and

speedy movement of those tourists. We have a vibrant downtown centre.

What is necessary now is for the private sector — not the government,

but

the private sector — to accept the challenge and make sure that they

provide the tours and the opportunities for tourists to have a good

time, an enjoyable time, in Vancouver in that case. This particular

cruise-ship year, as they refer to it, they're projecting in

[ Page 8133 ]

excess of $200 million being left in

British

Columbia by tourists from cruise ships. That's a tremendous amount of

money, and considering that it was one-quarter of that five years ago,

we can see the immense potential.

I'm sure with Expo we're going tot have the opportunity of

making

them very welcome and encouraging them to return, but the government

has done all that it can do, Mr. Speaker. It's now the moment for the

private sector to make sure that when people come to British Columbia,

they definitely want to return to British Columbia.

BRITISH COLUMBIA FILM INDUSTRY

MR. REYNOLDS : Mr. Speaker, a world-renowned

film industry has

grown up over the past few years in British Columbia. Our Social Credit

government has promoted our province's potential to the industry,

provided information and facilitated the production of films in British

Columbia. The results have been impressive. Over three years the number

of films made here has tripled. The amount of film industry money spent

here has increased sevenfold. The economic impact of this industry on

our provincial economy has increased from $30 million to $210 million a

7110 percent increase.

Mr. Speaker, our provincial film industry boasts full

employment of

its 4,000 skilled technical people. As well, this growing industry

creates further jobs in spinoff industries such as food catering,

electrical equipment and camera rental outlets, transportation

services, and accommodation. Throughout the development of the film

industry our government has helped as a partner, as it does for all

private sector industries. We believe that government should play a

role in supporting the film industry, but government should neither

control nor dictate to it. Because of the nature of the industry, it is

best left to the private sector, where it can draw from the greatest

number of creative and innovative people.

The film industry is at the heart of an entrepreneurial

business. It

is an artistic industry that must be responsive to public tastes and

demands, not to the bureaucratic whim. Some of the members on the other

side, however, think otherwise. In pursuit of a socialist culture, they

have proposed that government run the film industry in British

Columbia. Such a proposal makes neither creative nor economic sense.

Film-makers want government to he a partner, not a boss. If government

were to try to run the film industry, it would become paralyzed by a

growing bureaucracy incapable of resisting the pressure of powerful,

narrowly focused, special-interest groups that use taxpayer dollars to

advance their often radical fringe views. There is not a better example

of this process, Mr. Speaker, than the National Film Board of Canada.

In 1939 the federal government passed

an act that established

the

National Film Board of Canada. The mandate of the board was to initiate

and promote the production and distribution of films in the national

interest, and in particular to interpret Canada to Canadians. It is

debatable whether or not Canadians need Canada to be interpreted to

them. The rest of the mandate, however, is not a bad idea: promoting,

producing and distributing films off a national interest. The key word

in this mandate is national. It indicates that these films should reach

a broad spectrum of Canadians.

Initially the National Film Board did a good job of fulfilling

this

mandate. As time went on, however, things began to change. Although the

board still made a good deal of laudable films on apolitical subjects,

it now funds quite a few films whose only goal is to advance some

special-interest groups positions on various political issues. The

National Film Board has produced films on such broadly Canadian issues

as lesbian motherhood. heroic left-wing revolutionaries and

appeasement-minded peaceniks. When asked to justify this abuse of the

original mandate, the National Film Board replied that in getting

controversial issues before the public, explaining all sides creates

ambivalence.

This point of view is surely an insult to the Canadian public.

one can he expected to make an informed decision about an issued when

presented with only one side of the problem. The National Film Board's

flimsy rationale for its obvious bias is nothing but a sham. It tries

to give legitimacy to fringe groups that contradict basic Canadian

values — values like belief in the traditional family, loyalty to

allies, and faith in free enterprise. These fundamental beliefs are not

always recognized by the National Film Board, and because of that the

taxpayer is cheated. Yes, the taxpayer is cheated, because the National

Film Board is funded with our tax dollars. The National Film Board's

annual report for the fiscal year 1981-82 reports that all but $6.5

million of the board's $16 million budget came from the government of

Canada — you, the taxpayer. If it weren't for parliamentary

appropriations and government make-work programs, the National Film

Board could not survive, and the top-heavy bureaucracy that runs the

board would be forced to seek employment in the private sector.

Certainly this bureaucracy could be cut back.

The federal government has made a couple of half-hearted

attempts to

bring this multimillion-dollar dinosaur into line. In 1982 the

Applebaum-Hebert report on federal cultural policy recommended a

reduction of funding for the film board, a restructuring of its

organization and a revision of its mandate. In December 1985 the

Neilsen task force echoed these recommendations, calling for a $20

million reduction over four years in the board's budget and a shift in

the mandate toward an emphasis on training and experimental film. It is

doubtful, however, that the leftist special interest groups will allow

funding for their sacred cow to be reduced or its mandate to be

changed. It's the old story of having a decent idea, creating a

bureaucracy to carry out that idea, and having the bureaucracy go out

of control and fall prey to well-orchestrated special-interest

pressures, and in doing so fail to uphold its mandate of serving all

the people.

The members on the other side no doubt think that the National

Film

Board is the best thing to happen in Canadian film-making. They

probably think that some similar publicly financed organization is just

what British Columbia needs. Careful examination of this real

situation, however, proves how foolhardy and fiscally irresponsible

this belief is.

The film industry in British Columbia will thrive as long as

private

industry is given the freedom to work in a climate of economic

opportunity fostered by a responsible, realistic and businesslike

government. The industry needs government to act in partnership with

it, not dominate it. The tremendous recent successes of the British

Columbia film industry are proof that our government approach to the

film industry is best for that industry and for all British Columbians,

dealing with the National Film Board of Canada.

MR. WILLIAMS : It's intriguing getting the

ideological dance

at the end there with respect to the National Film

[ Page 8134 ]

Board. Anybody that's reviewed these

questions for

some time would

know that the film board has probably received more awards in the film

industry than almost any similar agency in the world, and certainly

some of the creative work they've done has been extraordinary and

successful. But I don't want to spend too much time on that ideological

nonsense that was presented.

Indeed the film Industry is important, and indeed it should be

partnership. There's no question about that. But the reality is that

there is a need for facilities in British Columbia. The Panorama

Studios in West Vancouver will come down shortly for real estate

development. It's true there are needs for replacement, and some kind

of creative, cooperative approach with the industry is definitely

needed. There is no question about that.

[10:45]

I couldn't agree more with the member that a single government

approach would not be the correct approach, and that is the position of

this party: that it should be cooperative, and where help from

government can be provided it should be provided. But presently

provincial action is divided among three agencies: Communications, the

Ministry of Tourism and the Provincial Secretary. So there isn't any

real coordination on the government's side. There's no question the

film promotion group, a small bureaucracy, has done extremely well, and

we commend those officials who have done as well as they have to bring

B.C. to the third level of film production, in terms of cities in North

America. That's quite some achievement. But the next steps are equally

critical.

What hasn't been done is working with the federal government.

We get

only 6 percent of the money of Telefilm Canada in British Columbia, in

terms of getting Canadian production in British Columbia. And that's

where you've fallen down significantly. In addition, there's a

tremendous need for training developing the staff and talents of more

British Columbians to work in this industry as it grows and continues

to succeed.

It's not an ideological question at all. It's a matter of how

we can

take the next steps to further this industry. We have to take the next

steps soon, because real estate developers will be knocking down the

one studio that we have in West Vancouver.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : I just want to speak

regarding the

remarks that have just been made by both members of this House. First

of all, may I correct the member who has just taken his place, because

the Provincial Secretary does not address the film industry in this

province. I speak as the minister responsible for Tourism in the House

when our Minister of Tourism is away.

I wanted to say that we should give credit to one person who

came to

me when I was the Minister of Tourism and said that there was a very

great need for someone who would implement the ease in Which films

could be made — closing of streets, that sort of thing. That was all

that was needed to be done to really start the film industry in this

province. That man was the late Jack Wasserman. If it had not been for

Jack's off-the-cuff comment to me, we would not have done that. As you

know, we did, and that was in 1976. That industry that was almost zero

at that time has grown to this multimillion dollar job-creation

industry today.

I want to pay tribute to Justice Green, who was one of our

early

directors: no longer there, replaced by a terrific young lady, Diane

Neufeld. Out of that tiny office with just about three people, all of

this money flows into the province of British Columbia and most of if

is offshore money and investment, as you know.

As for the comments of the member for Vancouver East vis-a-vis

training, you don't have to worry about the training of the people in

the film industry in this province. We are known worldwide, and the

reason that the industry attracts films in this province so much and

has grown to be such a great industry is that the people in the

industry are the best. That is even comparable to the state of

California, which has done a great job in the film industry over the

years.

I wanted to make that point because it's a great tribute to

them

that they do what the free enterprise system was intended to do. They

do their job well. They produce, they create jobs and all of us

benefit, and that's what the free enterprise system is all about. Let

it work. It's working with them; don't try to change it. It ain't

broke; don't change it. They're doing a really great job.

They need a space to flourish. Let's let the private sector be

involved, let them invest, and let us get on with it, with the

government giving its support and its backup, as it has done in a most

meaningful way through our ministries of trade, industry and the

Ministry of Tourism.

MR. REYNOLDS : Mr. Speaker, I want to say

how pleased I was at

one comment the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) made

when he said he agrees with a partnership in the film industry. It's

nice to see members of that side starting to agree with partnerships.

It takes a lot of talk, Mr. Speaker, to make them realize that it's

partnerships that make things work. It is this partnership that this

government's been promoting that's making this province such a great

place to live in.

Interjections.

MR. REYNOLDS : Mr. Speaker, it's hard to get

going with the

member from Burnaby down there yapping away. The second member for

Vancouver East talked about three ministries being involved in the film

industry in this province. He's not too often wrong; he said three but

it's four. I think he forgot about the Minister of Industry and Small

Business (Hon. R. McClelland) who is dealing on a movie studio in this

province with the people in the industry right now.

I know it's never nice to see a building taken down, and I

know that

the Panorama Studios in West Vancouver is probably going to come down

for some real estate development, but it's because it's proved

unsuccessful. The film industry itself was not excited about that

studio, but they are about another one in the downtown area of

Vancouver, in the lower mainland. I can't really knock that. Maybe it's

going to be in Surrey. It'll be somewhere in the lower mainland, but it

certainly doesn't seem that West Vancouver was a very successful place

for that type of studio. I can't really knock the developers in trying

to recoup some of their money by getting that building torn down and

redeveloping it.

Mr. Speaker, the film industry is employing a lot of people in

this

province. I wanted to stress today that we keep it the way it is. I

don't see a position for the government of British Columbia for getting

into the film industry in British Columbia. We have the proper training

facilities to train people. As far as acting with live theatre goes,

we've got lots of it in Victoria, and even some actors right in this

House.

[ Page 8135 ]

Mr. Speaker, the training facilities for actors and actresses,

the

technicians, are just tremendous in British Columbia, and that's why

we've had a sevenfold increase in the last three years in the film

industry in British Columbia. That's the best news we can have, and

with Expo and the exposure we're going to get to the rest of the world,

I hope we'll see that industry keep on growing the way it has been

growing over the last three years.

UBC ENTRY LIMITATIONS FOR

MALASPINA COLLEGE STUDENTS

MR. STUPICH : Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate

the attendance this

morning of the Minister of Post-Secondary Education (Hon. R. Fraser). I

speak for the disadvantaged, and that could be almost anybody in the

community; but in this particular instance, I'm talking about the

students who are attending — and will be attending — Malaspina College

in particular; the college system in general, but I'd like to direct my

remarks towards Malaspina College.

My particular concern is with respect to a decision made by

the UBC

senate on Wednesday, April 23, 1986 to restrict enrolment of first- and

second-year students to 750. The college system has, I believe, served

the people of the Nanaimo district — the Nanaimo Malaspina College

district at least, which of course goes very much beyond Nanaimo very

well for the almost 20 years it has been in existence. Some thousands

of students have taken advantage of the opportunity to attend Malaspina

College for their first two years and then to go on to the university

of their choice, whether one of the three universities in B.C. or a

university elsewhere. I believe they've done very well, in comparison

to the students who have gone directly to university.

When the college system was first proposed in the Macdonald

commission report of 1962, it was with a view to making it possible for

students in rural areas all over British Columbia to be able to get at

least the first two years of university training for relatively the

same cost as those students who live at or near one of the universities

in the province. Cost is a very important factor. It also made it

possible for them to make an easier break from the home environment in

which they had been living. Moving away from the community totally to

get their education — a very sharp break between home and attending

university. It made it easier that way. Some of them did commute to

Malaspina College from regions apart from Nanaimo. Some of them

actually lived in Nanaimo, but much more economically than they could

have lived in the city of Vancouver, or even in Victoria.

I believe that the academic contribution made by Malaspina

College

has been very important to the college in total. It's one of the

reasons Malaspina College has been successful in developing its program

of adult part-time learners, the vocational program, which was there

before but which has certainly improved since. Beyond that, there is

the social, entertainment and cultural contribution that Malaspina

College has made to our community.

My concern is not so much that the number of 750 which they

have

said they will accept at UBC is limiting — there are other

universities — but who is going to be one of the 750 and who

going to be left out?

Seven hundred and fifty may even be enough, but a student considering

going to Malaspina College cannot do so any longer with a certain

knowledge that if the other requirements for admission to UBC are met,

then that student will be admitted. Now this cloud is hanging over it,

that the student may be over the limit. Beyond that is the concern that

other universities may follow suit. If UBC does it, then what happens

to Simon Fraser, to UVic? Will they be next?

There's the concern that today the figure is 750; if they get

away

with it, if the government allows this to happen, then next year the

figure may be different. It may be less; it may be more. There is the

uncertainty. Students will no longer be able to plan their educational

life knowing they can get their first two years of education at

Malaspina College — of course, the same thing applies clear across the

province — and that they will be able to get admission to the

university of their choice, assuming, as I say, they meet the other

requirements.

My real concern is what it's going to do to the whole concept

regional colleges, how damaging it will be. Certainly the academic

aspect of the college is important to the college in total, and the

ability of the colleges to continue to maintain the kind of presence

they have had to this point in the various districts may very well be

impaired. It costs a great deal to attend university. I know from

experience. It makes it easier if students can spend their first two

years attending college in their home community or near their home

community. But it is important, when they do that, that they know

they're not wasting those two years in the event that they do want to

go on to UBC. My concern is, as I said, will other universities adopt

the same tactic? Will other universities change the numbers? What

certainty can the minister give?

When the college system was first introduced in British

Columbia,

one of the universities stated that they were not going to accept

transfers from regional colleges, in particular Malaspina College. The

Minister of Education of the day, the Hon. Donald Brothers — speaking,

I'm sure, for the government — said: "That's fine. Don't accept them.

But the government will cut the grants to the university." The

university saw the light of day; they suddenly realized that it was

going to be possible for them to accept transfers from regional

colleges, including Malaspina.

[11:00]

I would urge the Minister of Post-Secondary Education (Hon. R.

Fraser) to take a leaf from the book of the previous Social Credit

administration on behalf of the disadvantaged, the students who don't

live next door to UBC or to UVic or to Simon Fraser, the ones for whom

it would be a very heavy drain, and perhaps make post-secondary

training at a university impossible for some of them. I urge the

minister to take a leaf from the book of the previous Social Credit

administration and react in the same way that the Minister of Education

did in those days, and pass on to UBC — and as a warning to the other

universities — a message that they will clearly understand.

HON. R. FRASER : Mr. Speaker, l thank the

member for advising

me beforehand what his topic was going to be, because from the title I

was unable to determine exactly what it was. I appreciate him giving me

the chance to take note of his presentation.

With respect to the comment by the professor at the senate of

UBC

who said that universities would not be finishing schools for colleges.

I think we would all take offence to that, to the extent that if we

would let it go by, because obviously it can't mean that much....

He can't be serious about that,

[ Page 8136 ]

because the whole college network was

built so that

students who do

not live on the lower mainland will have a chance for a post-secondary

education suited to their needs.

We would all agree on that. Certainly with respect to

Malaspina

there is no doubt about the fact that that's a good college. Among

other things, I had the opportunity to visit that college in the

member's riding, and I am as impressed as he is with the contribution

that the college is making to that community. And in fact I am

impressed with the great bond the college has with the community, and

the community has with the college. They are doing things there that I

certainly would endorse, and I have no doubt that the member does as

well.

[Mrs. Johnston in the chair.]

The other things about cultural involvement and cultural

development, training of overseas students — all those things are

important in our college network, and we all support them and always

will. With respect to the serious matter of not accepting students, or

the suggestion that enrolment will be reduced from colleges, the member

can take comfort, I hope, from the fact that I have spoken to the

president of the University of British Columbia expressing the point of

view that I wasn't happy to hear of arbitrary limits on enrolments in

that way. So I do not want to give the students who do not go to

university the idea that they cannot transfer.

The intention of the universities, as I understand it, hon.

member,

is that everyone will have to be competing for seats in third and

fourth year, including students who are already at the university. They

are trying to produce as balanced a program as they possibly can. So

you can be certain that this minister, this ministry and this

government will he watching very carefully to make sure that the

students who live outside of the lower mainland who are attending our

regional colleges and who are working hard to get an education can get

one, and that those students who qualify to go to educational levels

beyond the college diploma can get them.

MR. STUPICH : I do appreciate the fact that

the minister

attended, but I am disappointed in the assurance he has given us. It

isn't enough. Madam Speaker, if I were a student contemplating

attending Malaspina College with a view to transferring to UBC, the

fact that the minister has spoken to the president and said that he is

not very happy with this decision, and that he hopes something will be

done, still leaves us with a decision of the UBC senate where they have

quite clearly said, at least in the quotation I have, that they will

for the first time limit to 750 the number of second and third-year

students entering the program from outside the university.

Now it may well be that they want to measure students and

limit the

enrolment in total, but this decision is very specific with respect to

from whence those students will come. They're not saying they're going

to limit the number that are coming into university for first and

second year; they're saying they are going to limit the number coming

from outside of the university.

Madam Speaker, we're still faced with that. The minister has

not

given any real assurance to students who are contemplating entering

Malaspina College in September of this year that even if they do

exceptionally well, there is still no guarantee that the University of

British Columbia will accept them on an equal basis with students who

are entering UBC for their first year. Now that's all they want. They

want to be able to compete with students who are entering UBC for the

first and second years. They want to be able to compete on an even keel

with students who are entering Malaspina College and all the rest of

the colleges in the province of British Columbia.

Now the minister may have had a conversation with the

president.

Well, he has; he said he had. But again, the Minister of Education in

the previous Social Credit administration didn't just have a

confidential conversation. The minister said very clearly then that the

universities were going to be obliged to accept students from the

colleges on the same basis as they were accepting third-year students

from within their own university. Now that's what we want.

The minister hasn't to this point given those students that

assurance. What is he going to say to a student considering entering

Malaspina College in September, when that student asks the minister:

"Can you guarantee me that I will get the same treatment as my brother

or my sister who is going to UBC for their first year?" To this point

the minister hasn't done that. The minister has fallen short of

reassuring students entering the college program that they will have

the same access. That's what we want; that's what we need, if the

college system is to survive in the province, if it is to do the job

for the people of British Columbia that they were started up to do in

the first place.

ROYAL VISITS

MR. MACDONALD : Madam Speaker, the subject

of my statement is

royal visits. I can't remember, except through dim recollection, the

first that I can think about in British Columbia, but I think Mayor

Lyle Telford was presiding in the city of Vancouver. There was a little

bit of a contretemps at that time. l remember very clearly visits of

the Queen and her consort in 1983, and a previous visit of Prince

Charles, where I met him in the aquarium.

We in the province of British Columbia welcome these visits,

Madam

Speaker. There is obviously a real electricity between the crowds of

friendly British Columbians and the friendly Prince Charles and Diana,

Princess of Wales. You can ,just see that electricity. It's a good

thing, it's good for democracy, and we want them to come again. I would

think that Prince Charles wants to come again. He described very

properly, I think, the people of British Columbia, on one occasion, as

a warm-hearted people. We wish them well.

But I would have to say that a discordant note has been

creeping

into the question of royal visits. Increasingly and unfortunately,

governments, federal and provincial, are injecting their own partisan

political interests into the procedures of the royal tours. This is a

discourtesy to our royal visitors. I would say, Madam Speaker, without

fear of contradiction, that we must not allow our royal visitors to be

used for anyone's, or any party's, political purposes. [Applause.] All

members of the House agree with that, and I'm very pleased to see it.

But it has happened, and did happen, very extensively and very

obviously, in the last visit of Charles and Diana.

That's very unfortunate, because Buckingham Palace makes great

efforts to keep itself above or, at any rate, separate from the

political partisan process. That's very necessary. For example, the

royal visitors would not be in British Columbia either closely before

or closely after the call of a provincial election. The reason for that

is simply that it is

[ Page 8137 ]

terribly important to keep that

separation between

Crown and

politics. We — meaning we British Columbians, through our government —

ought to respect that separation of Crown and politics better than we

have done.

I give three examples of where politics crept into, perhaps

infested, the recent royal visit. The mayor of Vancouver happens to

belong to a particular political party, which is my own, but he also

represents all of the people of the province of British Columbia. He

was cut out of all of the early welcoming ceremonies for the Prince and

Princess. He wasn't even on the floor in B.C. Place, where I was

able....

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Yes, he was.

MR. MACDONALD : No, no. He was down in the

roped area of B.C.

Place with me. I didn't see him there. He was there? Well, good. Then

all the reports are wrong, and this government didn't display partisan

bias.

Did they display partisan bias, Madam Speaker, when the 4,100

invitations to attend B.C. Place were sent by the Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) to whom? The headquarters of the Progressive

Conservative Party, with which the Socred Party has always had an

underground alliance. That looks like politics and smells like

politics, but nobody should be deceived: it was politics.

I didn't see the mayor there in B.C. Place. If he was allowed

into

that much, if he was given that much recognition, good. But he was

slighted in those early ceremonies in terms of welcoming the Prince and

Princess to Vancouver. That was a slight to the Crown and a slight to

the people of the city of Vancouver.

I don't want to make an excitable speech on a subject of this

gravity, and my time races on, but my third example is that, you know,

it's really a little much when in a joint-list situation with

provincial and federal government — primarily federal, I know that —

you

have a state dinner, and the Governor-General of Canada is not invited,

and the Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia is invited after

Marjorie Nichols writes a column — a latecomer — and all kinds of other

people are invited to the state dinner. I wasn't, but chequebook

Socreds were invited automatically.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh.

MR. MACDONALD : There's nothing wrong with

being a chequebook

Socred, is there? But why should Her Majesty's representative in the

province of British Columbia be a latecomer to a state dinner to honour

the Prince and Princess? That is ridiculous.

I close on a positive note...

MR. REID : That'll be nice.

MR. MACDONALD : That'll be nice.

... by simply saying, because we look to the future — and it

is a

serious point — let's not allow royal visits to be used by anyone for

political purposes. And when royalty visits this province in future,

and there is a state dinner with 900 people or something, let it be

under the auspices of Her Majesty's representatives in this province

and in Canada, the Governor-General of Canada and the

Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia, so that no one will be able to

say: "That list, those tables, that arrangement was political."

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : I want to respond to

the member who has

just taken his seat, and to say in the strongest personal terms I can

possibly muster that he has brought a discordant note to this House

today which is a very sad reflection on the enthusiasm and the warmth

and the hospitality that was expressed by all British Columbians toward

the royal couple as they officially opened Expo 86 last week.

[11:15]

Let me tell you that the royal tour was a very complex one. It

the longest in any Canadian province in our history. It was 45 separate

events with nine communities with 1,000 volunteers, 1,600 RCMP, 800

media representatives and 100 staff. It took six months to plan. It was

not just a simple tour to do. There was a simple term of protocol

used. It was consistent and it was with the approval all through,

minute-by-minute, of the royal palace. And it was. When there was an

event in a community, a mayor of a city would not greet Their

Highnesses on their arrival. This was followed in community after

community. Where there was not an event in a community, the mayor

greeted the royal couple. This was followed, for example, in the city

of Victoria. Mayor Gretchen Brewin received and met them because there

was no other event in the community. In Saanich and in other

communities the mayor of Richmond and the mayor of Saanich met the

royal couple and welcomed them. However, where there was an event — and

there were many in the city of Vancouver — the mayor was not on the

welcoming party in that regard because he had his opportunity on many

an occasion. That's number one.

We did not have any control as the province of British

Columbia over

the events and invitations except those related directly to the

ceremonies, the arrival ceremony at Canada Place, the government of

Canada dinner and luncheon and the opening of the Canada Pavilion were

all federal government events. I was not consulted about the invitation

list for any of the dinners and luncheons that were under the

jurisdiction of the federal government, and we did not host any

luncheons or dinners. Neither I nor any of the provincial staff were

the arrival at Canada Place. As far as state dinners are concerned, I

did not attend the state dinner, nor would I have expected to. If I had

had an invitation, it would have been very nice. As I didn't, I'm not

crying crocodile tears because I wasn't invited. There are many members

of the cabinet who were invited to some things and not invited to

others.

We don't have mayors of other communities coming to us and

crying

because they were not invited and are very hurt. I find this is an

absolutely astounding comment from the member for Vancouver East. The

mayor's office didn't in any way reach my office in advance — if he was

hurt. If his hurt was that long-standing and that deep, it's

interesting that he didn't reach our office. He could have reached our

staff any time, and he would be able to be informed that it was the

federal government's organization that did the invitation list — if he

wished to be invited.

The only discordant note — and the member for Vancouver East

says

it's a discordant note — is that the socialists and the leftists view

this as an opportunity for a headline. The mayor of Vancouver is

exploiting discord. The member for Vancouver East and other members of

the NDP are exploiting discord.

[ Page 8138 ]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

In view of the long-standing support that the mayor of

Vancouver has

had for Expo, that he should even expect an invitation to Expo is

really in itself a remarkable statement. We know that he received an

invitation to Expo. We also know that he received an invitation to the

royal box and did not use his tickets at the Orpheum

Theatre last Friday night. When two people could have used those

tickets, they did not.

Mr. Speaker, the imagined slights and feigned hurt because of

the

lack of invitations is quite frankly, I think, the attitude of a

snivelling party and mayor who are crying crocodile tears to exploit

something that was very positive and very good.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker,

I have a brief reply. I

wasn't invited to the state dinner, but I'm not snivelling about it. I

was a little worried whether if I dined with a prince, I could keep my

common touch — I wasn't sure of that at all. So I'm not snivelling

about it.

But you know, Mr. Speaker, the political bias of

the Provincial Secretary shone through that speech when she finally

began to say, "Oh, it was just the mayor," and so forth. It was all the

feds' fault; there was no consultation about the lists with the federal

government, with our Progressive Conservative.... Nobody believes that

any more than they believe that Sinclair Stevens got a $2.6 million

loan for his company and didn't know anything about it. You don't

believe that. We don't believe that. There are politics involved in the

royal tour that shouldn't have been. We're talking about the future,

and we're just simply saying that this kind of injection of partisan

politics into the royal tour should not continue, because it is a

slight to the royal visitors and it is a slight to the people of the

province and of Canada.

MR. LAUK:

You know, people in

the city of Vancouver

of all political stripes....

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

On a point

of order, Mr. Speaker,

only the person who raised the statement has the opportunity of

replying....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please.

Hon. members, standing

order 25 indicates that the proponent has a maximum of seven minutes;

any other member or members, a maximum of five minutes; and the

proponent in reply, a maximum of three minutes; for a total of 15 —

which is all that's allowed. Now this point has not arisen before, but

it would seem only reasonable to assume that when the proponent has had

an opportunity to conclude, that would be akin to the mover of a motion

concluding debate. Otherwise, hon. member, the proponent does not have

the last word, and this is really what, basically, it's all about.

Therefore, hon. member, with the greatest respect to the learned member

for Vancouver Centre, the Chair will decline to hear the member and

will allow the member for Vancouver East to have the final word, as is

his right under this particular section.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Committee

on Bill 20, Mr. Speaker.

INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION

ACT

The House in committee on Bill 20; Mr. Ree in the

chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Shall

section

1 pass?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

So ordered.

Shall

section 2 pass?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

So ordered.

The Attorney-General — on

section 2?

HON. MR. SMITH:

Mr.

Chairman, I move the amendment

standing under my name on the order paper. [ See appendix. ]

Amendment approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Shall

section

2 as amended pass?

SOME HON.

MEMBERS:

Section 1

as amended.

MR. NICHOLSON:

We've already passed

section 1, so I don't want a precedent set. I'd

like to have the Chair or the minister ask leave to....

HON. MR. SMITH:

I ask leave, I guess, to rescind the vote on

section 1 and then have a

vote on

section 1 as amended.

Leave granted.

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Sections 2 to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Chairman, are there any other amendments on the order paper with

respect to this bill?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

No, there are not, hon. member.

MR. LAUK:

May I suggest we take them in bulk form.

Sections 7 to 42 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. SMITH:

Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill

complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 8139 ]

Bill 20, International Commercial Arbitration Act, reported

complete

with amendment.

MR. SPEAKER : When shall the bill be read a

third time?

HON. MR. SMITH : With leave of the House

now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 20, International Commercial Arbitration Act, read a

third time

and passed.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Committee on Bill 22,

Mr. Speaker.

[11:30]

COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 22, Mr. Ree in the chair.

Sections 1

to 26 inclusive approved.

section 27.

HON. MR. SMITH : Mr. Chairman, I move the

amendment standing

in my name on the order paper. [ See appendix. ] Amendment approved.

Section 27 as amended approved. Sections 28 to 51 inclusive

approved. On new

section 51.1.

HON. MR. SMITH : I move the amendment

standing in my name on

the order paper adding

section 51.1.

On the amendment.

MR. LAUK : Just a brief question. It strikes

me that the

Arbitration Act is mentioned in a number of other statutes that may not

be referenced here, including.... If I can just refer back for the

answer to this question, could the minister report what is going to

happen in substitution for

section 99(4) of the Labour Code, for

example, which it seems to me may have been a useful section?

HON. MR. SMITH : Mr. Chairman, all the

affected acts are

referenced in the

schedule to the bill, and there is absolutely no

alteration in any way to any proceeding under the Labour Code. There

may be a change in the reference from old Arbitration Act to new one,

but I can assure the member that labour arbitration proceedings will be

governed by the Labour Code.

Amendment approved.

Section 51.1 approved. Sections 52 to 54

inclusive approved. On the schedule.

HON. MR. SMITH : I move the amendment

standing in my name on

the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Schedule as amended approved.

Preamble

approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. SMITH : I move the committee rise

and report the bill

complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 22, Commercial Arbitration Act, reported complete with

amendments.

MR. SPEAKER : When shall the bill be read a

third time?

HON. MR. SMITH : With leave now, Mr.

Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 22, Commercial Arbitration Act, read a third time and

passed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN : I call Committee of

Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY, MINES

AND

PETROLEUM

RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 20: minister's office, $197,228.

MR. LOCKSTEAD : Yesterday I discussed with

the minister the

problems and the high unemployment rate in the mining industry, and the

number of mines that have shut down — some new ones opening, I hope,

eventually. But today I want to follow up that part of the debate with

some possible solutions and comments from the minister on solutions to

some of these problems.

I don't really know how deeply the provincial government has

been

involved. There have been, in my view, several passed-up federal

initiatives in regard to this province's relationship with the federal

government. I will very briefly go through a few of these. Presumably

the minister will respond if some of these matters I'm mentioning are

incorrect. But our research, I think, was quite thorough in this matter.

There have been federal initiatives to help deal with these

kinds of

problems, which B.C. has refused to participate in. Returning to the

problems of the single-industry mining communities, and the need to

plan ahead, in 1982 there was a meeting of provincial mines ministers.

At that meeting the Manitoba minister, Mr. Parasiuk, called for the

establishment of a national mining community reserve fund to assist

mining communities facing layoffs and shutdowns. His suggestion

[ Page 8140 ]

was based on the successful Manitoba

model of a mining reserve fund

in operation since 1970. In Manitoba some 3 percent of provincial

mining taxes go into the fund, and the money is used to assist when

mining downturns occur: for example, through job creation projects,

developing alternative economic activities, or relocating people if

there's a total closure in a single-industry community.

[Mrs. Johnston in the chair.]

At the 1982 meeting Mr. Parasiuk called on the federal

government

and the provinces to set up a national version of this policy. I was

astounded to find out, Madam Chairman, that B.C. was not interested.

I'm not blaming this minister specifically. I'm just getting off the

topic here, because the minister has only been in office two or three

months in his present capacity. However, there is some reflection on

this statement about the present government of British Columbia.

At the 1984 meeting of federal and provincial mines ministers,

the

Manitoba minister successfully convinced the federal government to do a

study of single-industry towns. At the May 1985 meeting the federal

government and the Manitoba ministry of mines agreed to do a joint

study of financing mechanisms to deal with mining community problems.

That report is now available and worth reading for all concerned, with

ways to promote stability in mining communities. One of the options

this report suggested was to design a mining community reserve fund

where the province would set aside a specific portion of their

mineral-tax revenues with matching federal funds and contributions from

the municipalities as well. This money could then be used to pay for

temporary or permanent mine closures. There is currently a study

underway to investigate this policy. The following groups are

participating in this study: the federal government, the Mining

Association of Canada, the Association of Threatened Single-Industry

Towns, the provincial governments of Newfoundland, New Brunswick,

Saskatchewan, Ontario, Manitoba, Northwest Territories and Yukon, and

the United Steelworkers, but not British Columbia. Perhaps the

minister, when he responds, could tell us why British Columbia is not

taking

part in this extremely important study.

B.C. under this government is one of the few Canadian

provinces that

refuse to participate in this effort to help deal with problems of

single-industry towns. We run the risk of not receiving federal money

which could be part of this initiative. Why is B.C. not participating?

We can only conclude that the government is not interested in planning

ahead to avoid and alleviate disruption, unemployment, income loss and

personal suffering associated with mine closures.

Examination of B.C. communities dependent on mining shows

places

where companies are predicting the final year of production based on

1984 reserves. We need to plan now to avoid problems when the

inevitable happens in these places. Cassiar: their last year of

production is scheduled to be 1989, not too many years away — three

years away. Houston: 1991 is projected to be the last year of

production. Kimberley: their population of 7,300 will be affected in

2003, when the ore is due to run out. Logan Lake, Merritt and Kamloops:

they're already suffering from closures of the Highmont Mine in the

fall of '85. Lornex Mine, nearby, sees 1997 as the last year of

production. Port Hardy: it has a population in excess of 5,000, and

1991 is the last year of production for Island Copper. We can't afford

to let these towns become ghost towns. We need action by the B.C.

government to participate in federal-provincial initiatives and

establish financial mechanisms to prepare now for future dislocations.

One other quick item. I may not be here for the minister's

response,

but I will read the minister's response in Hansard on Monday. On an

entirely separate question, and very briefly, last year the B.C.

government signed the ERD agreement with the federal government, which

included a mineral subagreement for $10 million shared fifty-fifty with

the federal government. You're familiar with the $10 million

federal-provincial agreement signed last year under ERDA. This was the

lowest sum received by any province in Canada. Manitoba received $25

million. Saskatchewan, $12 million; New Brunswick, $22 million — little

New Brunswick, $22 million! — Nova Scotia, $27 million; Newfoundland,

$22 million; Ontario, $30 million; and Quebec, $100 million. According

to the federal Minister of State for Mines, Robert Layton, there was

additional money available for mining under the science and technology

portion of the ERD agreement which the B.C. government did not even

apply for. I would like to know, and I'm sure the mining industry of

British Columbia would like to know, why B.C. received only $l0

million under that agreement, when most of the other provinces received

far in excess of that amount of money, particularly when mining is such

a major industry here in British Columbia and is in a fairly sad

position.

Mr. Minister, I will look forward to reading your responses,

because

I really have to hit the road, or I'm going to miss my....

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I thank the member for

his questions, Madam

Chairman. He mentions the national fund. I'm delighted that he said

that what it involved was a 3 percent additional tax to the mining

industry in order to make it happen — and municipal taxes and other

taxes that needed to be added. In trying to keep the mining industry

alive, I guess, in these times when world metal prices are down and

they're struggling to survive for cashflow, I guess we've taken the

opposite approach. We have tried to reduce their taxes, as was done in

the provincial budget. We've tried to allow them to stay alive, rather

than get 3 percent of their money to study something that may not be

prevented. When the ore runs out, you cannot keep the mine open, no

matter how many studies you have.

Yes, I'm not that familiar with what went on prior to my

getting

into the ministry, but I can say that I would support that: we don't

need additional taxation to the mining industry. What we need is to

allow them lower taxes, to try to find some way to allow them to work

in those conditions to keep the mines open. We are very interested in

keeping these towns going, and I think we're taking the proper approach

to it. We've just put up $5 million to try to add to ore bodies, to try

to encourage exploration, encourage prospecting, and to encourage the

expansion of existing ore bodies. That is what will keep towns open,

not studies. We like to get the best value for money, and the best

value in the long run is to get more mines operating, to get mines

expanding their operations.

Therein lies the answer. We're very concerned about the jobs

that

that creates, and I think that is the way that it will create jobs, as

has been done in the various operations in the province so far. There

are thousands of jobs that have been created because of these policies.

As far as the member saying that we can't afford ghost towns,

that's

perfectly correct, but the way to avoid ghost

[ Page 8141 ]

towns is to encourage exploration, to

encourage mine development, to

encourage other mines or other ore bodies to be found, even if one is

running out, or certainly to encourage expansion of the existing ones.

So that is, I guess, the general approach. We can't afford ghost towns,

and the way not to have ghost towns is to encourage the mining industry

to operate, not discourage them with further taxation and studies. When

you're done with them you often have a very definitive description of

why the town is going down, why the ore body ran out and that sort of

thing, but that does not keep the town alive.

[11:45]

So we'd rather encourage the mining industry. We've taken

various

steps. There was the northwest development plan. There are a number of

things that have happened here, in encouragement with the government

helping to provide the infrastructure, to try to assist those

industries — not take them over but to assist them.

As far as the ERD agreement was concerned, we did get the $10

million which was earmarked for the mining area. I don't know where the

member does his research, but certainly there was no indication that

there was more money available that we did not tap into. I know that

our Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

McClelland), did a yeoman job of negotiating as much as we did get in

that five-year agreement. That money that we've got the $10 million —

is going into exactly what I've been talking about, and that is it's

going into geological surveys which will give the people a better idea

of where to get the best value by looking for new mining ore bodies. It

is helping to study roads and various infrastructure along with the

company. It's a sharing arrangement with those various companies to

make it much more possible for them to get to the development stage as

quickly as possible, with proper environmental concerns looked after.

So I don't know that studying it to death and charging the industry

another 3 or 5 percent and charging every taxpayer in they province

more money is the answer. I think the answer is to stimulate the mining

industry, and that's exactly what our approach is.

MS. SANFORD : Madam Chairman, I raised the

other day with the

Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton) an issue which is of great

concern in my constituency related to the old Mount Washington mine

that has closed down and is causing horrendous problems as far as the

fisheries are concerned in the Tsolum River. A river that once had over

3,000 pink salmon now has no fish whatsoever. There is a study that has

been underway between the Ministry of Mines, the Ministry of Energy and

some federal people as well — the federal Fisheries — and that study is

about completed now, but it's obvious that a massive amount of work has

to be done if we're going to restore the fishery in the Tsolum at all.

The longer it's delayed, the more difficult it is going to be to

restore that fishery.

Recently in an

article in the Comox District Free Press, the

reporters for the area contacted a senior official for the Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources ministry and was informed: "Yes, it's a

major problem, but we're sorry, we have no money to deal with it." Now

it seems to me, Madam Chairman, to the minister, that it's essential

that the government come up with some money to begin to correct the

problems that exist with this Mount Washington mess, as the Minister of

Environment called it the other day. l don't know if this minister is

aware of the problem, but I'm appealing to him today, even though the

senior mines official says they have no money to carry out work in this

year's budget, that either some special warrants be issued or some

action be taken through the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources to see that the reclamation work is begun and begun

immediately. I wonder if the minister has any comments on this. My

guess is that he's not familiar with the situation.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : The member is quite

right. I'm not familiar

with that particular situation, but I will look into it. It's hard to

comment when you don't know the specifics of it, and if the member

would like to provide me with more particulars or write me a letter on

it, I'd certainly investigate it further and do what I can.

MRS. WALLACE : Madam Chairman, I want to

deal with one of the

other responsibilities of this ministry, and that is energy. I noted

that he said in replying to my colleague from Mackenzie that he

believed in getting the most for his money when he was spending it on

mining, and I am wondering whether that same policy applies to energy.

I would like to refer him to something that he has inherited in the

form of the Columbia River Treaty.

This was signed in 1961, and under that treaty three dams were

built

in B.C. and one in the U.S. The former Bennett government sold B.C.'s

right to the increased electricity generated from those dams for the

first 30 years. Now that treaty is up for renegotiation; it actually

expires in 1991. That 30 years is up. The province of B.C. received

only $479 million for that energy, and the actual cost to British

Columbia was almost $1.3 billion — $1.273 billion — to build those dams.

Certainly we didn't get the best for our money on that

Columbia

treaty deal. You know, it cost us almost $800 million, plus a lot of

land — 185,000 acres of flooded land and a thousand jobs lost in the

forest industry as a result of that; many, many losses. Now I'm

wondering where the Columbia River power fits in this ministry's future

energy plans. In 1991 we're going to have some options. We're going to

have an option to use that power in British Columbia, or we're going to

have an option to resell it.

I'm wondering whether the minister can tell the House whether

he has

in his long-term energy plan, if he has one, how he is planning on

utilizing that power output from the Columbia River subsequent to 1991

— where that fits in his overall energy plan.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Well, I don't know. This

issue of the

Columbia River Treaty keeps coming back repeatedly. You know, the

amount of money in today's terms may not be that much. In those days,

it was a substantial amount of money, and it allowed the development of

an electricity generating program in the province. It has assisted

that, but in all the debate I've heard the province came out of that

very nicely. If the criticism is that you could have done better if you

had waited for six more years, or until today, to negotiate it, we

would not have had much of the development in the province that we have

had.

We're aware that the treaty is going to be renegotiated in

1991, and

the Columbia River power is included in the power plans for the

province. Now just how it will be dealt with, I can't say at this time,

because I don't want to make a firm decision now about how it might be

used, so that we don't

[ Page 8142 ]

make a decision too early, until we

can see what the power needs are

going to be down the line. I can assure you that it is part of our

power plans, whether the power is coming back or whether there is some

other way that it's going to be utilized, but at this point in time to

say exactly what the plans are, I couldn't say.

MRS. WALLACE : The minister doesn't know how

he is going to

use the Columbia River power. It's been estimated that if he goes ahead

with the Site C installation, that would be coming on stream about the

same time. I wonder whether or not he's looking at the fact that he has

the option of using Columbia River power rather than Site C power. I am

wondering just where he stands on Site C construction. Certainly there

is a long history of Site C as well, and this government up until very

recently has had a policy, with which I agree, that you do not build

power dams specifically for firm longterm exports. That policy seems to

have changed since the Premier's announcement at the opening of

Revelstoke Dam.

Back in 1980 B.C. Hydro applied to the provincial government

build Site C, and that proposed dam would be built on the Peace near

Fort St. John. It would have a capacity of 900 megawatts and would cost

about $3.2 billion. At the peak there would be 2,000 construction jobs;

permanent jobs, approximately 25. The Utilities Commission held one

whole year of public hearings, and I and many of my colleagues

participated in those public hearings. They decided against the

proposal. They noted that there was no B.C. demand at this time for the

energy, and that B.C. Hydro's energy demand forecasts have been

extremely high. They have been unrealistically high and unreliable.

They also concluded that Site C would lead to an increase in hydro

rates — if it was built too soon and if those costs rose. They said the

construction of Site C — and we all know this — would destroy 7,150

acres of land. That is an area 18 times the size of Stanley Park. There

would be flooding of highways. Transmission facilities would use up

that land, 3,000 hectares of which are class 1 and 2 agricultural land

– irreplaceable land. You know that, Mr. Minister.

I know that you were there in a different capacity, as the

local

MLA, at some of those hearings. I remember seeing you there when I was

up there. The BCUC found that the construction of Site C would do over

$1 million worth of damage to forest land, a fast-disappearing

commodity in this province. We've seen a lot of forest land disappear

under reservoirs. There would be $11 million worth of damage to forest

lands, recreational and heritage resources, wildlife and fisheries. The

material that was presented to those hearings showed very clearly that

the costs of Site C would exceed the benefits, and were likely to

exceed it by something like $500 million. The public utilities

commission concluded that the provincial government apparently does not

have an economic strategy to guide energy developments in British

Columbia.

So I am wondering, Madam Chairman, where this minister stands.

says that they don't know how they are going to use the Columbia, but

they know it is there. What is his position on Site C? Is he going to

go ahead and build it now, even though it is going to create a

horrendous debt load on Hydro? Is he prepared to build it for long-term

exports? Can he give a commitment to this House that he will not

proceed with that dam unless it can be proved irrevocably that it is an

economically viable operation – which no one to this point has been

able to prove?

[12:00]

HON. MR. BRUMMET : It would appear from that

member's

interpretation of the Site C hearing report that there is nothing that

will ever prove to her that it would be viable. I guess it's a matter

of what you're looking for in it. The Site C hearing report pointed out

that there are losses. Anytime land is flooded, there are losses. These

can be compensated for. Her land figures are stretched very much. Much

of it happens to be in my back yard. I happen to know that river. Much

of the class 1 land that you talk about being flooded is now on

islands. Islands have been silted in and, yes, it has provided good

soil. But under present conditions, with no bridges, with nothing

there, the land is not being used. So the member stretches those 7,000

hectares or acres or whatever numbers she is using to try to make her

point. In other words, I take it that your mind is made up regardless

of what the commission found.

The jobs. Yes, it is possible to look at the high level of

jobs

during construction. But if we were to accept your attitude in British

Columbia, back before any of these dams were built, and take your

rationale that because of the flooded land, because of some of the

costs associated with it, there should be no hydro dams built in

British Columbia, then there would have been many jobs that wouldn't

exist in British Columbia that have been created because of the

availability of the electricity that is there.

As for my position on Site C, I think I made it clear at that

time

that yes, I thought that with the Williston reservoir already

established, a huge reservoir, and the re-use of that water, the

trade-offs were minimal. For a minimal loss of farmland, of forests....

A lot of that has already been logged over. You can always put

numbers to it. In relative terms, with a major reservoir already

established and the ability to re-use that water for maximum benefit

and the compensation that could be given to the region for any of the

losses, certainly the dam made much better sense. Mitigation measures

could be taken to make it a tourist attraction. There are tourists now

visiting the Bennett Dam. All these things have added greatly.

As the member probably is aware, the people in the area,

despite

your great efforts to talk them out of it, are supportive of these

projects. They would just like to see the proper mitigation.

The member keeps referring to my comment that we don't know

exactly

how we're going to use the Columbia River power. I did say, however,

that it is included in our planning for the future electricity needs in

British Columbia. All I said is that we don't know exactly how we're

going to use it. The member tries to translate that: "And we have no

idea what we're going to do with that power." No, it's included in the

total plans, as is Site C.

Yes, the intent has been to create jobs in this province, to

try to

make an available supply of electricity, to proceed with Site C. Many

of the construction workers would probably be very happy with that.

The statement has also been made by both the Premier and the

chairman of B.C. Hydro, and is supported by me, that Site C will not be

built unless it is to the benefit of the citizens of British Columbia —

economically and viably, whatever terms you want to put on it. Any

projection you make, low, high, medium — even the lowest projection

indicates that we are, in time, going to need much more power in

British Columbia. We do not share your doom and gloom that British

Columbia is not going to grow. It is going to grow. We know it's going

to grow. Any of the lowest projections....We

[ Page 8143 ]

talked about mining here a minute ago.

That requires electricity. If

we can make our mining industry successful, we'll need a lot more

electricity. We could need it quickly, and it takes eight to ten years

to get there.

We can build Site C now, and with the proper negotiations we

can get

the foreign buyers, the California market, to help us pay for Site C.

It's a costly dam, as any of these are, but in relative terms....

All you have to do is look at some of the other environmental concerns

of nuclear and oil and that sort of thing for generating, and you can

recognize, as is recognized worldwide, and envied worldwide.... If

they had the hydro ability that we have here in British Columbia,

instead of having to go the other more expensive routes, they would be

delighted. Compare power rates in other countries and other provinces

and you'll find that very few of them are lower than in British

Columbia.

Yes, our hydro is a potential, a fantastic resource, and we

will

build Site C Dam. I would like to see those jobs started tomorrow if

possible, but not at a cost to British Columbia. We think that we can

negotiate a deal that will provide benefits to the province. That has

been clearly stated, and if we can get them to pay for half or more or

all of the costs of building that Site C Dam, which we're going to need

eventually, that will benefit British Columbia rates.

MADAM CHAIRMAN : Shall the member for North

Vancouver-Capilano

have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. REE : Madam Chairman, I'd like to

introduce two young

ladies from the Republic of China in the gallery today. I'd ask the

House to welcome Luo Qi and Zhong Gang to Victoria. They're on a

technical interpretive course at Malaspina College. This is a one-year

course. I think their visit today is appropriate, since we considered

the Commercial Arbitration Act earlier. This is the sort of thing that

the course is directed toward and may assist in China or British

Columbia in the future with respect to that act.

With them, their guides for the day are Stephanie Law and

Maurice

Gallant, also from Malaspina College in Nanaimo. Would the House please

welcome the four of them.

MRS. WALLACE : The minister has tried to

indicate that his way

is the way to go. He has a megaproject mentality, and he thinks that if

we're opposed to a megaproject, we're opposed to construction, to

progress; that we have a negative attitude. That's just not true. The

power produced by Site C Dam construction will range anywhere from 11

to 13 cents per kilowatt in cost. That's minimum cost. Are you going to

be able to sell it to California for that price? Not likely.

California is already almost saturated with electricity. The only

reason we've had good sales this year is the fact that those Washington

reservoirs were dry. We still don't have any means of getting it down

there.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

There are many questions, but apart from all that, it's a

different

concept. I'm not sure, but I think you said that you would build it for

the benefit of British Columbians. There's a difference between firm,

long-term power exports and interruptible surplus power; different

concepts entirely. We certainly found that out with the Columbia River.

That's the part that's worrying us.

You talk about jobs. There are nearly 60 small hydro sites in

this

province that could be constructed at a lower cost per kilowatt than

the cost of Site C. They would produce more construction jobs and be

scattered around the province, rather than centred in one location.

They would have minimal environmental damage, and in at least three

instances would replace existing diesel plants, which are very costly.

That's the kind of a construction program that would really benefit

British Columbians, but to go ahead with a megaproject when every one

in the past has proven to be extremely costly?

We've seen the kind of increase in indebtedness that Hydro has

accumulated over the last few years. A tremendous proportion of our

provincial indebtedness is Hydro; 46 percent of our total indebtedness

can be put right down as Hydro's responsibility. We've seen tremendous

increases in the charge for hydro to ordinary British Columbians — a

150 percent increase since this government took office. In the past two

years alone Hydro has been charging an interim rate increase of 10.25

percent to help make up for spending on the Revelstoke Dam and the

Cheekye-Dunsmuir transmission line, both things that were not required,

not operative — using Revelstoke to sell interruptible power, and some

of it is firm for a certain period of time. That's okay seeing we've

got it, but it's not even making the interest on the cost of that dam.

That's not good economic sense.

No discounts for residential customers. You've introduced

discounts

for industry, but residential customers are bearing the brunt of those

excessive hydro rates. It's on the backs of the ordinary people of

B.C., who are paying off those unnecessary debts. This government is

afraid to look at alternatives. It's afraid to look at anything except

a megaproject. It sees that as some kind of monument, a headline

venture which is somehow going to bring them kudos. What it brings us

is debt, and that's been proven with B.C. Hydro — horrendous debt.

We need to have some better planning, some more realistic

planning.

We need to be a little more consistent in relating our actual needs. I

don't really blame Hydro, because their mandate, at the courtesy of the

cabinet benches, was to make sure that there was ample power in this

province, and they did. Ample supply — they didn't say there was

anything wrong with oversupply, so they certainly ensured that, and

they built a bit of an empire there. I know that from firsthand

experience, as the minister knows.

There we are with that situation, and now we hear that this

minister

somehow thinks that he's going to go ahead with that dam, that somehow

he can prove that it is the viable thing to do. It's most unfortunate,

because if that thing is started, then it is very hard to turn back. It

is such a poor alternative to the other things that could be done.

Retrofitting. You know, we are the most wasteful people in the

world

with our energy. Yet there are no real programs to ensure that we

tighten up our usage of electricity or energy generally. It's obvious

that the minister is not prepared to take a good long look at a change

of direction for B.C. Hydro, and that is most unfortunate.

We had the Cheekye-Dunsmuir construction and Revelstoke. If he

took

a hard look at the costs of that, the operating costs in 1984-85 were

$1.942 million, and this was an increase of $366 million, or 23

percent, over the previous year.

[ Page 8144 ]

Now the main reason for that increase was Revelstoke and the

Cheekye-Dunsmuir, both of which are now.... You know, the

Cheekeye-Dunsmuir is sitting there doing practically nothing. There are

many alternatives for Vancouver Island, and that capacity that is

already installed at Cheekye-Dunsmuir is ample with those alternatives

to see us through for a good long time. We certainly don't need to be

looking at any further power supply to Vancouver Island.

[12:15]

I have a couple of incidental questions that I'd like to ask

about

B.C. Hydro. I don't expect the minister to have the answers today, but

perhaps he can get them over the weekend and bring them back to me. One

of them relates to the former member of the management staff, Norm

Olsen, who has retired. I'm not sure of the date of his retirement.

What I would like to know is what his salary was at the time of his

retirement, whether or not he is on pension and what the size of his

pension is. I would also like to know whether Mr. Olsen is still

working for Hydro or whether he did work for Hydro on contract after

his retirement, what the amount of his contract was, whether he had a

vehicle provided in that contract and whether or not his pension

continued during the time of his contract.

I know those are rather detailed questions, and as I say I

don't

expect an answer from the minister today. But before his estimates are

over. I would like to know just what the situation is with Mr. Olsen —

whether he is still under contract, and if not, how long he was under

contract, and the questions relative to his previous salary and his

pension. There was a time when Hydro used to make those figures public,

and I used to get a statement which had all those figures in it. For

some reason, that particular document has now been given a very

restricted circulation. It is very difficult to get that information

anymore, and that is why I am asking this of the minister on the floor

of the House.

Another question I would like to ask him is whether or not he

is in

negotiations with NKK of Japan relative to the building of a

polycrystalline plant, which is a high user of power. Apparently 30

percent of the cost of silicon chips is its energy usage. If so, what

sort of incentives are being offered to that company to come here, what

sort of environmental protection is being written into any contract,

what kind of price would they be getting energy for and how many jobs

would they be creating? My information is that it would be a cost of

something like $100 million to employ 100 people. I don't know if the

minister can tell me whether or not he is going ahead with that or

whether that is a dead issue now.

I would also like to ask a specific question about the current

chairman of Hydro, Mr. Johnson. I understand that Mr. Johnson is

connected with a company called West Fraser Building Supplies, which is

a manufacturer of machinery that is used in the production of forest

products. I am wondering whether or not any of the companies which have

been given special rates under the Critical Industries Act purchase

equipment from West Fraser Building Supplies.

Now I know those are somewhat detailed and specific questions,

and I

don't really expect an answer from the minister on those specific items

at this point in time.

I think perhaps I will take my place at this time in case the

minister has any answers he does want to give me. Then we can go on

with a different subject.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I would like to thank the

member for her

questions towards the end. Certainly I have some difficulty with her

observations in the first part of her presentation, in that she somehow

or other is predicting a price per kilowatt from the Site C Dam. I

don't know where you get those figures, but we are told from the people

who are negotiating that they think they can provide hydro power at a

saleable price.

As we indicated, the dam is not going to be built if we can't

sell

the power, if' we can't negotiate an agreement. Obviously if the price

is too high, there are going to be no buyers. So if your figures are

right, then obviously you have no problem. The other thing that member

informs me, or has put on the record, is that California is now

saturated with electricity. I wonder if she might do a little research

on the latest California power plan; in there it is fairly clear that

California is going to need power.

The only power that they now have is very high-cost power,

high-cost

alternatives, and probably environmentally much more sensitive

alternatives. So I am sure that California would hardly be spending

this time negotiating and asking us to supply power if their utilities

had no need for it. They seem to think they have a need for it, so

again I am not quite sure where your research goes.

You seem to be quite adamant about the export of power, and

yet the

Manitoba rates, I think, are slightly lower than the British Columbia

rates. The way they are doing that is by major firm export contracts.

That's exactly what we're trying to accomplish here, so I don't know

whether socialism changes between British Columbia and Manitoba.

Manitoba is now talking about their limestone project. It's a massive

project that they're building for what? Strictly for export sales. They

seem to create jobs there with it. Perhaps you could check into that.

As far as the member's accusation that we are locked into

megaprojects. it seems that there's something derogatory about anything

big, so by putting the megaproject title to it there's something wrong

with it. The planners, the people who are building plants, seem to come

up with the figures that indicate that if you build a bigger generator,

your cost per kilowatt hour goes down. We have no hangup about small

hydro projects. But every stream that you put a small dam on....

You can put 10 or 50 small dams on small streams, and then you've got

to deal with fisheries on every one of those streams; you've got to

deal with the environmental concerns there. To say that there's

absolutely no environmental effects from small hydro.... I wish

that were true. I happen to be looking at a lot of information on small

hydro. If the numbers are there, believe me, B.C. Hydro, ourselves,

whatever, would go for those. I hope that they can come up. I can

accept the member's idea that they would be spread out in different

parts of the province; I would like to see it happen. All of the

investigation in the past....

I've had a problem up the Alaska Highway, where people are

paying

very high rates to generate their electricity with diesel. I've taken

quite a hashing from my own constituents in that area. The only thing

that l haven't come up with is the answer. In other words, we've looked

at small hydro. The only thing that seems to be a viable answer is to

subsidize a service station by $3,600 or $4,000 per month to keep it

open. If we open that, it goes everywhere. I'm trying to supply them

with information. Believe me, I would like to have solved that problem

that's in my own constituency. I'd like to have come up with a small

hydro project. I know there's water there. I know the area reasonably

well. We have not come up with a cost-effective situation yet that will

[ Page 8145 ]

anything. I'm back at it. We're still

studying it, and I hope we

come up with the answer. I would plead with that member that if she has

an answer of where we can put in a little project in a small stream, I

can use it in my constituency right now. I'll do everything I possibly

can to use it. If you've got those numbers, for heaven's sake give them

to me. I've tried almost everything so far, except — and I'm getting

somewhere on that — for individual households, or a service station, or

something. I'm hoping to make sonic progress, but anywhere it spreads

out beyond that, the numbers are not there. It's very expensive power.

So if you've got it, please let me know about it.

The member mentioned the Cheekye-Dunsmuir. As the economy has

turned

out, I guess the capacity was overestimated. But I think your

concluding statement was well worthwhile — that we now have the

capacity on that line to bring power to Vancouver Island. All we need

is the development here, and that's what we're working on. It's part of

our economic strategy to try to get that going.

We talked about mining earlier. If we could get more mines

going,

we'd get more power use. The facilities are in place. I can't be

completely negative about that, as some other people can: if you build

a railway, to use an analogy, you should build only for what it needs

to carry today, don't look to ten years in the future. In other words,

if you're going to build the line anyway, you might as well plan it. So

I think that in the long run.... For instance, had we not built the

Bennett Dam in this province until today, imagine what the cost would

have been. At that time it was only about $600 million. So I'm glad

that somebody at that time built ahead. And with hydro you have to plan

eight to 12 years ahead from the time that you anticipate it. I would

rather have a little power to spare — because we can leave it in the

reservoirs or we can try to market it elsewhere — than all of a sudden

have a situation where in two years we have great economic growth and

no power to feed it. So I'd rather be a little on the side of surplus

than under.

As the member knows, we're also talking about demand. You can

take a

number of figures as to average demand, peak demand and that sort of

thing, and I think the member knows enough about hydro generation

that.... When you need six billion kilowatts on December 24, you

haven't

got it stored anywhere but in the capacity that you have, and if that

can't meet your peak demand, then you have brownouts. There have been a

lot of inter ties and suchlike done throughout this northwest to try to

make sure that if one has got a high peak — and they often tie

together.... Anyway, we can level out those power.... Without that

levelling-out process there could be times when there could be

difficulties. We have to have much more capacity in a capacity-driven

system such as hydro than in a demand-driven system such as coal.

I'm trying to answer these questions as they came up. As far

as Mr.

Olsen is concerned, I'll have to get a few more particulars. I'm aware

of the situation there. but I don't have the exact numbers. I'll try to

get back with those.

The document that you mentioned which is in circulation: could

you

be a bit more specific? We're not trying to hide any information. In

the annual report all of that comes out. Whether you somehow got

dropped off the distribution list or whether they've changed the

document, I don't know, but certainly any information is public because

it goes to the B.C. Utilities Commission. They make sure it's public.

So we have these checks and balances, and anything that is available is

certainly available to you.

The NKK polycrystalline plant is really being looked at and

discussed by my ministry, by Industry and Small Business Development.

and others. So I'm sure there will be a thorough review made of that,

and not looking at damages.

As far as Mr. Johnson's relationship with West Fraser, I know

he was

on the board of directors there. He was looking after that, got into

Hydro part time, and then my understanding is that as that job grew....

I'll double-check, but it's my understanding that he has severed

his relationship from the board of West Fraser. Your question was, I

think, was any machinery of any kind anywhere in this province bought

from firms he was associated with. That's a pretty complex question.

If I know Mr. Johnson, I can assure you that he would lean the other

direction to make sure there were no opportunities for him to be

accused of favouring a vested interest.

[12:30]

MRS. WALLACE : My understanding is that it

was Sauder

Industries of which Mr. Johnson divested himself, and that he still was

the head of West Fraser Building Supplies. It was only in connection

with critical industries, where special advantages were given. I was

wondering whether there was any tie-in there.

I'll certainly get the information relative to the document

that I'm

no longer able to get.

I'm wondering, Mr. Minister, whether you ever read your own

reports.

It's right in that report — the Site C report and recommendations to

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council on the disposition of British

Columbia Hydro and power plant application for an energy project

certificate for the Peace River Site C — that I'm getting my figures of

the cost per kilowatt as projected for Site C. The one on small hydro

plants is also a provincial report which was done some time ago on

proposed or possible small hydro plants. They're both provincial

documents, Mr. Minister. That's where I'm getting my information.

Perhaps we should move on to another area. I wanted to discuss

with

the minister the off-shore-oil report that was filed recently, which

recommends some very extensive environmental work before any actual

drilling takes place. There's a real concern that there is not enough

knowledge there. They've also indicated that they have some concerns.

Even though they were explicitly told not to talk about the Indian

thing, they have done that and said: "Look, we cannot proceed without

some solution relative to the native Indian land claims." They

recommend that at this stage the only action to take is a two-year

seismic survey program with ongoing monitoring of the effect on the

fish population. That is where they conduct surveys to map the sea bed

and find the best sites for future exploratory drilling. Even that

Regarding the actual drilling, the report is not recommending

that

approval be given until a long list of studies and programs, mechanisms

and background material has been completed. It seems to make good

sense. When we now have far more oil than we know what to do with, why

would we go ahead and start drilling here? Oversupply seems to be on

the minds of so many people that they want to get more and more than we

really need.

I would like to know whether or not the minister is prepared

accept this report and these recommendations,

[ Page 8146 ]

and whether or not he can assure the

House that there will be no

permission given to go ahead with the actual drilling; that only the

exploratory work will be done, and that will be done along with all the

environmental information that is suggested.

I think that the panel has come in with a very good report

done

under some duress. I think that your predecessor had different ideas.

The little pamphlet that surfaced when the panel was sitting here in

Victoria.... On the very day that the hearings began, the former

Minister of Energy here in B.C. was circulating a pamphlet at a trade

show saying: "Come on, folks, we're going to open up the shores here

for exploration with easy-to-live-with regulations." That was a bit of

a blow to that panel. It certainly indicated to me that the government

had made its decision before the report was even in. There was also the

concern and seeming difference of opinion between the federal and

provincial authorities whether the panel had the right to say "no

exploration." The provincial authorities apparently took the position

that they did not have that right; they only have the right to come up

with some recommendations as to how this should go. The federal

minister said: "Yes, you do have that right if you decide that we

shouldn't go ahead at all."

Now that is after the fact, because we now have the panel's

report

that says yes, exploration with all these provisions, but no actual

drilling. So I would like the minister's comments on just where he

stands on that issue.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : The offshore panel report

recently

submitted is being reviewed by the ministry and by industry. Chevron is

looking at it; I guess everyone is looking at it. As I understand it in

a nutshell, the panel said that there is no reason why, since it is

going on elsewhere in the world, there can't be offshore oil

on it. So they have said it can go ahead, but subject to terms...very

environmentally concerned, as all of us are.

I suppose again it is what you are looking for. I guess you

see

your wish. It may be that Chevron will take a look at it and say that

against hydro dams, you seem to be against oil drilling. You seem to be

against a lot of things, and yet you constantly are talking about job

creation and economic development in British Columbia. l don't know how

you do those things when you're constantly against every possible

project that is happening in other places — and safely.

There's always a risk. Generally you say: "Can you give

assurance

that nothing will ever go wrong"" No. But in the rest of the world

things are happening, because people don't wait until they can decide

that nothing will ever go wrong or that there's no loss associated with

some benefit. There's always a trade-off in any situation. I guess

that's what we have to decide.

As far as the right of the panel: again you say to appoint an

advisory panel, and then immediately you want to give the advisory

panel the final decision-making. I can see what my predecessor said.

No, the final decision-making rests with government, responsible to the

people. So there's no question about where the final decision power is.

You can't have an advisory panel. You can't have every study that then

comes up with a recommendation to say they are the final decision and

no one else does it. If it's a good study and a good recommendation,

any government goes against it at its peril. We're all well aware of

that. But surely we can't delegate decision-making to every study group.

I did want to get back, since I've got some better

information, to

the Columbia diversion. I guess I got misled by your '91 statement; it

actually comes up in 1998 for renegotiation — between 1998 and 2003.

One of the terms, besides the money that we got for originally building

the dam.... Part of the agreement was that after the 30 years,

Canada gets one half of the U.S. capacity for generating electricity,

due to the storage in British Columbia. If you forecast that from 1988

to 1999, where it starts out at, say, 420 gigawatt-hours of power, that

gradually builds up to over 4,000 by the year 2006 — 4,000

gigawatt-hours of power available back to British Columbia. For

comparison, the Site C Dam would generate about 4,600 gigawatt-hours of

power. In other words, yes, that is part of our plan, the return power

that we are going to get. So that gives you some indication of numbers.

Again, a poor water year could make a liar out of me

immediately, if

it doesn't quite materialize. You just cannot predict the water supply

and the demand and the use in any year ten years ahead and guarantee

that figure. With that proviso, these are the best estimates that we

have. Most developments are built on best estimates. No development in

this province happens unless somebody estimates what the costs are

going to be, what the benefits are going to be and what the profits are

going to be. The only people who can ignore that are socialist

governments. You know, it doesn't matter, they just pass it on to the

taxpayers.

MRS. WALLACE : Very briefly, the minister is

trying to say

that I'm against exploration. I didn't say I was against exploration.

What I'm suggesting is that that advisory committee has done a lengthy

and detailed study and come up with the recommendation and with some

suggested environmental protection measures. What I was asking the

minister was whether or not he was prepared to commit his government to

accepting that report and going that way. He obviously isn't. They're

looking at it and thinking about maybe not accepting it — from what it

seems he's saying.

I talked about the power grid and the fact that we have to

have this

peaking power. Sure, we have to have peaking power. Unfortunately our

grid can't run east to west rather than north to south. The time

differential would certainly make a great difference, but

geographically that's almost impossible. You know, there are other ways

of coming up with peaking power than building hydro dams that are there

all around the clock. New York state has come up with a system whereby

they pump water up during the off-hours, midnight until 5 or something,

and into a high-head plant. They can then release it during the peak

period to make up for that. Now that's a much cheaper way than building

a whole new operation. That's just one example of the things that can

be done.

I have another issue I wish to raise with the minister, but I

think

that my colleague is anxious to get a few questions in, so I will sit

down at this point.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Very briefly, I'll

respond to the member

that with the hydro grid we have — the grid developing east-west with

the southern B.C.-Alberta intertie, and we have the north-south one —

there is power moving back and

[ Page 8147 ]

forth as needed, for the best use that

can be made of it. I think

that that's about all the....

As far as the review panel is concerned, I don't want to leave

record what seemed to be an innocent enough distortion that because

we're reviewing it and haven't made a decision about.... I said

that the government holds decision-making power. I think that somehow

or other the member worked in there that the government has obviously

decided not to follow the recommendations of the report. I want to

clear that up. It was this government that set up that offshore panel.

I was involved as Minister of Environment when my predecessor was

involved in it. We set that up. We wanted to say: can we go ahead with

oil exploration in British Columbia, as they do in the rest of the

world, without damaging the environment? We're looking at that report

very carefully, and we are very interested to make sure that we do

protect the environment. I don't want to be put in the position that

we're going to ignore the report. I don't want that left on the record.

Thank you.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to

sit

again.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House. Motion

approved.

The House adjourned at 12:44 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

20 The Hon. B. R. D. Smith

to move, in Committee of

the Whole on Bill (No. 20) intituled International Commercial

Arbitration Act to amend as follows:

SEC