1979 Legislative Session: ist Session, 32nd 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)

THURSDAY, JUNE 28, 1979

Morning Sitting

[ Page

445 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 8.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 445

Mrs. Wallace –– 447

Mrs. Jordan –– 448

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 451

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

On vote 75.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 452

Mr. Skelly –– 453

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

First, second and third readings –– 456

Royal assent to bills –– 456

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

Introduction and first reading –– 457

Tabling Documents

Report under Legislative Procedure and Practice Inquiry Act.

Mr. Speaker –– 457

THURSDAY, JUNE 28, 1979

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

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

HON. MR. HEWITT:

It's a pleasure for me to give some outline of what's happened in

agriculture in the past year, and also state some of our plans for the

future.

Before I do that, I would like to introduce the

Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Sig Peterson, and Mr. John Newman,

director of finance for that ministry. Both served me well in my

previous term as Minister of Agriculture from 1976-78.

Before

I proceed, I would like to make a comment about the former Minister of

Agriculture, Cyril Shelford, the former member for Skeena. He was a

great supporter and a great spokesman for agriculture. I can say that

although the people of his riding have not found it in their hearts to

return him, Cyril Shelford will be missed because of his close ties

with agriculture over the number of years he served, and when he was

Minister of Agriculture under W.A.C. Bennett's administration, and then

in 1978. I'm sure the members here would recognize that.

Mr.

Speaker, 1978 was a very good year for agriculture. We have seen some

of the turnarounds that have taken place. I'd just like, before I start

to refer to some of the facts that I have before me, to give these fact

sheets to the Pages and ask them to distribute them in order that

members may follow along or refer to them at a later date.

I'I

just touch on some of the key indicators in agriculture. In 1978 the

number of farms in the province of British Columbia increased to 19,800

from 19,600 in 1977. This is an increase of 3 percent, which is not a

large increase. But in Canada as a whole, the number of farm holdings

dropped by 5 percent.

In 1978 the number of acres under

cultivation was 1.97 million as opposed to 1.94 million acres in 1975,

which is an increase of approximately 5 percent. In Canada as a whole,

there was no change in cultivated farmland.

The net farm

income for British Columbia went from $181 million in 1975 to $205

million in 1978. This is a 44 percent increase in farm income from 1975

to 1978. In Canada as a whole there was a 1 percent drop in that same

period of time.

In farm expenses from 1975 to 1978, there

was a 24 percent increase in British Columbia and a 34 percent increase

for Canada as a whole. That would indicate, I think, that our farmers

are good administrators, good businessmen, and have had good results in

keeping their expenses under control.

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

I'd

like to quickly touch on some other statistics: milk production up 4

percent in that three-year period, Canada as a whole down 2 percent;

poultry sales up 47 percent, Canada as a whole up 28 percent; egg

production up 7 percent, Canada as a whole down 1 percent; tree fruits

up 67 percent, Canada as a whole up 37 percent; vegetables up 17

percent, Canada as a whole up 3 percent.

I can go on,

because every one of those indicators that follows on that page pretty

well shows the activity that has gone on in British Columbia in the

past three years. I think it is an indication — not that my ministry

has done a great job but that the agriculture industry in this province

has done a tremendous job. I can only say that my ministry, my staff,

have played a small part — a supporting role — to the agriculture

industry in this province, and for that I am very proud. But at the

same time, the credit goes, of course, not just to the Federation of

Agriculture, as a spokesman for the agricultural community, but to the

commodity groups that meet with my staff and speak out on behalf of the

individual farmer.

At the base of that pyramid, you might

say, which is represented at the top by the Federation of Agriculture,

as the spokesman for the industry, is the individual farmer in this

province. That individual farmer, Mr. Chairman, has to be not only a

businessman, an accountant, a mechanic and an engineer, but he has to

also be able to anticipate and outguess, in many cases, the weather.

Sometimes he is successful and sometimes he is not. Nevertheless, he is

the man on which, you might say, the rest of the community rides,

because he is the man who supplies our food.

Two years ago,

as the new Minister of Agriculture, I aimed at a program of 65 percent

self-sufficiency by 1985. I don't have any particulars on the growth

percentage in trying to achieve that 65 percent, but I can tell you,

and I think the indicators can show you, that we've moved a long way

toward becoming more self-sufficient in agriculture in this province.

The

one other comment I could make in regard to the players in this success

story, or the reason why it is a success story, is the good two-way

communication we have between my ministry and the agriculture industry.

We have been able to meet together and to resolve some of the problems

and differences over the past years.

The members will note

that in the estimates the total budget figure for 1979-80 is

$55,233,000, down from the budgeted figure last year of $72,000,000.

The reason, basically, is the farm income assurance requirements in the

province. Members know that farm income assurance is the income

stabilization program for most commodities in the province where the

market return is below the cost of production, through no fault of the

farmer. We do have a stabilization program where we pick up part of the

loss. It is an insurance program. It is a program for which the farmer

pays a premium; it is not straight subsidy. This last year, Mr.

Chairman, they are now getting that return from the marketplace, and as

a result the need for farm income assurance is not as great. They are

getting a return from the marketplace and I am sure the farm community

is more than happy with the results. They're getting a fair return for

their efforts at the present time.

We have brought our new

commodities under the Farm Income Assurance Act, and we’ve entered into

what we call the second generation of farm income assurance with the

B.C. Tree Fruits. The first contract will expire under the old

[ Page 446 ]

program.

The policy of this government was stated during the election campaign.

It was stated by myself when we reached agreement with the Federation

of Agriculture. It is an ongoing program — not a five-year program. The

farmer can participate in it and be secure in knowing that at the end

of five years it will not be terminated, but that it is a government

policy to proceed with it. It is no different than other programs of

government, such as medicare or GAIN, et cetera.

The Select

Standing Committee on Agriculture has completed its reports under the

chairmanship of the former member for Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree). I can only

compliment those members of the committee who served many long hours to

attempt to come up with some direction for the agriculture industry.

There

were a great number of comprehensive reports. The cost of that

committee, of course, is substantial. Travelling around, having the

hearings and doing the research is expensive, but the material we

received is valuable material for my ministry. It also gives guidance

to the industry.

We ran into some flak with the Standing

Committee on Agriculture in regard to reports that some commodity

groups were not happy with. But after discussion, I think even those

ones who reacted the most found out that we were looking at

constructive criticism. In any industry — in any lifestyle we have in

any community — the biggest fear we have is the fear of change. This is

why some of the reaction to the reports came from the farming community

originally. Yet they also recognized that nothing is as constant as

change in this world. The reports that have been submitted to my staff

will be used as reference material by the industry, and we can build

from the information that those reports contain. So I thank the

Standing Committee on Agriculture. The reports are comprehensive, and

they will certainly provide us with a foundation on which to build.

The

prime role of my ministry is to support the industry not direction, not

takeover of agricultural enterprises, but support of that industry.

We've given support in a number of ways, such as our food promotion

programs. The brown bag campaign went over in such a successful way

that all the MLAs were carrying their lunches to work. It was a good

campaign; it went right through the schools, and we've had excellent

response.

This year we are moving into a coordinated

advertising promotion program with the various commodity groups.

Matching funds will be provided so better identification can be given

to each of those commodity groups.

Secondly, we've brought

forward the ARDSA program, the $60 million federal-provincial

cost-sharing program. You're seeing the results of it in packing plants

being upgraded, cold storage facilities, coordinated resource

development programs, et cetera.

We are looking towards more

regionalization of staff to get our people closer to the farm

community, and you'I be seeing that direction in some areas in the

coming year.

I'I just touch briefly on the issues of the

farming community. One is urban encroachment of residential property on

the farm community. I just have to look to Saanich, Mr. Chairman, and

talk about Fatt's Poultry Processors. That chicken farm has been there

for years, and now it is under pressure because people are not happy

with the sound of the chickens at night, the feathers floating in the

air or the possible smell from that facility. Who was there first? We

have a problem with urban encroachment, and my ministry has developed

the green zone approach, the buffer zone, and we're working with

regional districts and municipalities to bring that into effect. I

don't know whether we will solve the problem, but it seems that as we

expand our city boundaries the farmer is the first man to suffer.

Although

the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Mair) isn't beside me today, I've

got to tell you that we have serious problems in this province with the

environmentalists who are really causing problems to farmers in regard

to weed control, and to our ranchers who have problems with their

grazing lands. Every time they turn around they have an

environmentalist saying: "You can't do this." Yet that same

environmentalist relies on our farmers for food.

We have

another issue, winter damage of some of our crops last year. Mainly the

grape crop was damaged, and we are analysing the seriousness of that.

One

issue we're going to have to face deals with the agricultural credit,

the partial interest reimbursement program which is assistance to the

farmer, whereby we relieve him of some of the cost of interest, and at

present we reduce his interest costs to 9 percent. In this day and age,

with the high interest costs, we are going to have to address ourselves

to the problem of where to set that level. Do we set it at a prime bank

rate and allow it to fluctuate as the interest rates in the business

community fluctuate or do we hold the line at 9 percent? If we hold the

line at 9 percent, and the interest rates remain high, the cost to my

ministry and to government and to the taxpayer continues to increase.

And I think that I will have to discuss this matter further with the

farm community to reach an understanding on how to best identify the

agricultural credit program and the assistance we give them. Should it

be a fixed level or do we allow it to fluctuate with the interest rates

charged by the banks?

For the benefit of those city dwellers

in the House I have one final comment in regard to the high cost of

food. I want to tell you that it's not high, that my farmers are

getting a reasonable return for their product. Compared to other parts

of the world we don't do too badly.

Let me give you some

statistics. These are retail food prices in selected world capitals.

This comes not from any ministry publication but from United States

agricultural statistics:

Steak in Ottawa is $6.47 a pound;

in Washington it's $7.03 a pound; in London it's $10.05 a pound and in

Tokyo it's $39.98 a pound. We've got a pretty good deal. Bacon: $3.55 a

pound in Ottawa; in Washington it's $4.01; in London it's $6.11; and in

Tokyo it's $7.97. Eggs per dozen: 84 cents in Ottawa — now I know

they're a little higher here, Mr. Chairman; I know you live in South

Vancouver, and you would be concerned.

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

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Well, I want to tell you, Mr. Member, that that marketing board exists

for eggs in Ottawa as well. In Ottawa they're 84 cents and in

Washington they're 91 cents; in Tokyo they're $1 — that's not too bad

in Tokyo; in London they're $1.53.

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

[ Page

447 ]

instances this sheet — and I'd be glad to pass it out to anybody who'd

like a copy — shows that we have a pretty good deal as far as the cost of food

is concerned, when you compare it to our disposable income.

So,

Mr. Chairman, as I said, 1978 was a good year for agriculture; 1979-80

looks like that trend will continue, and I can assure the members here

that my ministry will be doing its utmost to make sure that trend does

continue. With those comments I'll be pleased to answer any questions

the members might have.

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

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

MRS. WALLACE:

It seems that he's not aware, however, that one of the reasons the

agricultural community has done so well this year is because of

inflation and because of some crop failures south of the border that

have prevented imports from coming into the province, and he seems to

stand in his place and somehow take credit for what has happened in the

agricultural community. And he spent the greater part of his speech in

reading us some statistics that have been prepared by a statistician

for Statistics Canada and which certainly I have had for the last

several weeks — and I assume other members of the House have also had

those statistics.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this

particular estimate and this budget for agriculture this year is

nothing short of an insult to the farming community. To cut back on a

budget in a year when, as the minister has indicated, the farming

community is facing serious problems in the methods it uses for control

of weeds and for insects and so on is nothing short of being

hard-hearted and uncaring. If the money was there last year and the

year before and years preceding that, then certainly there shouldn't be

a cutback now. The minister has indicated that it's cut back because

farm income assurance isn't requiring so much funding, but that money,

Mr. Chairman, should have been allocated to other areas of agriculture

to provide the kind of research assistance that is needed by

agriculture to meet some of the problems that they're facing.

It's

interesting to note — and the minister has spoken about the Select

Standing Committee on Agriculture — that that committee and this

government were prepared to expend some $3 million on that particular

committee. And yet that money, if you put into the research and

development portion of the agricultural estimates, would have lasted

for 20 years at the rate it's now being funded — one-twentieth of that

is all that's in the budget for research and development.

The

minister has talked about all the reports that were filed with that

food-cost study. Well, the ministry may use those; I doubt it very

much; the committee certainly used them very, very little in preparing

its report.

When that committee's report did come out, we found that in Phase 1, on

the

section on land use, the recommendations caused real concern among the agricultural

community. We saw something that had never happened before in the history of

this province. The Institute of Agrologists and the B.C. Federation of Agriculture

issued a joint statement, proclaiming the problems that were occurring with

that report, and urged government not to implement it as it stood. So much for

Phase 1.

The

minister has already talked about Phase II, the production section,

where the farming community, without exception, nearly, was concerned

about the errors in the research. Obviously those errors must have been

there, and certainly the conclusions must have been wrong if the

committee has any credibility at all. Very, very few of those

recommendations that were based on those research reports were included

in the final report from the select standing committee.

The

third phase: that committee came out and said there was nothing wrong

with the retail and distribution sector, and that everything was fine.

Mr. Chairman, every jurisdiction around this country is proving there

are problems at that level. Yet this committee found nothing wrong.

They found nothing wrong with the fact that retail stores could

increase their profits by 81 percent, and increase their volume by only

17 percent. They could see nothing wrong with that. I think there is

something wrong with that, and I think that committee was very lacking.

As I say, that money could have been spent on research and development.

The

minister has indicated the problems facing the farmers. He hasn't

specified particularly, but certainly we know what's happening with the

Tordon spray in the valley north of Hazelton, where there's a real

concern there. And Tordon is scheduled to be used on knapweed on the

rangeland. We have to face it. Mr. Chairman, sooner or later we're

going to come to a point where some of these things farmers are

presently using will be excluded from use. It's going to happen. We had

a delay with the 2,4,5 treatment on the apple trees in the Okanagan.

It's coming, and it's a responsibility of government to move in those

areas to ensure there is a provision for farmers, an alternative

method, to use for control. The minister's remarks that there is a

conflict are almost an indication that those people are wrong. I'm not

going to make a judgment, Mr. Chairman, but a judgment is going to be

made somewhere along the line. It's moving in that direction all the

time that there are more and more things coming to notice that are

harmful. We've been using sprays and chemicals indiscriminately over

the years, and now it appears the pigeons are coming home to roost. The

evidence is gathering all the time; it's piling up. Before very long

the farmer is going to be in the position of having to face up to those

problems. Yet this minister does not add one red penny in addition into

his budget for those alternative methods. The biological control

programs are underway, but they won't be ready for a while. The reason

they're delayed for so long is because those and other programs have

been starved for funds. Those programs should be beefed up, and it’s

ridiculous to see a budget cut by $17 million when those kinds of

problems are facing the industry.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Aid

to developing countries: a point very dear to my heart. I hated to see

that $5 million dropped when this party first took office. But it was

dropped. Then the $5 million fund was retrieved, and instead of the

interest on that fund we had a flat sum of $350,000 put into the

budget. That was something less than the interest on $5 million would

have

[ Page 448 ]

brought

at that time. Since then we've had no increase. Based on inflation,

that would be up to something like $478,000 to buy the same amount of

aid to developing countries as the $350,000 bought back in the years

when this government first took office. If it were based on interest

from that $5 million fund, we would be looking at something like

$500,000, and still we're stuck at $350,000. Even worse, we have no

report, nothing to indicate to his House what has been happening with

that fund. That, I say, should be on the table before we discuss these

estimates, but there's nothing there — no report.

We've had

an interesting experience while agriculture has been under the control

of the Social Credit government. It has shown just what low priority

agriculture had with this particular government. The first Minister of

Agriculture, now Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips),

was a part-time minister.

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

MRS. WALLACE:

You were a minister the staff didn't even recognize when they met you

on the street, because you were never there, Mr. Minister.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

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

Then

after that minister was removed and we had a full-time minister, we had

a credit union accountant. He told us what he'd learned about

agriculture in that period of time he was minister. He's told us that

today. But, you know, that minister was one of the first ministers....

Farmers are very polite people, but that minister was actually booed at

one farm gathering that I attended. That minister was responsible for

tractor cavalcades in the Fraser Valley because of his attitude about

farm income assurance.

He's changed a lot; he's learned a

lot. But that was the kind of attitude that minister had. That minister

was overruled by cabinet three times when he was minister, and then he

was kicked upstairs and we got a new minister — a recycled minister,

incidentally — and his only contribution to agriculture in his short

term of office was his sale of Panco to Cargill, a company whose record

parallels a Chicago gangster with its list of convictions and problems

in the eyes of the law. That was his contribution.

After he was defeated, I was reading a report in Country Life

where he had termed the environmentalists that this minister speaks of

with a bit a disparagement He went much farther and called them

"leeches on society."

HON. MR. HEWITT: Who did?

MRS. WALLACE:

The former Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Chairman — "leeches on

society," that's what he called them. They are good solid citizens who

are concerned about the future health of our province and our country

and our people. That's the attitude.

Now that minister has

gone. Even his appointment as a minister didn't get him re-elected to

this House, and we're back to a recycled minister, a part-time

minister. You know, Mr. Chairman, it's a good thing that the staff of

that department is of the calibre that it is, because without that

staff that ministry would have fallen completely into disrepute. It's

the staff that has carried that ministry since the Social Credit

government was re-elected in 1975. It's the staff that have carried it

because there has never been a full-time minister or a minister that

was knowledgeable about agriculture since that time.

It's

the staff that have carried it, and the staff have attempted to come up

with a budget but, you know, they can only repeat what has been in

previous years. Staff cannot make decisions about innovations, about

increases, about direction or about policy. That's the job of the

minister. And the reason that this budget has nothing new in it....

There has been nothing new in the Agriculture budget since I came into

this Legislature. It's the same old thing, and now it has even been cut

back.

Part-time ministers, cutbacks in the estimates — Mr.

Chairman, these estimates for Agriculture are not really worthy of

discussion in this Legislature. It's a waste of time to talk to this

minister because he's not going to be the minister for long. He knows

that; I know it. All the backbenchers know it; they're all looking for

the job. He has nothing to say. He can't plan the future in

agriculture. He's just there for a little while, and we're stuck with a

budget that has cutbacks for the third resource industry. It is unfair

to the farming population; it's an insult to agriculturalists. It's the

third resource industry, and if this is the kind of treatment it is

getting, it is not worth my time or the time of this Legislature to

even discuss this budget today.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr.

Chairman, I don't intend to take up much of the House's time, but I

have to stand in strong disagreement with the former speaker, and must

confess to being totally appalled at her attitude as it is reflected in

her statement.

We have in this province a very vital and

necessary industry in terms of economic development, job opportunities

and environmental management. The taxpayers of this province have spent

thousands of dollars for that member to have the opportunity to sit on

a very important committee of this province, and the most constructive

thing she can say is, "You should have put more money into research,"

which I don't disagree with. But to have her say that this budget, this

industry, does not merit discussion by the people of this House, who

are sent here by the public, who have a vital and diverse concern with

agriculture, is shocking.

I hope the member will change her

mind. I hope that in the next moments that she speaks we will have

constructive suggestions upon which this government can think and act.

For

my part, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a couple of comments, two

of which I think are of immediate concern. I don't intend to reiterate

the minister's statements in terms of the health of this industry in

this province; I think the facts largely speak for themselves. I would

like to point out to him that his consistent use of the term "he" was

well appreciated but, of course, there are many "she"s in the

agricultural industry today, and their presence is of great

contribution. While they don't ask for a special significance, I think

we must pay tribute to the fact that the

[ Page 449 ]

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

The

minister mentioned our educational and promotional programs. As one who

has spoken on this many times in the House, I must say I am very

pleased at the progress that is being made. While our ministry has

supported it, it is also showing some initiative and leadership in this

area, which I think is necessary. However, I would like to say to the

minister that I think we're merely scratching the surface on this

subject. It's been well received at the moment because the industry is

reasonably healthy, or quite healthy, and the public is becoming

intrigued with the idea of B.C. production and utilizing B.C. products.

But

I do suggest that perhaps unknown policies of the new federal

government which we hope will be beneficial to British Columbia;

certainly the very delicate balance that exists between the national

and international economic picture; the petroleum situation which is

developing and certainly is going to have a major impact on agriculture

as well as everyone else; plus the traditional pressures that are

pointed out by the committee, and which we're all aware of, of land

use, urban development and conflicting attitudes of the public, are

going to bring increasing pressures on this industry.

If we

are to meet those pressures and we are to do what we should and the

industry must do what it has to, the public has to be much more

knowledgeable than they are now. We have to have some substance behind

our promotional campaigns. I believe that we have to take a very strong

look at the educational agricultural programs in our schools, both in

specific instances and in general instances. What are the students who

will be the consumers and the producers of the future learning in the

way of understanding of the benefits of a food policy? What are the

alternates in developing a food policy? What are the benefits of those

policies and what are the consequences on whichever route we take?

believe that it must not be confined strictly to those interested in

agriculture. Every student in this province, every consumer in this

province — in fact every person in this province, whether they're a

member of a union or an industry or management — must have a

better understanding of this industry and the role that it should

play in the future, and the options that are open to us and the cost of

those options.

So I would first ask the minister if he is

prepared to develop some substantial strengths to the promotional

program in that area. If you go through Hansard , you'll find a lot of detailed suggestions.

Also

in relation to current problems, I think we are seeing in this province

a very grave danger of agriculture, because of the various pressures

and the lack of public knowledge, being put in a position where it's

being moved into a climatic frontier, if not an economic frontier. If

we are to accept that this cannot give agriculture the strong base that

it needs to meet its commitments in the future, then we have to address

ourselves to the cause of this problem.

One of the most

acute causes at this moment, in my mind, and I think in the minds of

many other people, is the role of municipalities and regional

districts. We know what the provincial government policy is. We have an

understanding to a degree what the federal government policy is, but it

may well be the best-kept secret as far as municipal and local levels

of government are concerned. In essence, there is some evidence — in

fact considerable evidence — to suggest that local levels of government

are not only not aware of the policies, but there is little

understanding of the agriculture industry itself, and they are having a

very powerful impact which is, in many instances, contrary to what the

provincial, industrial and federal policies are.

We see

strong evidence of a multiplicity of zoning bylaws. We see strong

evidence of a lack of the agricultural voice at the local level of

government. In very few instances is there an agriculturalist on a

municipal council. In limited instances they are on the regional

districts, but they tend to be a minor voice when it comes to voting.

believe that we have to recognize this and that the provincial

government must take an initiating role in bringing these groups

together. I was surprised, and I certainly stand to be corrected if I'm

wrong, that the Union of British Columbia Municipalities did not make a

presentation to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. One must

ask why this did not happen. I'm sure there are many reasons but I

believe it should be a matter of concern to us.

If one

reviews the history of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities

conventions, there is little, if any, evidence to suggest that

agriculture has ever been on the agenda — the industry itself. I would

suggest that we must address ourselves to that.

When one

examines the various influencing bodies in the province and at the

local level, one has to bring to mind not only the councils and the

regional districts but the chamber of commerce, which is a very strong

instrument in industrial development in this province. They have

agricultural committees, but they are sporadic and there is now a

strong representation or input from the industrial point of view, as

well as the land use and economic problems of agriculture, into those

local committees.

I suggest that the industrial development

commissions around the province, to which we as government are

contributing substantially, be made aware of this concern, and that

they be asked what they are doing in relation to land compatibility and

industrial development compatibility, and to submit their views, and on

that basis make recommendations to them which we hope they will follow.

believe that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs must be very conscious

of these concerns which are very timely. We're looking at the role of

local government. It's extremely important that on all those

committees, not just within government — agriculture is really well

represented within government — but with the external discussions with

various interested bodies, the agricultural industry must be

represented and totally involved. This would address itself, of course,

to the confusing and often detrimental local zoning bylaws which are

hampering agriculture and pushing it ever more to a frontier.

The

minister touched on a classic example in Saanich. We have another

example in another part of the province, where a person was established

and wanting to establish. They were complying with the zoning bylaws.

The municipal clerk said they were not in contravention of any existing

bylaw. Yet that individual felt they were being harassed by the

municipality and by the public.

We also have to look at the

courts. There are considerable problems with the multi-existence of

urban development and agriculture, of which we are all aware. But there

are little problems which can be very frustrating and very

[ Page 450 ]

costly,

such as raiding parties and cattle rustling. We are all guilty. This is

where public education comes in. I want to tread on this lightly. I was

witness to a situation where my own child was involved in a summer

activity away from home, where I went to visit him. There were these

beautiful cherries — obviously this is in the lower Okanagan Valley. I

asked him where he bought the cherries. He said: "Well, Mom, we didn't

buy the cherries." I said: "What do you mean, you didn't buy the

cherries? Did someone give them to you?" "No," he said, "they organized

a raiding party last night, and we went out and we helped ourselves."

He didn't say: "We stole them." I was appalled. When I looked further,

that raiding party had been organized by a person who was in a

profession in this province, who had security of tenure, who was among

the higher income earners — I'm not talking about a doctor or a lawyer

— and who we would tend to think of as being an average citizen. I'm

sure they didn't intend to steal or to mislead those young people, but

this is a matter we must address ourselves to. It comes back again to

education.

Court decisions in relation to cattle rustling

are very questionable in terms of compensation to the producer; I think

it should be discussed with the courts.

Another area of concern is the sort of rational protection we can provide for

the producer in an urban area, not only in terms of his legitimate agricultural

practices, but in terms of the fact that his land is often the local playground.

When this becomes a problem it is discussed with the local law authority, the

RCMP. Everyone then throws up their hands and says: "Well, what can we

do about it?" We must address ourselves to this. Again this would involve

local municipalities, regional districts, law enforcement officers and the

industry.

There's

another point we have to be concerned about. If we are going to look at

regional services in this province in the reorganization of government

— I'm not saying we are, but it's certainly under discussion in some

areas — how do we see that the legitimate concern of agriculture is

met? Water, for example. There is a tendency among all of us to want to

have our little bailiwick fairly strong, whether we are in government

at the provincial level, federal level, municipal level, or managing a

water district. How much cost does that impose upon a producer, and are

those costs reasonably in line?

Along with this type of

coordination and overview, we must examine the role of air cargo in the

future of the agricultural industry in British Columbia. Is our

emphasis on assisting communities to develop local airports going to

result in less costly and more effective transportation of local

produce to more accessible and larger markets? This is very important.

That type of discussion should be coordinated at the same time.

summarize, is the minister prepared to take leadership in terms of

having much more discussion among industry, the Union of British

Columbia Municipalities and regional districts, and to address himself

not only to the legislation but to practical problems, some of which

may seem small but which are very costly and frustrating to the farmer?

Again

I suggest an educational program for those assuming responsibility at

local levels. This should not only be in the long term, but we should

address ourselves today to this problem of municipal bylaws and zoning.

That does get into the matter of legitimate concern about pesticides

and things, but even that can be overcome. I would suggest that our

philosophy must be that there is no way we are going to let agriculture

be pushed to the climatic frontier or the economic frontier of this

province, and that we will educate people to understand why.

The

last point that I'd like to touch on — in deference to the House's

efforts on this particular vote — is an order that was passed by the

Interior Vegetable Marketing Board as a companion to the Coast

Vegetable Marketing Board. There are many pros and cons to this order,

as the minister is aware. It is legal; it does, in essence, place

nearly all production in the Interior under the control of and in debt

to the Interior Vegetable Marketing Board. It applies well beyond those

who are receiving income assurance and those who are members of the

association.

My concern here is that we recognize that while

there may well be merit in this type of approach, it has come in very

suddenly, and therefore, I believe, the timing must be questioned and

will be questioned by those who are affected by this order. It came in

on June 12, which is really into the high-pressure time for all aspects

of the agricultural industry, and to expect fruit stand operators or

individual producers to sit down and sort this out at this time is, I

think, undiplomatic, if I might say so, and very unrealistic.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

There

are two ways one approaches a fairly controversial action: you hit it

with a sledgehammer or you use a jackhammer, which could perhaps be as

effective. And while I don't want to criticize the board in their

intention, I do want to stress that I believe they've opened a

Pandora's box, which was not necessary.

One has to look at

the matter of communications. How does the board communicate this

information to the individual producer who is now going to be affected

by it? Who are the producers that are affected by it? Is it public

knowledge and is there a definition of an economic quantity or a

commercial quantity of produce? What is a commercial quantity of

produce? How does this type of order affect our assessment changes in

trying to define what is in fact an agricultural unit that can receive

assessment benefits under our new efforts to assist in the preservation

of agricultural land? What are the logistics of its implementation? And

in the areas that I represent there is the question of who is covered.

Am I covered in Chase, which isn't in my area but in the hon. member

for Shuswap-Revelstoke's (Mr. King'

s) area? People in the backwoods are

saying: "Am I covered?" Small people who are selling cabbages down at

the fruit stand — perhaps $50 worth — want to know if they're covered.

Perhaps

the solution to this lies in recognizing that the industry has shown a

strong tendency toward continued and ever-developing independence; we

must recognize this and leave it within the industry to solve this

problem. But I believe we could provide an avenue of appeal for those

producers who would be affected but have no understanding of the

logistics and the impact of the order. We could have discussion, and

the order might best be set aside for six months or eight months to

allow for that dialogue.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the

opportunity to bring just a couple of points forward which I believe

are of concern to the industry and certainly myself. And I feel ever

confident that this side of the House will not dismiss the

[ Page

451 ]

Agriculture

minister's estimates as unworthy of discussion, and dismiss the

agricultural industry as really having no importance in this House, as

the opposition say. I would ask the minister to address himself to what

I consider two very important problems.

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

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

Macdonald

Dailly

Cocke

Lea

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Howard

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

Lockstead

Brown

Wallace

Gabelmann

Hanson

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Williams

Hewitt

Mair

Vander Zalm

Heinrich

Ritchie

Strachan

Brummet

Ree

Segarty

Curtis

McCarthy

Phillips

Gardom

Wolfe

McGeer

Fraser

Jordan

Kempf

Davis

Davidson

Smith

Mussallem

Hyndman

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I will just respond briefly to some of

the questions that were raised by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace).

She commented on biological control. We have, of course, gone to a considerable

amount of effort with regional districts with our weed-control committee, and

we've increased the budget considerably for weed-control assistance administered

through the regional districts. The member also commented on research and development.

We have, of course, $126,000 to research and development with UBC, and $100,

000 to DATE, the Demonstrative Agricultural Technology and Equipment program.

That $100,000 relates to technology, primarily because the federal government

is responsible for research in agriculture — as the member knows — and they

budget some $78 million, out of which, in direct and indirect assistance, about

$8 million to $10 million for agricultural research and development comes into

the province of British Columbia.

In regard to other biological control items, there has been, of

course, the problem with the codling moth. That program was reduced or

discontinued. It was too costly to be economically feasible to use. We

have had good success in biological control in greenhouses for

greenhouse plants.

In regard to the final comment of the member, "nothing new in agriculture,"

I think we've indicated that we've expanded the commodity coverage under

the Farm Income Assurance Program. We've dealt with the situation of, in

my opinion, unfair assessment of farmland, and as a result we have a reduction

of assessment on farm property, as was disclosed in the budget address this

year. Food promotion: we've increased that by $100,000. We have 150 programs

approved under the ARDSA program. Agricultural credit we've increased from

$8.6 million to $11.7 million.

regard to the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), I can only

apologize for not mentioning the ladies. I have met many strong women

in the agricultural community. As for the Women's Institute, I have

seen a good representation from that body, which has made a number of

representations to my office. There is one lady — I wish I could

remember her name — up in the Punchaw country, a rancher's wife, a

great gal, and I think she certainly represents the women's side of the

agricultural community very well. I think the member knows who she is.

Governments,

regional districts, municipalities — yes, we have a problem. As I

mentioned, there is urban encroachment, and these bylaws affecting

agriculture. We've had some success in regard to the weed-control

program and dealing with regional districts — a committee regarding

weed control, which is administered by the regional district. Our

green-zone committee is working reasonably well. I've encouraged the

agricultural community to have representation on regional districts and

municipalities, to get involved in chambers of commerce, because

they've got to make sure they get their story told. The agricultural

industry must be involved; otherwise we sort of take second place. I

hope that the agricultural community does follow through and make sure

that they do have representation on such things as chambers of commerce.

The

marketing board problem is a problem. The Interior Vegetable Marketing

Board and the Coast Vegetable Marketing Board have issued their orders

trying to put some control on marketing of vegetables and fruits. There

was a meeting as recently as last Friday night in the village of Oliver

regarding the Interior Vegetable Marketing Board. Representatives of

that board were present. The B.C. Marketing Board representative was

there; my staff were there. I understand that the board is reviewing

that order. However, I do also believe that there may be some appeals

to the B.C. Marketing Board in regard to that order. What does concern

me is that we're talking about a farm marketing board, one that is

administered by the farmers for orderly marketing. and the people who

are taking exception to that order are also farmers — one and the same

group. I think the result may be a plebiscite in the Interior for the

Interior growers to determine where they want to go in regard to

orderly marketing in the interior of the province of British Columbia.

That is the latest issue that's come — that marketing board order — and

I am concerned about it, Madam Member. I'm hoping that it will be

resolved without our involvement, but with discussion between the

growers, the fruit stand operators and the marketing board members.

Vote 8 approved.

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 452 ]

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

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

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

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,

MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

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

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

Leave granted.

MRS. JORDAN:

Mr. Lew Rossner, who is economic development commissioner for the North

Okanagan, is in the gallery, and I would ask the House to give him a

very warm welcome.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman —

before I proceed with this aspect of my responsibilities — I neglected

to make three important comments. First of all, today's debate occurs

on the first day of publication of the Province

newspaper, following almost eight months of absence. And the premier

agricultural reporter of B.C., none other than Malcolm Turnbull, is

back in the saddle and will be reporting on agriculture once again. On

top of that, it is Mr. Turnbull's birthday. So for the record, I would

wish him a happy birthday.

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

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

regard to the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, today

that ministry is probably the most up-front ministry not just in this

province but in Canada, in the country as a whole, and I guess in the

entire world. It is with pleasure I introduce the estimates for the new

Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. The mandate I

received on December 4, 1978, was basically to develop and manage an

energy policy for British Columbia, to be responsible for the

management of mineral resources of the province, and to ensure the

conservation of the landscape associated with mining operations.

are looking to a reorganization of the ministry in order to have a more

cohesive approach to energy planning and the development of energy and

mineral policies. I hope to be able to place before members in the near

future a comprehensive statement on energy policy direction in British

Columbia. In that policy statement we will point out a number of

specific projects which will be carried on to meet the objectives of an

energy policy. The policy statement will result largely from the

efforts of a task force which is under the leadership of my ministry,

and which includes expertise from all government energy organizations

and several government ministries.

I'm sure the members will

appreciate this point. I'm still organizing the ministry, and I will

have to complete that organization and complete staffing to be able to

ensure that energy and mineral resource policies are developed and

updated on a continuing basis.

Members will also appreciate

that the election caused some delay, but we have accomplished a number

of things since the ministry was formed. In May I signed a $27 million,

five-year energy conservation agreement with the federal government. It

deals with renewable energy and energy conservation, and is a first

step in giving direction and assistance to developing energy from

renewable resources and conserving energy.

We prepared a

provincial position to lay before the NEB in regard to its upcoming

hearing concerning natural gas exports. Another area where we have

taken positive action is the coordination — the member for Alberni (Mr.

Skelly) will be pleased, I think, to hear this — of the preparation of

energy supply and demand forecasting in the province as opposed to this

this-and-that approach we've experienced over a number of years.

The

member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) mentioned the waste coal

of the Kootenays. Ministry staff and B.C. Hydro have been looking at

this and the possibilities to use that coal. But we must recognize that

on the one hand we relieve an environmental problem by cleaning up the

coal waste, but on the other hand we have to deal with the problem of

creating environmental problems because of the burning of such waste.

There are some major considerations to be taken into consideration

there.

We have to recognize at this time in the world and

the province the impact of the OPEC oil price increases. There has been

a lot of discussion about oil prices. I think the Leader of the

Opposition raised the question the other day regarding the freezing of

the price of gasoline. The Premier responded that it was not our

intention to do that. The companies that import offshore oil are

subsidized by the federal government. Having the price of our oil well

below the world market price causes considerable problems. We also have

to recognize we pay a fair price for our domestic oil. It enables those

oil companies to go into further research and development to obtain oil

from domestic sources which gives us the opportunity to become more

self-reliant.

We have had excellent activity in the mineral

resources arm of the portfolio. Placer Development announced the Sam

Goosly property up by Houston. This multi-million dollar development

increases employment for the people of the north. But more importantly,

we have a Canadian company reinvesting its profits back into the

province and back into a northern community. For that I compliment them.

There

are other announcements. Teck Corporation in the Highland Valley

announced its copper mine for development. There's a lot of activity

there, such as the Alice Arm property. There are a number of them, but

I point out a few to show the activity there. What a turn-around we

have achieved in the past three and a half

[ Page

453 ]

years. We can deal with the natural gas rigs

working in the north of British Columbia. Such activity and excitement!

The development in places like Dawson Creek and Fort St. John is only

an indication of how much activity is going on in British Columbia and

where we're going in regard to oil and natural gas.

Our

directions for 1979-80 will be: to complete our reorganization; to

finish our energy policy, which will include efforts to decrease our

reliance on oil in this province; to encourage the use of provincial

energy resources; to reach a decision regarding the natural gas supply

to Vancouver Island; to increase our activity in the energy

conservation field; and to continue to maximize the benefits to the

province from the export of natural gas.

This ministry

represents an industry that is the second largest in the province,

second only to forestry. This industry is alive and well, and it

ensures not only the economic future of this province and its people

but the social health and well-being of the residents British Columbia.

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

MR. SKELLY:

The minister outlined a number of things with which his ministries are

dealing. Also, he went back several times to mention that he was in the

process of reorganizing the ministry and coordinating some of the

efforts of the ministry. I think one of the problems we've seen since

1975 is that more energy has been spent on reorganization than has been

spent on the resolution of our energy problems.

Since the

minister discussed a number of specific things he gave a wide-ranging

introduction to his department — perhaps I could come back and ask him

some specific questions. I hope to receive some answers.

The

first one relates to the provincial uranium mining inquiry conducted by

Dr. David Bates. One of the problems with that inquiry is its

credibility. Is the inquiry really looking into all aspects of uranium

exploration, uranium mining, its health impact and its environmental

impact? Is the government really serious about the inquiry? Is the

government really serious about public input into that inquiry?

Obviously it isn't.

The uranium mining companies feel that

it's business as usual in this province. Permits are being issued by

the Atomic Energy Control Board as if uranium mining were business as

usual. As a result, the credibility of the Bates enquiry has been

completely undermined by the government policy to continue uranium

exploration.

Since this information isn't generally public,

how many permits are current in the province? As for the Atomic Energy

Control Board surface exploration permits, how many are current and

what kind of work is being done on those permits? Is drilling being

permitted? If so, on how many permits? Is there anything other than

rock sampling, surface sampling and small trenching being done? Is

anything being done on these Atomic Energy Control Board surface

exploration permits? Have any drilling permits been issued by the

Ministry of Mines for uranium or thorium exploration? One of the

problems, as I said, is that the credibility of the inquiry is being

undermined by the fact that the government is allowing business as

usual for uranium exploration.

I would appreciate it if the

minister would reconsider his decision to allow the issuance of surface

exploration and drilling permits for uranium, thorium and radioactive

materials until such time as the Bates inquiry has had an opportunity

to examine all the aspects of uranium mining within its terms of

reference and report to the government. It's unfortunate that the

minister has allowed exploration to continue, because it has undermined

the credibility of that commission.

The minister said he was

attempting to get some kind of coordination between B.C. Hydro, his

ministry and the B.C. Energy Commission concerning the planning and

forecasting of energy requirements in the province. We would definitely

welcome this under some circumstances. Is the coordination being done

through B.C. Hydro or through the B.C. Energy Commission? Would the

minister give us a better description of just how this coordination

will be developed? What energy agency will be responsible for

coordinating, planning and forecasting projections of energy

requirements in in the province? If B.C. Hydro has any input at all,

then we would have to question those estimates.

It's been

our position, and the committee on Crown corporations' position, that

the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority should be broken up into separate

operating units, that the planning function should be taken away from

B.C. Hydro, which would then remain as an operating company following

through the energy policy and the dictates of the province, rather than

doing its own planning and projections and operating almost as a

separate entity from the provincial government and its energy policy,

whenever that may be developed. So how is this forecasting and planning

agency going to structured, and who is going to be represented on it?

would also like to ask a specific question. Hydro seems to be going

ahead in this province developing generation and transmission

facilities without adequate input from the public and from energy

agencies, but obviously they have input from the government because the

government must approve every expenditure and every borrowing on a

step-by-step basis. An example is the Cheekye to Dunsmuir 500 kilovolt

power line. The government has obviously approved Hydro's plan to build

this line across the Strait of Georgia, and the Minister of Lands,

Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) nods his approval. He says that

they have the approval to go ahead with this power line. But we

understand from memos that have been transmitted between Hydro and the

Minister of Energy's office that rather than the estimate of $31.5

million as the cost for this power line applying, the actual cost

estimate for the power line is now somewhere over $600 million. Hydro

still doesn't have the final go-ahead to proceed with the power line.

We're asking the Minister of Energy what the true estimated cost is at

this point of the Cheekye-Dunsmuir power line. Hydro tells us it's $315

million. It comes out in their reports as $315 million. But we

understand from communications between the Ministry of Energy and B.C.

Hydro that the estimated price has now almost doubled to over $600

million, and the cost is still going up.

Hydro, in the

meantime, in order to overcome some of the legitimate objections of

people on Vancouver Island to the construction of this power line, has

started a public relations program to try to convince municipalities

that the

[ Page 454 ]

power

line is going to be necessary. They're trying to develop a bit of a

scare tactic on Vancouver Island, saying if they don't get this power

line built and they don't begin it this fall, we're going to have no

expansion at the Elk Falls plant in Campbell River; we're going to have

no expansion at Duke Point and we're going to have no expansion in Port

Alberni. We're not going to have the power that we require in order to

continue with those proposed industrial expansion projects.

understand that at B.C. Hydro, Mr. Bonner has even hired Paul Hurmuses

to do his public relations work in this, regard. Mr. Hurmuses was the

guy who wrote objective material on Sweden just before the 1975

election, and the material conveniently came out around election time,

obviously distributed with the help of the Social Credit campaign

committees. Mr. Hurmuses also wrote another book about the NDP term of

office in the province which was totally biased, inadequately

researched and straight garbage. But Mr. Hurmuses has now been hired by

B.C. Hydro as Robert Bonner's political propagandist, and he, through

Bonner's office, is now attempting to sway public opinion on Vancouver

Island, using what utilities in the States have used for years, a kind

of public terror tactic, saying: "If you don't get the power that we're

planning to provide to the Island, you're going to be out of jobs.

We're not going to follow through on our industrial expansion." That's

kind of terrorizing the citizens of Vancouver Island into approving

this 500 kilovolt line from Cheekye to Dunsmuir, even though we

understand that the projected cost of this line has now doubled over

what Hydro originally projected it at. So I would like to ask the

minister what the true projected cost is at this point for the

Cheekye-Dunsmuir 500 kilovolt transmission line.

One of the

things that Hydro seems to neglect is the alternatives to building this

line. The UBC program in natural resource economics has published a

number of studies on wood-waste as an energy source for British

Columbia and, in particular, some areas of Vancouver Island where oil

is used in burners for providing electricity and process heat for pulp

mills. According to the authors of this study, Helliwell and Cox, it is

possible for Hydro, by changing its pricing policies somewhat, to

encourage companies such as Elk Falls to develop their own power and in

that way to put off the requirement for the Cheekye-Dunsmuir power line

for a number of years.

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

"The

conversion of all boilers at oil-burning mills to 1,250 pounds per

square inch pressure and the installation of back-pressure turbines

would add about 225 megawatts of capacity to the B.C. system. More than

75 percent of this extra capacity would be on Vancouver Island where it

could serve to postpone substantially the construction of a

controversial and expensive high-voltage transmission line to the

Island. This would involve capital cost for the additional boiler and

burner capacity and generators of $64 million in 1978 prices."

Helliwell

and Cox also mention the installation of 1,250 psi boilers would be

more labour-intensive and less capital-intensive and debt-intensive

than the generating facilities Hydro is currently building throughout

the province, and that electricity produced from those facilities would

be cheaper than electricity Hydro is currently producing, and is

expected to be producing from projects such as the Revelstoke Dam,

where electricity is available at a cost of 20 mills or more.

One

of the problems Cox and Helliwell outline in their report is that Hydro

has the attitude that is prevalent throughout almost all public and

private utilities in the United States and Canada — they're extremely

reluctant to change. They're extremely reluctant to allow people

outside the utility to develop energy sources. They say those people

are unreliable, that the source of electricity is unreliable. Yet in

Sweden, one of the main reasons why that country is so competitive in

the pulp and paper industry with British Columbia's industry — in fact,

I understand we're even selling them chips — is that most of their pulp

and paper mills produce their own power, using wood wastes.

the propaganda Hydro is presently putting forward on Vancouver Island

is that if we don't allow construction of the 500 kilovolt Dunsmuir

line and the Elk Falls expansion, the new paper machinery at Elk Falls

is not going to go ahead and jobs are going to be lost.

AN HON. MEMBER: Great blackmail.

MR. SKELLY:

It is blackmail. It's an attempt to blackmail the people on Vancouver

Island to support that power line. The same thing is being done, using

MacMillan Bloedel personnel in Alberni. They're saying that necessary

plant development isn't going to take place unless the people in the

Alberni Valley, and on Vancouver Island, support this 500 kilovolt line

and unless the government allows it to go ahead in a timely way.

What

has Hydro done, what has the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources done, and what has his ministry done to encourage these

people to develop their own electricity requirement, using 1,250 psi or

1,500 psi boilers, which are also recommended by Helliwell and Cox as

cheaper, more desirable alternatives to the expensive, centralized

generating and transmission systems Hydro is trying to push down our

throats?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

One of the

problems with Hydro — and I can understand that they're caught in the

same bind as other utilities throughout Canada and the United States —

is that the cost of new generating facilities is prohibitive unless the

price structure is increased to represent the cost of producing

electricity. Yet if the price structure is increased or if the price is

increased, then people are going to conserve more, and the generating

and transmission facilities aren't going to be required. The result is

they'll be over capitalized, and the price will have to go up to pay

for idle generating and transmission facilities. So they're caught in

that kind of a squeeze. Yet Hydro, in its conventional way, refuses to

consider the alternatives to the type of energy it's producing.

The

minister announces — and boasts — that he's entered into an agreement

with the federal government for $27.5 million over a five-year period.

That is minuscule compared to the amount of money we're voting year by

year in borrowing power to B.C. Hydro. This year we voted Hydro $750

million, yet we're being allocated something like $5 million out of

this federal energy program which is just getting off the ground now.

It's minuscule compared to

[ Page 455 ]

the

amount we're voting for Hydro for conventional facilities. I understand

the Energy Commission has in its budget less than $1 million for the

study of alternative energy facilities or alternative energy

technologies. It appears that Hydro and the ministry believe that these

alternative technologies are technologically unsophisticated, or

underdeveloped, or esoteric, and that they won't be able to produce

enough energy to justify the required investment.

If the minister is listening, I'd like to refer him to an

article in the New Yorker by

Barry Commoner, a well-known energy expert in the United States, who

outlines a number of solar technologies that have been developed in the

United States. But because there is no demand for those technologies

through the conventional utilities, they refuse to take them up.

They're uneconomic. But if a demand is created, those type of

technologies will become marketable and economic.

The thing

he discusses in this

article is photovoltaic cells, which are based on

the electrical properties of silicon crystals. At the present time,

producing a watt from a module of silicon cells costs about $10. They

work out an economic strategy where, if the government becomes involved

through public purchases of photovoltaic cells, they could not only

increase the production of them, they could decrease the cost of

production to a point after a five-year period where photovoltaic cells

could produce enough energy to replace existing energy or conventional

generation facilities, and also could be competitive in residential

uses.

So it would be an interesting few minutes' reading for

the minister to take a look at Commoner's article. I'I pass it on to

you. I understand you probably won't have an opportunity to deal with

some of these questions until next week, but I will make a copy

available to you, because it is an interesting proposition. Commoner

points out that the cost of exploring for conventional fuels,

non-renewable fuels, is now increasing in geometric progression. The

cost is increasing and the amount of fuel we get for the dollar

expended is decreasing. The cost is increasing at a faster and faster

rate,

whereas with the solar technologies, the cost per unit is now

similar to the cost per unit of non-renewable energy between, say, 1940

and 1960. The cost of solar technologies is now going down

whereas the

cost of non-renewable fuels is now increasing. So it's a good

article

and I would recommend it to the minister.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

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

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

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Chairman, I move that from and out of the consolidated revenue fund

there may be paid and applied, in such manner and at such times as the

Lieutenant-Governor- in-Council may determine, a sum not exceeding in

the whole $1.227,000,000 towards defraying the several charges and

expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year

ending March 31, 1980, not otherwise provided for and being

substantially one-quarter of the total amount of the votes of the main

estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980, as laid before the

Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia at the present

time.

Motion approved.

The House resumed: Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of resolution from the Committee of

Supply on June 28, 1979, be now taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

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

Motion approved.

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

HON. MR. WOLFE: It's okay.

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

Motion approved.

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

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Chairman, I move that from and out of the consolidated revenue fund

there may be paid and applied, in such manner and at such times as the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine, a sum not exceeding in

the whole $1,227,000,000 towards defraying the several charges and

expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year

ending March 31, 1980, not otherwise provided for and being

substantially one-quarter of the total amount of the votes of the main

estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980, as laid before the

Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia at the present

session.

Motion approved.

[ Page 456 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of resolution from the Committee of

Ways and Means on June 28, 1979, be now taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

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

Motion approved.

SUPPLY ACT, NO. 2, 1979

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

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

Motion approved.

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

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

Motion approved.

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

Motion approved.

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

Motion approved.

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

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

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

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

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

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, I am informed that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is

approaching the buildings and will be shortly entering the chamber.

Perhaps the wise thing to do would be for all members to remain in

their chairs until notice is given that he is approaching the chamber.

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

The House resumed at 12:32 p.m.

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

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Social Services Tax Amendment Act, 1979

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1979

Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1979

Pari Mutual Betting Tax Amendment Act, 1979

Revenue Surplus of 1977-78 Appropriation Act, 1979

Vancouver and Victoria Trade and Convention Centres Fund Act

Lower Mainland Stadium Fund Act

Special Purpose Appropriation Act, 1979

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

(1964) Amendment Act, 1979

British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation Amendment Act, 1979

Public Schools Amendment Act, 1979

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor

doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent

to these bills.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Supply Act, No. 2, 1979

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor

doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and doth

assent to this bill.

[ Page 457 ]

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

Introduction of Bills

MEDICAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

a motion by Hon. Mr. McClelland, Bill 15, Medical Amendment Act, 1979,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Tabling Documents

Mr.

Speaker filed a report under

section 7,

chapter 6 of the Revised

Statutes of British Columbia on the Legislative Procedure and Practice

Inquiry Act.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:37 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1979,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada