CONTENTS

Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General estimates

Resource Revenue and Sharing Act (Bill 37). Second reading. Mr. Smith — 2557

Municipal Consultation Act (Bill 38). Second reading. Mr. Smith —  2557

Election Expenses Act (Bill 39). Second reading. Mr. Wallace — 2557

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2558

Community Care Facilities Licensing Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 71). Committee stage.

On section 7. Mr. McClelland — 2558

Report and third reading — 2558

Medical Services Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 72). Committee, report and third reading — 2559

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (1964) Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 25). Committee stage.

On section 1. Mr. Phillips — 2559

Amendment to section 1. Mr. Smith — 2559

Mr. Chairman rules out of order — 2560

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 2560

On section 1. Mr. Fraser — 2561

THURSDAY, MAY 22, 1975

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.

ESTIMATES:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 21: correction services, $27,501,093 — continued.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications) : Mr. Speaker, this being private Members' day, I suggest we turn to private Members' affairs and discuss public bills in the hands of private Members. Second reading, Bill 37.

RESOURCE REVENUE AND SHARING ACT

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, it's public bills in the hands of private Members. Private Members' day.

Interjections.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): On behalf of the Hon. Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett), I would move that leave be granted to stand the bill over until he is present.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Second reading, Bill 38, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPAL CONSULTATION ACT

MR. SMITH: Ditto, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Goodness, we are making rapid progress. Bill 39, Mr. Speaker, second reading.

ELECTION EXPENSES ACT

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I just ran up the stairs. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Can I give you some medical advice? Watch your blood pressure.

MR. WALLACE: Well, if there's anyone who needs medical advice, it's you.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: My blood pressure's perfect.

MR. WALLACE: The principle of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is really very simple. It's intended to bring a measure of sanity into the whole business of electioneering and also to establish one or two basic principles. The most important one of all in this bill would be that political parties in campaigning could only accept donations from persons who are eligible to be on the voters list. This would automatically exclude financial support from big corporations, big unions, associations, societies, pressure groups and all the other forces which at the present time influence elections through the clout they can use in terms of dollar donations to the particular party concerned.

The second most important principle of the bill is disclosure of the source of donations over a certain amount. In this case, the figure suggested is $100. Also, Mr. Speaker, a ceiling on the donation that can be given from any particular source: it is suggested in the bill what these ceilings would be. Certain other basic principles relate to the annual audited statement of expenses by each political party disclosing the way in which the party spends the money and disclosing the source of all donations over $100.

This bill also suggests that at a provincial level we might emulate the example that is being set at the federal level by providing certain tax credits to individual donors with a limited amount that can be allowed on their provincial income tax. The maximum that could be allowed is stated in the bill.

The other principles in the bill relate particularly to limits on spending, the principle of the bill being that no political party on that side of the House or this side of the House should ever be in a position even to appear to buy an election because of the excessive amounts of money and the saturation effects that can be applied through tremendous amounts of advertising and all the media, both printed and electronic. So the bill would imply and include specific recommendations that there be limits on the amount of money spent on advertising.

Furthermore, some kind of limit is implied in the bill also as to the amount that the central party can make available to the different ridings.

These, Mr. Speaker, are the main principles of the

[ Page 2558 ]

bill. But over and above all the specific principles, we in this party would like to think that this kind of bill would set a new climate both for electioneering and election time, and the scrutiny of political spending between elections. And that latter point in principle, as I mentioned, I think is as important or perhaps more important than simply placing limits during a six weeks campaign or compelling disclosure of donations at a very limited part of the total time involved in the political activity of parties in this province.

If I could just end by also saying that I think this bill implies or includes another principle related to advertising by whatever party happens to be in government. In the bill the principle is covered that no advertising can occur by the party in power simply to further propagate the political aim of that party, but can be allowed as the simple transfer or spreading of information on a departmental basis to inform the people in the province of services or legislation available to them.

So with these very brief comments, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this does represent a step forward for the kind of system which so many people in the province have paid lip service to but where very few governments have really taken the definitive step of bringing in specific recommendations with specific proposals and definite figures relating to the very important matters of disclosure and the placing of ceilings on spending.

I move second reading.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I regretfully draw your attention to the fact that this bill offends against that standing order which forbids the impost of any kind on the government without a message from His Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I examined the bill with some attention, and a number of sections require the expenditure of public money without first having the message bill, a message from His Honour. It imposes fines and penalties, both of which would be forbidden under standing order 67, and it also would interfere with the revenues of the Crown by deducting a portion from income tax payable to the provincial government by virtue of sections of the bill.

Consequently, taking it all in all, it would interfere with the provisions of standing order 67, and I declare it out of order.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the House now move to public bills and orders — committee stage on Bill 71.

COMMUNITY CARE FACILITIES

The House in committee on Bill 71 — Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Just one question of the Minister; just an assurance from the Minister that under this section the committee that draws up these regulations will be very careful that the regulations aren't made too binding and too strong so as to, as I mentioned earlier in debate on second reading, eliminate the possibility of local autonomy for the facilities in question.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Chairman, I gave that assurance during second reading, and I'm glad the Member brought it up again. But we wish to, as much as we can, decentralize on this particular area, and certainly we give that assurance.

Section 7 approved.

Title approved.

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

[ Page 2559 ]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 71, Community Care Facilities Licensing Amendment Act, 1975, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 72, Mr. Speaker.

MEDICAL SERVICES

The House in Committee on Bill 72; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COCKE: 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 72, Medical Services Amendment Act, 1975, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 25, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO AND POWER

The House in committee on Bill 25; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, I have had something to say about this Act before. We've had a lot of discussion about British Columbia Hydro and a lot of discussion about the directors of Hydro and we've had a lot of discussion about what this money is going to be used for. I would like the Premier to give us some indication of what the immediate requirements are for Hydro before we pass the bill. I'd like him to give us some indication of how much money is going to be borrowed, from where and at what rates. I know maybe he won't be able to advise of that, but he should certainly give us some indication as to how much of this money is going to be required and at what date and what project it is going to be used for. As I've said before, this is more blank-cheque legislation. We'd like to have some indication as to what amounts of money will be borrowed, when and for what purposes.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, as the Member said, the general commitments.... The first column of money is the completion of Mica — that is including the transmission and the machining of Mica. The next, of course, is the commitment to Site 1 at Kootenay Canal. I cannot tell you the exact placement dates of funds as it depends on the market. But the present market request is $150 million, which has been successfully met in New York just last night. That $150 million will be committed to all three projects on call as the projects go ahead this year. The rate was quite satisfactory. The whole issue sold yesterday, as I say. The Deputy Minister, Mr. Bryson, wired that there had been a successful sale of the bond issue. So the commitment, as we've discussed in some detail, is the Mica transmission and machining, and Site 1, the Kootenay Canal.

The question of going beyond was raised by the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano(Mr. Gibson).

The Hat Creek project has been updated in terms of surveys, but there's no commitment on Hat Creek. It's just been updated in terms of surveys.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to repeat what I said the other day, because I didn't hear anything from the Minister of Finance about the lack of funds for rural electrification. For several years there has been $3 million involved. As I said the other day, that's really worth about $1 million today. Rural electrification is coming almost to a standstill in the rural areas of this province because of the non-contribution of B.C. Hydro, and they say because of the lack of grants from the provincial government. I'd like to know from the Minister of Finance if there is any change contemplated in this grant.

I realize that we passed that in his department for $3 million, but again, it was the same as it has been for years.

Under Bill 25 the other thing I would like to know from the Minister of Finance is if he is contemplating any change of representative cabinet Ministers on the board of directors of B.C. Hydro.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I did hear your speech. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) is a member of the board of directors which has been requested to put rural electrification on the agenda at the next board meeting of B.C. Hydro.

The question of change — that is a matter of government policy. I have not received any directive in that regard from the government leader — I am speaking now as the Minister of Finance. (Laughter.)

MR. SMITH: In keeping with the official opposition's viewpoint concerning accountability, and the fact that funds have been borrowed from undisclosed sources for use by the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, we feel that if the government is sincere in full accountability to the public and they wish to pursue that course, as they say they wish to do for the benefit of the people of the Province of British Columbia, I would like to move an amendment to Bill 25 by adding a subsection (2) to the bill to read as follows:

"Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this Act, no borrowing authorized under subsection (1) shall be entered upon without publication of the source of funds in The British Columbia Gazette." I so move.

Interjections.

MR. SMITH: Oh, pardon me. I guess I changed the wording slightly. The one that I handed into the desk, Mr. Premier, read: "Subsection (2): notwithstanding subsection (1), no loan authorized under the

[ Page 2560 ]

provisions of this Act shall be borrowed with respect to any borrowings from undisclosed sources." Really, it has the same purpose.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Member, we appreciate the intent, but I would draw your attention to the amendment, I think, offending standing orders in terms of imposts to the Crown.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We will certainly give it consideration.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair finds that this motion is out of order as it tends to dictate government policy. This has been ruled on in the past in this House; there are precedents for it.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to quote a precedent, if you have one, that would indicate that that offends against any of our standing orders or any rules of this House. It would seem to me that all we are doing is asking for the government to report and disclose the sources of money borrowed on behalf of the people of the Province of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are speaking on a point of order, Mr. Member?

MR. SMITH: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not the leader yet.

MR. SMITH: It would seem to me, and I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that there is no impost upon the Crown, only a requirement for them to let a little sunlight in, just a little sunshine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you will be a little patient, Hon. Members, we will find the precedents in a moment.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We find the precedents in Speakers' Decisions, 1931-43, volume 3, page 34, 36 and 37. There are other precedents I'm sure the Members can find for themselves if they wish.

MR. SMITH: Would the Chairman be good enough to cite the case that was involved in that particular instance, and give an indication to the Members as to just why it was ruled out of order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has made the ruling and made the references. I think the Members can find them for themselves. The motion is clearly out of order.

MR. SMITH: On that basis, if that is the only reason you can give as Chairman of the committee, I have no alternative but to challenge your ruling.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) proposed an amendment to Bill 25. I ruled the motion out of order as it tended to dictate government policy, and quoted three sources of precedent. He has challenged my ruling.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 10

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Thank you to the Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) for deferring. Mr. Chairman, just a very brief point of order, a clarification. I am not asking for an immediate ruling, but I'm puzzled. I am not commenting on the point of order just decided, but May, page 581 of the 18th edition, notes at the bottom of the page:

"As it is for the House, and not for a committee, which cannot receive any communication from the Sovereign, to guard the interest of the Crown, no question can arise upon an amendment in committee as to whether the Queen's consent should be signified before the question is proposed. Many precedents exist of amendments, which

[ Page 2561 ]

affected the interests of the Crown, being made in committees on bills, and the Queen's consent being signified at a later stage."

As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, I am not particularly asking for an immediate ruling, because this is to some extent hypothetical, that vote having been taken. But it puzzles me somewhat. This isn't a question of the powers of the committee vis-à-vis the House. I just make that point now for your later consideration.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's an interesting point, Mr. Member. We will take it under consideration.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I want to address a few more remarks when the.... Pardon me, I should say when one of the senior directors of Hydro is in the House. He took off — Mr. Woody Woodpecker....

AN HON. MEMBER: He saw you coming, Alec.

MR. FRASER: Yes, right. But I feel that B.C. Hydro is completely out of control with its expenses and I don't think the government really knows what's going on. We've had immense Hydro increases to industry and commerce in this province in the last 18 months. They are trying to pass these costs on and find out that they can't. We have had a big deficit in the transit section of Hydro. Nobody has tried to explain that. I believe that one of the Ministers on the Hydro board said that this was $17 million. This was only a press release. But I am very concerned that this large Crown corporation is completely out of control, and I am convinced that the elected directors don't know what's going on there. I refer to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Lorimer) and the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams).

I would like to ask how many directors' meetings have they attended in the last 12 months, and how many directors' meetings have been called? I have reason to believe that they don't even attend directors' meetings and that's why they are not familiar with what this large Crown corporation is doing. They are spending $300 million or $400 million a year, and nobody seems to care — except the taxpayers are starting to care because it is reflecting in their power bills.

I think it is time we either replaced these directors or got a report from them on what is going on in this large Crown corporation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. FRASER: On top of that, rural electrification has come to a standstill, and they haven't done anything about that. The Premier announced tonight that they are going to put it on the next agenda. Mr. Chairman ' I brought the lack of funds for rural electrification up in this House a year ago. It's only deteriorated further in the last 12 months, and it is quite serious.

It is all well and good for the lower mainland and their fat cats. They've got lots of light; they've got lots of transit. But in the interior of the province they haven't got lights at all. They haven't even got roads, let alone transit. If we are going to subsidize things, let's equalize things a bit: $3 million for rural electrification, $17 million loss in transit.

I don't deny the people in the lower mainland transit — not one bit, even if the buses are running around half empty or empty. That's fine. They're there at the call of the citizen. But why isn't power at the call of the citizen in the interior? It certainly is not.

All those staff people they have in Hydro — engineers mainly - throw all the roadblocks they can when rural electrification comes in. If they don't do it, the Highways people come in and say: "You can't build hydro down this road because it isn't a public road."

We're fed up to the teeth in the rural part of British Columbia about rural electrification. They are willing to pay their share, and there is a sharing formula, Mr. Chairman, and they're willing to pay their power bills. But they have no opportunity to achieve either one because it is ruled out by some bureaucrat in B.C. Hydro in Vancouver. These elected representatives are the only ones who are left to appeal to now, and I suggest that they be replaced or at least get on the job and find out what is causing all this impasse in rural electrification.

It's an absolute public disgrace, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like to hear from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) or the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) what they have done about it. How many meetings have they attended? How many have they missed? Has it ever been discussed on their agenda about rural electrification? Thank you.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I just have a few comments and questions here. The first relates to putting some information on the record as a result of something the Premier said when this debate was adjourned the other day. We were talking about nuclear power and the extent to which this new B.C. Hydro money should be used for nuclear power and so on.

The Premier was expressing a concern that uranium materials and other nuclear materials on the surface of the earth would be used up very shortly. At that time I make a statement quoting the head of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. that there was enough to supply Canadians for 1,000 years, I think was the

[ Page 2562 ]

comment I made.

Mr. Chairman, I was wrong. I want to put that on the record. I was wrong. I went back and checked that speech, and what the president of Atomic Energy of Canada did say was that there is enough uranium and nuclear materials in the crust of the earth accessible to supply a world of 20 billion people for 1,000 years. I'll just read one sentence of that quote, which is a quote from the speech of Dr. J.S. Foster in Halifax, March 21, 1975: "Nuclear power stations no more efficient than the Pickering station could supply 20 billion people with three times as much energy" — all energy, not just electrical energy - "as the average Canadian uses for 1,000 years from 10 per cent of the uranium within one kilometre of the surface of the continents."

In other words, Mr. Chairman, there is no shortage of uranium and nuclear materials. I simply put that on the record to show that the Premier had his facts wrong in that particular case.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): They said that about gas and oil too, didn't they?

MR. GIBSON: No, with respect, Mr. Member for Shuswap, they never said that about gas and oil. This is a different kind of statement. I suggest you go out and research the subject a bit and make your own speech on it.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're giving it away.

MR. GIBSON: There's a question I would like to ask the Premier, and I'd like his reply on it now. He has made much of the fact that the Mica dam and the Columbia River project is forcing the requirement for Hydro to have to borrow this money. Mr. Chairman, we have been hearing in this House for almost the last three months now that there is going to be an inquiry into the Columbia. Day after day in question period the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) has been evading and avoiding the question of when that committee will be appointed.

Mr. Chairman, before we approve this money and before we buy the Premier's story that, really, it's the Columbia that's caused the great disaster, we want to get to the bottom of this, Mr. Premier. We want to know when that committee will be appointed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, first of all, I am advised by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) that....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser). Okay, fine.

I am advised by the Minister of Municipal Affairs that they averaged about a meeting a month, and over the two and a half years the Minister of Municipal Affairs has missed three meetings. To his knowledge, the Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. R. A. Williams) has missed one or none. I'll get that exact number from the Minister of Lands and Forests.

In terms of the Columbia, Mr. Member, I pointed out that $250 million will be needed to complete — that is not the total cost of the whole operation. The total cost has been a matter of debate. I am hoping that shortly the inquiry personnel will be named. That is our intention; it is a question of nailing down the people to conduct the inquiry. That's all that's holding it at this point.

MR. GIBSON: Will it be before the House rises?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I hope so. I can't give that as an absolute promise, but I certainly hope so. Yes.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to pursue this rural electrification. As the Premier well knows, I spoke at some length on rural electrification during his estimates. He indicated to me at that time that we would discuss it further under the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources' estimates. Those estimates have had some debate, and the Minister has indicated that there will be a change.

I'd just like to give the Minister of Finance an indication of what has happened just in the last 12 months. For instance, I have an estimate for rural electrification, both in the same area. This happens to be one year ago.... I'm sorry, it's not a year ago; it's 1969. The policy hasn't been changed since that time, to my knowledge. No, I don't think the policy has been changed since 1969.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

This estimate was made up last year — June 4, 1974. It's for an extension of 1.15 miles — this is just one year ago. The cost of that extension to the customer, based on the same policy as we have this year, is $337. I have another point, which is 1975 — really, less than one year later — for 0.6 miles. So this is less than half of the mileage involved, and the cost to the customer is $954, three times as much.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Member, I know the answer to that. I have had similar experiences with the Member for the rural area of Dewdney (Mr. Rolston). I could give you that answer now.

Mr. Member, It's true that when you take the comparison on the basis of the distance, you can find, almost in the same locale, a great gap in costs — my experience was this when I dealt with the Suicide Creek extension of power lines. The Member for

[ Page 2563 ]

Dewdney would know where Suicide Creek is. At one time I represented that area and the same problem occurred. I found — to my embarrassment with the Minister, Mr. Williston, at the time — that the problem that caused the disparity of costs was because of the terrain, and one problem was rock. In terms of setting power lines in over existing right-of-way, there was soil that was easy to dig and set up poles. The other problem was getting power in over a lengthy territory of rock. So you can't make the straight comparison; you have to know exactly what the terrain is that they're going over. That was the problem, Mr. Member. Perhaps that may be related to yours.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, am I recognized?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Normally, Mr. Member, we recognize you. But if it's an exchange, we sometimes do it without....

MR. PHILLIPS: Fine. I appreciate the Premier talking about the comparison in terms of terrain. These are both level farmyards, both in the same area — that's the reason I have the comparison.

Without taking into consideration the rural electrification programme, I'll just give you an indication of the total cost of the project.

This is dated June 4, 1974; this is with Hydro doing it, not a private contractor. The cost of the total project last year, on identical terrain, 1.15 miles: the gross cost of the project is $5,037. Here we have, less than one year later — this is due to increased cost of poles, wiring and labour — the cost for 0.6 miles is $5,564. That is how much the cost has gone up in the last year. The formula which we are working under, the REA formula....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Is that Lone Prairie?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, it is not Lone Prairie. Lone Prairie has been looked after. This is just an extension in from the main line into a farmer's yard. In the first instance it was 1.15 miles. In the second instance, 0.6 miles.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Send them over and I'll have a report....

MR. PHILLIPS: The programme which we are working under has not been changed since this booklet was printed in 1972. That is three years ago. It is a formula which we have to have changed. We have discussed this with you. I have pleaded with you.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, we did a job in Lone Prairie. We did a pretty good job.

MR. PHILLIPS: You did a job at Lone Prairie, but that is still under the old formula.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Right, okay.

MR. PHILLIPS: And you've done several jobs. But what I am saying is that without changing the formula now, and in the areas that we need the formula changed specifically.... You have given some indication.

The formula has to be changed because now we are getting into areas where farmhouses are farther apart. We are getting, particularly in my area, where there is new land being developed. It is the formula that we need changed. We also need an indication, Mr. Chairman, that Hydro will accept the policy of allowing private contractors to go in and build these lines, which they seem to be able to do much cheaper than Hydro. I don't know whether they work cheaper, whether it is the labour costs, or what it is. If we even had a policy of allowing private contractors to build these lines.... In some cases, private contractors can build these lines cheaper, the entire line cheaper — and I don't know why — than what the cost to the customer is under the REA programme.

This has been a problem for two years. You promised us some action last year. We still have nothing. I would like to have some firm indication from the Minister of Finance that we are going to get some assistance in this. Those people, as I have said, see those steel towers running overhead, those tall sentinels in the evening — and I don't want to go into all of that again this evening — those tall sentinels taking the power from the mighty Peace River project away, running over farms that are not able to turn lights on.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now don't blow it, Mr. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, you don't want me to get wound up.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Cool off right now while you're ahead.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I've got some stuff on Lone Prairie.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, Lone Prairie is looked after. Lone Prairie is looked after, finally after battling...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Okay, sit down.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...five or six years.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, when you

[ Page 2564 ]

were in the government and you made impassioned, quiet speeches on behalf of Lone Prairie from the back benches of government, you were turned down. It was wrong. You should not have been turned down. But the new government came in and showed that it did not practise discrimination against backbenchers, whether they were in the government back bench or the opposition back bench. After hearing again the impassioned plea on Lone Prairie, the Member has solved Lone Prairie's problems. The Member is getting up and saying: "Oh, I don't want to talk about Lone Prairie any more." Of course he doesn't want to talk about Lone Prairie anymore. This fighting government....

AN HON. MEMBER: Despite that Member's objections?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, not despite that Member's objections. We listened to the Member...

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

HON. MR. BARRETT: ...and did something about it when the former government wouldn't pay any attention to him when he represented Lone Prairie. Now he has made another good case and we are listening to him again.

I recognize that those costs have gone up, Mr. Member, in a year's time, resulting in additional costs for transit, for auto insurance, bigger budgets for services elsewhere, the same reason that you make the appeal to look at it, the same pressure on the economy that has caused the other costs to go up. But because you have made such an impassioned and logical appeal, Mr. Member, and because I can use your words to assist us in explaining the increased costs in other areas of government (laughter), we will ask the Minister to ask Hydro, to review it in light of the economic situation with which all departments of government are faced. Thank you, Mr. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, to that I say: Bozunga! (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: What was that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's out of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you that it was that previous government ...

AN HON. MEMBER: Down, boy!

MR. PHILLIPS: ...that brought in rural electrification ...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ohhh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't blow it.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...and spent millions of dollars assisting. And I want to tell you that when I was sitting in the back bench, back there in 1966-69, in that great government of the day...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't blow it.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...Lone Prairie.... Don't threaten me! Don't threaten me!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, no, I'm not threatening you, Mr. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: There was no request for hydro in Lone Prairie, but because of the great land-development policies of that previous government in assisting people to clear land, more farmland in the Lone Prairie area was opened up. I never spoke about hydro for Lone Prairie when I was on the back bench, because there was no request. There were very few people living there.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You didn't want them to read in Lone Prairie. When you were in government, I don't blame you for not wanting them to read.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you — and I don't want to bring any personalities into this — but what we were talking about, the increased costs that the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) spoke about just a moment ago...the costs of running Hydro are going up. They are going uncontrolled, and they have no bearing on the rest of the costs of government, because they're all under the same control. All your costs are going up. And why? Why? Not necessarily inflation.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm getting a little sick and tired of bringing Hydro up and getting sort of half-baked promises from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett). He promised me at least two months ago ...

HON. MR. BARRETT: What?

MR. PHILLIPS:  ...that you would look into changing the formula, and that you would have something, you would tell us something. Bring it up under another estimate? Now he's saying: "Bring it up under another estimate." "We're going to do something," he said. "Don't talk about it, or you might blow your case."

HON. MR. BARRETT: I didn't say to bring it up

[ Page 2565 ]

under another estimate.

MR. PHILLIPS: You told me, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Premier, when I was discussing this under the Minister of Finance's estimates: "Talk about it under the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. We'll check into changing the formula."

But, if the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) hasn't missed any of the directors meetings, I'd like to ask you to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): He's asleep.

MR. PHILLIPS: Has there been a meeting of Hydro in the last two months?

MR. CHABOT: He's asleep.

MR. PHILLIPS: Was rural electrification brought up at those meetings? Was it brought up?

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Was rural electrification discussed at that meeting?

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: We were promised by the Minister of Finance, and it affects your area, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You aren't going to be happy with the answer, but he's going to answer.

MR. PHILLIPS: I get a lot of answers in here that I'm not happy with, but I have to abide by them. At least I'll get an answer. And if I get a yes or a no, then I'll know what to do.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: You don't even know what rural electrification is, Mr. Attorney-General. If you ever get out there they'll electrocute you.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Cariboo asked how many meetings I'd attended and how often board meetings were held in the Hydro. They're held at least once a month and there are other special meetings held between times, so it's hard to say how many there are in any given year. Probably it averages three meeting every two months, something in that neighbourhood. I've probably missed about three meetings. Yesterday I didn't get to the meeting because I thought my services in the House were more important. So I was here.

As far as rural electrification is concerned, the only request for rural electrification that has come before me or before the board, to my knowledge, has been one about Lone Prairie. The moment this was given to me by the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), we attended to it, and now the lights are on in Lone Prairie. The next time I'm in that country I intend to go through and check the lighting.

There have b been no requests for rural electrification to my knowledge in the last two years apart from that one case. So if there is any area in the Cariboo, or any other area in the province, send it along and we'll see what we can do in regard to it. It's certainly not a burning issue.

MR. PHILLIPS: I appreciate the director of Hydro giving me those facts, and I just want to set the record straight. I appreciate what the Minister of Municipal Affairs did on behalf of the Member for South Peace River. I appreciate that, but it took a little bit of electricity on the end of a stock prod, I think they call it, to get the thing moving. I appreciate that it's happened. There's a little jolt there once in a while, and it did take a lot of prodding. We had a lot of trouble with that line; it took a lot of prodding. I remember talking to the Minister, the same as I'm trying to get an answer from another Minister, meeting him in the hallway month after month after month, saying: "What's the answer? How's it coming?" Finally we made it.

What the Minister is really saying is that if we have a specific case, then you're going to look at a specific case. Well, this just happens to be one specific case into one particular farmyard where the cost has doubled over the last year. It's not a large expenditure of money, but it's the formula that we should be looking at. As I said, this formula has not been changed since 1972. If you want to deal with this on an individual basis, I'd be most happy to make an announcement in my area that anyone wanting rural electrification, having problems, let's take it up on an individual basis.

If you wish to deal with it on an individual basis rather than to change the formula, that's fine, but I think we should have some policy enunciated. I'd like to have that policy enunciated. If that's the way you want to do it, fine, we'll take every given area and assess it on an individual basis. But that leaves it in the hands of politicians. Well, that's fine with me, if that's the way you all want it. We'll fight for each individual case.

Otherwise, I'm asking you to take a look at the formula and change the formula. The various engineers and the district managers of Hydro should

[ Page 2566 ]

know where they're at, and the people should know where they're at. So I'd be quite happy to make an announcement, or you could make an announcement that you're going to take a look at every individual case. You enunciate the policy; all I want to know is where I am at.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I am in complete agreement. The formula was written a great number of years ago and is undoubtedly out of date at the present time. As has been mentioned by the Hon. Premier, the matter will be raised at the next board meeting to take a close look at a more realistic formula that we can use. In addition to this, if there are any individual cases which require attention, just let us know and we'll proceed with that as well during the time we are reviewing the formula.

MR. PHILLIPS: I just want to thank the Minister. I have a case here which I will take up with you at your earliest possible convenience, because I'm at your convenience, Mr. Minister. I will discuss this case with you.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Chairman, it's very interesting for me to listen to this exchange, when the Minister really gets up and agrees to take certain action. We can remember, back in 1969, when the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) sat down here, and he got so upset with the Premier of the day and he got so upset with the Hydro policy that he stood up and he said: "This government, this Premier, hasn't spent one five-cent piece in the Peace River. He's spent the entire budget in Yale-Lillooet." This is the way he used to carry on, and he was so fed up with that tired old Premier and the tired old government that he wouldn't run again. That's what he thought of their Hydro policy.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a few short words, through you, to the Minister of empty office space. With all those empty office spaces and the waste of over a third of a million dollars of the taxpayers' money when they can't give lights in the Peace River area, that Minister is wasting that Minister's money, running around the province, renting office space, leaving them empty for 12 months and he stands up and talks! I want to tell you something, Mr. Chairman, and I'll tell you and I want to tell you loud and clear tonight. I want you to get this message loud and clear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I didn't think I was going to have to do anything tonight. Would the Hon. Member seek to relate his remarks to section 1?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I certainly don't want to change the mood of the House tonight.

I'll take my matter up with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and I'll certainly take the remarks from the Minister of empty office space, considering their source.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, just a few words on this vote. It appears that it's on the verge of passing, but there were a few statements made here when the bill was before the House which disturbed me considerably and to which I feel I have a responsibility to respond.

There was the discussion about the pulp mill in the Cariboo country which was going to switch, because of a doubling of the cost of electricity, from electricity to hog fuel. At that time there was a discussion of how the government had seriously assisted the sawmills in the province by the arbitrary establishment of $35 per unit for the price of chips. Well, I know that in my riding there are a lot of little sawmills that are extremely concerned because of the interference of the government in the price of chips. Their concern is the fact that now, because the government has interfered and raised the price of chips to $35, no longer do they have a market. Sawmills are turning raw wood into chips instead of into lumber, and consequently the market doesn't exist for them. They would be happy today to be able to get $20 a unit for chips if they were able to sell their chips. But no longer can they sell their chips, because that government arbitrarily interfered in the marketplace on the price of chips.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member seek to relate his remarks to section 1?

MR. CHABOT: Well, I was just responding to remarks made by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) a little earlier in the debate which, I have to admit, Mr. Chairman, in all fairness, were out of context and out of place in this particular debate. Nevertheless, if the latitude is allowed to him to suggest that they had assisted the little sawmills in this province, I want to say that they've virtually destroyed the small sawmills in my constituency and no doubt in many other constituencies in the province as well.

What we're debating, Mr. Chairman, is the borrowing of three-quarters of a billion dollars. Last year, we debated the borrowing of half a billion dollars. A billion dollars is a lot of money. We're debating a budget of $3.2 billion to which we're adding, with this bill and another bill which I'm not going to debate at this particular time, another billion dollars of debts in this province.

I get a little fed up with the Premier and the government constantly referring to the need for this

[ Page 2567 ]

money to cover the overruns on the Columbia River treaty. I get a little fed up, because last year we talked about $500 million. Anyone who has followed the financial structure of the Columbia River treaty knows full well that the overrun of the entire Columbia River treaty, the three treaty dams, was $137 million.

Now, you can't be borrowing $500 million one year to cover the overrun when the overrun is $137 million, then again the following year borrow $750 million and suggest that it is necessary for the overruns of the Columbia River treaty. There is no rationality in that kind of statement. The government may want to play cheap politics with the issue to suggest that it is necessary for $500 million last year and $750 million this year — $1.25 billion — when the overrun on the treaty was $137 million.

Now I think the Premier has a responsibility to tell the truth when he borrows $500 million last year, despite the fact that he gave us assurances that $100 million was going to be borrowed on the open market, and no more. But he has a responsibility to tell us what portion of that $500 million borrowed last year was utilized to cover the $137 million overrun on the Columbia River treaty — not to constantly use the argument that again this year the $750 million is necessary for the overruns.

Will he use the same reason next year when another bill comes before the House for the capital expenditures and the operating expenditures of B.C. Hydro?

I want to say that when one talks about $137 million overrun on the Columbia River treaty, you are talking about a 33 per cent overrun in the construction of those treaty dams in a period of 10 years, which is not an unreasonable inflationary factor. It is not unreasonable when one takes into consideration the kind of experiences that government has had with overruns. They built a railcar manufacturing plant in the community of Squamish, which they had originally projected would cost $5 million. The ultimate cost was $8 million. It took two years to construct that railcar plant. Their overrun was 60 per cent in two years — not 33 1/3 per cent over 10 years, such as the Columbia River Treaty, but 60 per cent in two years. Shocking, despicable — really, that's what that is. A plant that was originally projected to be opened on January 1, 1974, which eventually opened up on March 25, 1975 — 15 months later — and which to this very day has not manufactured one railcar, and it has been open since March 25. Statements from the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) suggest that the first car to roll off the assembly line would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of the middle of June, if we are lucky.

What kind of economic sense is that? An overrun of 60 per cent, a railcar plant that will have been open for three or four months that has never produced one railcar.

When one looks at the Columbia River treaty, one has to take into consideration the fact that the original power generating capacity of Mica dam was projected to be 1.8 million kilowatts of power. Never does the government say that the power generating capacity of Mica has been expanded to 2.5 million kilowatts. No way will they talk about that — the expansion of some 40-odd per cent additional power from Mica. Certainly everybody knows that the other treaty dams are water-regulating, flood-control dams. Everybody knows that the flood control was not only a fact in the United States but flood control was a fact in Canada as well, in the Castlegar and Trail areas.

In consideration of the Columbia River treaty, one has to relate it to what is taking place in the field of hydro development in Canada, and in the field of hydro development in British Columbia as well. We know full well what is taking place because the government has indicated that it is going to proceed, that they are on the verge of proceeding with the development of other hydro projects in this province.

One has to look at Site 1, below the Peace River power project. One has to look at — as they say in English — the Pend-d'Oreille project near Trail. (Laughter).

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: To this very day those two projects, which are each projected to cost $500 million, will produce 700,000 kilowatts of power each. That's projection. If you relate that to the inflationary spiral that that government has experienced on the construction of the B.C. Railway car manufacturing plant in Squamish, you can imagine how expensive power will be on those two sites on which this government has the gall and the temerity to criticize the Columbia River treaty because power on Mica is going to cost $200 per kilowatt.

MR. FRASER: Now you're really giving it to them!

MR. CHABOT: Would you believe that the power that's going to be generated by your government over there, Mr. Chairman, is going to be three and a half times more costly?

MR. FRASER: That's right — give them a lecture on the Columbia.

MR. CHABOT: And this government has the gall to say that Mica power is expensive to the people of British Columbia when their projected costs, not the

[ Page 2568 ]

final costs, are three and a half times more costly than Mica. Such gall! They are caught up with the lies on the Mica. Yes, that's what's happened to that government.

MR. FRASER: Right! Tell the truth; level with the people.

MR. CHABOT: Not only have they been mixed up about the Columbia River treaty, they have even had to be told of the great benefits by Mr. B.M. McNab, senior Assistant Deputy Minister of the Energy, Mines and Resources, Canada — and he's no Social Credit supporter, I'm sure. He was very critical at the time when he issued this three-page letter to Michael Poole of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

He was extremely critical of the biased, irresponsible and one-sided report that had appeared on CBC television. He found it imperative that he tell the CBC that they had presented a very one-sided point of view regarding the Columbia River treaty.

And when I say this, I am not saying this as a Social Crediter; I am saying this on behalf of a senior Assistant Deputy Minister of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources of Canada. He was very critical of the CBC in their one-sided point of view of the Columbia River treaty and its three dams. He said that it was negative; it didn't tell of the tremendous benefits that are going to be derived from this treaty by British Columbians and Canadians.

He talked about the cost and equivalent replacement cost of power. He said that nuclear power, which has a lifespan of 30 years, would cost in the vicinity of $1,000 per kilowatt — five times more costly than the power which will be generated at Mica. He said that this programme presented on CBC was so biased that they never talked about the flood control benefits in the communities of Castlegar and Trail. The terrible floods that they have experienced over the years will never be repeated because of the control of water through the three treaty dams.

MR. FRASER: Where is your inquiry? Let's have that.

MR. CHABOT: He told it as it is, and it is unfortunate today that in British Columbia, and Canada as well, there are politicians who are confusing the people and not telling the facts about the tremendous benefits British Columbians are going to derive from our generation on the Mica and from flood control benefits on the other two dams. It is most unfortunate that the truth hasn't been told, that people have been confused and the facts are not known.

MR. FRASER: Right on!

MR. CHABOT: How many people realize that the sale of the downstream benefits...? There has been no sale of potential power generation in Canada. All we sold, really, is our entitlement to the 50 per cent of the power that is generated below the border in the United States for a period of 30 years. How many people really realize that — that since the signing of the treaty 11 years have gone by and that within 19 years we will again be renegotiating the benefits of the Columbia River treaty?

AN HON. MEMBER: Big deal.

MR. CHABOT: How many people really know what the value of power will be in 19 years from now? Will it be beneficial to the Province of British Columbia and its residents to the tune of $50 million per year, or will it be $100 million-plus per year? The benefits can be tremendous for British Columbians in this temporary sale of the downstream benefits of power that is generated in the United States.

I will never forget the statements made by the Members of the NDP when they were the opposition a few years ago. Oh, they were against the Peace River power treaty.

I'll never forget the man who occupies the chair as Speaker (Hon. Mr. Dowding) of this House when he said there was no need for the Peace River power until the year 1984.

MR. FRASER: Yes, right on!

MR. CHABOT: Little did he consider at that time the present needs of British Columbians.

MR. FRASER: We'd have candles tonight if you guys had your way.

MR. CHABOT: Little was he concerned about the plight that would face British Columbians without the Peace River power project. British Columbia would not only have had brownouts without the Peace River power project; British Columbia would have had blackouts, and serious ones at that.

MR. FRASER: Stupid socialists. We'd have had candles here tonight.

MR. CHABOT: That government who criticize the benefits which we're going to derive in abundance...

MR. FRASER: How do you like it played back to you, eh?

MR. CHABOT: ...from the Columbia River treaty, little did they care about British Columbians. Little did they care about the benefits that are going to be derived in the years ahead. Little did they

[ Page 2569 ]

realize at that time, when they were trying to confuse the people of this province, the positive bargaining position that was derived by the British Columbia government — or be it the Canadian government with the United States government — the fact that the Peace River power project was going forward. There was a tremendous bargaining position on behalf of British Columbians, but that government over there that was opposed to the Peace River power project were to become pawns to the United States traders.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Right on.

MR. CHABOT: We would have had a weak bargaining position; we would never have been in a position to bargain effectively, because we were bargaining with the ultimate need, the desperate need of power from the Columbia River. But because of the fact that we had the Peace River, the two-river power policy, we were in a strong position to derive the greatest benefit for British Columbians. What resulted was a reasonable and responsible deal and power position for British Columbians.

Oh, I'll never forget the charades and the political confusion that was generated by the Members of the opposition back in the early '60s. I remember the Member for Kaslo-Slocan, the name of that riding prior to 1966. I could almost repeat his speeches verbatim against the Columbia River treaty. Where is he today when the benefits are about to be derived for British Columbians? He's nowhere to be seen. He might be on the university board and gaining a fat daily indemnity from that government over there. Nevertheless, I hope that he'll speak out when the benefits start flowing to British Columbia after having attacked the strong position taken and the strong benefits derived because of the Columbia River treaty.

I want to say this: as history is written about the Columbia River treaty in this province, it will tell the true story of benefits derived by British Columbians. It will tell the real story. Once power is generated at Mica, it will prove that Mica has developed the cheapest source of hydro energy on the North American continent.

MR. FRASER: Refute that! Refute that!

MR. CHABOT: There's no doubt in my mind that that is the truth about Mica power. We have the example over there of that government attempting to develop two power projects which would not be possible to develop as cheaply as it is possible without the control on the Peace and without the control on the Columbia River dams.

MR. FRASER: We never hear anything about that.

MR. CHABOT: Those power development projects they're talking about are going to cost a minimum of three and a half times more than power to be generated on Mica.

The Premier can do all he wants about confusing the people about the treaty.

MR. FRASER: He's done a pretty good job at it so far.

MR. CHABOT: The treaty never took into consideration transmission lines, which he tries to interject into the cost of the treaty agreement. Neither do the costs on the Pend-d'Oreille and neither do the costs of Site I take into consideration the costs of transmission. So let's not confuse the issue. The issue is that Mica is going to develop the cheapest power on the North American continent — a minimum of three and a half times cheaper than the two power development projects being undertaken by that government.

I want that government to stop telling untruths about the overruns on the Mica. It's a clearly known fact that the ultimate cost on the Mica is $600 million, and no more, which leaves $137 million of borrowing for the Province of British Columbia. The province was given authority last year to borrow $500 million; this year they're asking for $750 million — $1.25 billion.

MR. PHILLIPS: They could have built the whole Peace for $800 million.

MR. CHABOT: That's right. The Columbia for $600 million.

So how can the government constantly continue to try to hang its hat on an overrun of $137 million on the borrowing of $1.25 billion?

HON. MR. BARRETT: If you'll permit me to speak, Mr. Member, your leader isn't here to keep you in control. You have a few nights free to roam, to display your unleashed emotions and strong feelings about these great issues.

The speech by the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) has to be recognized as a document with a number of purposes. The first purpose is....

MR. FRASER: The truth!

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're not fooling anybody. The first purpose, Mr. Member — and I know it....

MR. FRASER: Refute it!

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's designed to keep the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

[ Page 2570 ]

McGeer) from joining Social Credit. (Laughter.) No one knows better than the First Member for Point Grey the financial disaster that the Columbia River treaty was, and if he has to join Social Credit and defend the treaty that he himself has blasted to shreds, it would be impossible for him to join Social Credit and take away the front bench seat of the Member for Columbia River.

MR. FRASER: He's got to defend his own position.

HON. MR. BARRETT: First of all, I asked the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey a week ago to tell me in medical terms what it means when the blood rushes to the head and the face turns red. It's embarrassment! Now we've got the red face on the Member for Columbia River because his real purpose was to keep the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey from joining Social Credit. (Laughter.)

I'm sorry that the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey is here and heard this speech, because he'll have to go back and call a public meeting and say he's had an agonizing reappraisal, and no way will he ever join Social Credit that brought us such a disaster as the Columbia River treaty, and thereby save the front bench seat of the Member for Columbia River.

MR. FRASER: Haw, haw, haw!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't laugh too loud, my friend, because you, too, are threatened. They're searching for intellect — the Social Credit Party — and it doesn't take much to meet their demands. (Laughter.) Considering the ends that will drop off, any line of defence is necessary.

Now let's examine some of the facts. The auditors of B.C. Hydro are the same auditors that served B.C. Hydro after Social Credit seized B.C. Hydro — that's right, expropriated B.C. Hydro. You freedom lovers out there, remember it was Social Credit who seized B.C. Electric.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Is that not a fact? Is that not a fact, you freedom fighters out there in every rank and file of British Columbia? Is that not a fact that Social Credit seized private property — the B.C. Electric?

AN HON. MEMBER: Swooping powers!

HON. MR. BARRETT: I remember standing in my place over there, fighting for the rights of the shareholders of the B.C. Electric. What irony!

MR. FRASER: You voted for it! (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Certainly.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Could we have some order, Mr. Speaker?

MR. FRASER: You voted for it!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I sat in silence while the Member spoke, and I expect the same gentle response from the opposition, even if they are prodded to the limit of their ability to restrain themselves from facing history.

Who was it that seized the B.C. Electric? It was Social Credit. Fact No. 1. It was seized by Social Credit.

MR. FRASER: Haw! You voted for it!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Certainly! Certainly, I believe we should have public ownership of the B.C. Electric. I said so in the election campaign. You lied to the people! You went into an election campaign and said you'd never do it, and nine months later — an appropriate gestation period — you seized it. You lied to the people!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before the Hon. Premier continues, I would ask him to withdraw the imputation that an Hon. Member in this House lied.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, no, no — the Social Credit Party lied, Mr. Chairman. The Social Credit Party lied. It said in 1960, in the election campaign, that they would not take over the B.C. Electric. Nine months later, they took it over. The Social Credit Party lied. No one in that party told that fib — it was just the party that spoke.

interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Can't you see it? There it goes floating down. There goes the party — right down the tube!

SOME HON. MEMBER: Lies! Lies!

HON. MR. BARRETT: The only one I recognize in the tube is the guy who is having trouble becoming the whirling dervish of British Columbia, the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer),

[ Page 2571 ]

who has to suffer....

MR. FRASER: The fastest growing party in British Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right. The fastest growing party — it's a one-night wonder.

Mr. Chairman, the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) effectively set out tonight to protect his front-row position, and he did it. There is no way the Member from Point Grey can endorse that position — his IQ is over 120, tested. (Laughter.) On that basis he is now put in the position of being isolated as an independent. He said he wouldn't join us — that's okay, we wouldn't have him.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Chabot didn't even get to the dinner.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You weren't even invited to the dinner, let alone the hockey game!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Ed, the establishment's taking over.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The big-business, downtown, city-slicker lawyers are taking over your party, Mr. Member, trying to gang up on this government. The city-slicker lawyers are moving in around your boys in there. The stacked-deck boys and the city-slickers are moving in to take over Social Credit, and you don't know what to do about it!

MR. PHILLIPS: We know what to do about it! Come on!

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's have rural electrification in Point Grey!

HON. MR. BARRETT: I notice the Member for South Peace River is saying "Come on!" but the other two on that edge are saying, "Easy, baby."

All right, I won't read from that famous book written by a physician in this province which describes the Columbia River treaty in detail. That famous book was called Politics in Paradise, written by that famous neuro-research politician, a fellow who has only had one problem other than politics. The only problem he had in his scientific ventures was he couldn't tell something as obvious as the sex of a whale. But he wrote a book on politics in British Columbia. His name is Dr. Patrick Lucey McGeer. That's right — he's sitting right in this House! Politics in Paradise. He castigated Social Credit up one side and down the other for the Columbia River treaty, and last night he was in a meeting trying to move away for accommodation. And the Member for Columbia River destroyed it tonight!

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): The man who didn't come to dinner.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The man who didn't come to dinner destroyed it tonight.

MR. PHILLIPS: What are you going to do for an encore?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now we are going to get to the encore. You better put on your seat belt, Mr. Member.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I didn't want to make this speech. (Laughter.)

We have the same auditors as B.C. Hydro's former government did. The same auditors have told us the following facts. I refer you to page 20 of the budget speech delivered in this House by the Hon. Minister of Finance.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's that?

HON. MR. BARRETT: A fine man. The Hon. Minister of Finance told this House, according to the auditors of B.C. Hydro, who have served B.C. Hydro for the former government and this government, the following:

"To December 31, 1974, the authority has spent $577 million on the construction of the storage projects required under the treaty, or $98 million more than we have realized from the United States' advance payment. In addition, to December 31, 1974, $255.5 million has been expended on generation, transmission and transformation facilities in connection with the Mica project, with at least $450 million more required to complete the project."

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Wait till I finish. This means the deficiency that has to be financed is in excess of $800 million. But to be fair, let us subtract the $255 million which was not mentioned by the former Premier when he said, "Nothing is freer than free, my friends," in Chilliwack. You remember that — way out of town. Unfortunately, some newspapermen followed him and quoted him. "Nothing is freer than free, my friends." That freedom speech cost us, according to the same people, the same accountants who covered B.C.

[ Page 2572 ]

Hydro for them, the same ones quoted by the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, $545 million. That is what you lost on the Columbia River treaty at the most conservative estimates by your own figures.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No way!

HON. MR. BARRETT: By your own figures!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No way!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now, I didn't want to raise this...

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no.

HON. MR. BARRETT: ...because some people would think that this was going to become a political issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: You hope.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I hope, my friend! We have so much to thump on you, we don't need to add this to it. But since you brought it up, I have to discuss it. It was dumb! You got skinned! And we have to borrow this money because your accountants tell us we are $545 million short and we, or any other government cleaning up after you, would still have to pay the money. Now if you have some other magic formula on how we can get out of the mess, you tell me. But don't stand up in this House and try to convince me that the Columbia River was a great deal. We have to complete the project.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What kind of dumb-bell logic is that? If you have to spend the money, don't finish it — that's Social Credit. They want a half-built dam. (Laughter.) Can't you see that? I'll tell you what those wizards would try to do: they'd try to build the top and leave the bottom open. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There it is. Boy, some wizards of finance! Major Douglas would be proud of that group. Are you studying Major Douglas, Mr. Member? (Laughter).

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm sure you are, yes. I'll send you an autographed copy. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Uncle Gerry's book. Yes, I think the name was Owen Blackmore, he was an adherent too. You are going to pick up all that history, you know.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: A plus B equals Point Grey. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now, Mr. Member, to go on with your other statements.

MR. PHILLIPS: You haven't answered his questions yet.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm telling you what the accountant said. If you tell us that the accountants in B.C. Hydro are wrong, just like we found out that the accountant at BCR was wrong, then I would like to know about it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Did that accountant write your budget speech?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I have to get the figures from the accountants, and they haven't been suspended yet. There is no question about them being suspended. We've got a different problem with the books from B.C. Railway, which we will be discussing later on this session.

MR. PHILLIPS: You need a new monkey wrench that will get you co-ordinated.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I need a new monkey wrench? You need a new grinder. You've still got the same old monkey. (Laughter.)

Now, Mr. Chairman, what is the problem? We are faced with the responsibility, and we have discussed the problem of meeting the demands that were projected before we came to office. I've gone over this I don't know how many times. We had an excellent, rational debate between the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) and the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson). We were faced with options, and we made decisions. The decisions we made were to maximize those rivers that were already used for hydro development.

The two that we have moved on, of course, are the Site 1 project and the Pend-d'Oreille. The Member asked how much money of this borrowing would go to the Columbia River. I said that the total amount left at this stage of the Columbia River project is $250 million to finish the project.

MR. CHABOT: You said that was for last year.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, we've spent more on

[ Page 2573 ]

it last year, and I'm telling you that $250 million more is needed to finish it. That's for Mica, the transmission and the machining. That figure can be pulled out of the original total costs that were given to us politically as separate, and we can accept that, because Mr. Williston said the machining of Mica could not be considered as part of the original payment.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I know it was.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: All the transmission and half the machining.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now, the question of 19 years from now. When the first figure came out of a shortage of $134 million, the former Premier made the statement on television and in the House that they could sell the additional 30-years' power on the second half of that contract and recover some of the money. We estimated at that time that recovery would be about $15 to $20 million.

Now it is not the position of this government to sell off that additional 30 years of power. It is not the position, but, on the other hand, I don't know if the government 19 years from now can do anything else. One of the consequences forgotten by the Member who said that we did receive downstream benefits by way of flood control was that not did we just receive downstream benefits but we created overnight in the United States a tremendous increase in property values by guaranteeing through our half of the treaty that the new lands on the other side of the Columbia River would not be subject to floods any more.

Two things developed out of that.

MR. CHABOT: We gained benefits from the Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, we gained benefits. We took it out in cash.

MR. CHABOT: What about flood control?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, I grant you that, but we took cash.

Now two of the consequences that came of that decision were as follows: one was the tremendous increase in value of land; but far more subtle, but terribly more devastating economically, were two other auxiliary happenings. One was the availability of industrial land; and two was low-cost power for secondary industry development in the State of Washington and in the State of Oregon.

As a consequence, capital investment that was focused to the Pacific northwest, both Canadian and American capital investment, landed in the United States — landed in the United States! Aluminum plants were built, small manufacturing was created, and literally tens of thousands of jobs were created in Washington and Oregon purely on the basis of our cheap power providing them the competitive position against Canadian manufacturers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Industry went to Washington and Oregon on the basis of available supply of low-cost power. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers made that point in calculating the worth of the treaty to the United States. Some of the better speeches made in this House of the secondary consequences were indeed made by the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). It was he who, as I recall, first brought to the attention of this House that the aluminum plants were being constructed in the United States.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, it was a close tic. You're not thinking of going to Social Credit, so I'll give him the credit and make his decision a little easier when he goes to Social Credit, because I don't want to remind him after he's made the decision. After he's made the decision he'll bury all those speeches that he made way back before he decided to fight for freedom — the great freedom fighter of his day.

'The question is that with hindsight, anybody can look good. But, Mr. Chairman, in this case Mr. Ran Harding, General McNaughton, the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, the Member for Cowichan-Malahat, had the foresight — and Tiny Hobbs died in the middle of that debate — and they stood in this House, except for McNaughton, saying: "Don't go ahead with that bad deal." And they were absolutely correct. Absolutely correct!

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: McNaughton didn't stand in this House. He appeared before a federal government committee.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, no, McNaughton appeared before a federal government committee that was sponsored by the then Conservative government.

[ Page 2574 ]

The Prime Minister at the time was one John Diefenbaker, who has never since given up the leadership of the federal Tory party. There have been interlopers, but he is still leader, Mr. Chairman. Just ask the press gallery.

Now, Mr. Chairman, during his time as Prime Minister, General McNaughton appeared in front of the federal government and opposed the deal. The Hon. Davie Fulton, who was the federal Minister of Justice, representing that great constituency of Kamloops, resisted the deal. As a matter of fact, it was Fulton who killed the Kaiser deal, that private dam project that was to be built on the Columbia River.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill C-3.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Bill C-3 in the federal House stopped the Kaiser deal — the Kaiser giveaway. They couldn't stop the Wenner-Gren giveaway, but they stopped the Kaiser giveaway.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, it was shortly after, though — 1954 — yes, and then McNaughton went under Fulton. You're correct, McNaughton went under Fulton. Then a new Liberal government was elected and a very gentle person became the Prime Minister, Mr. Lester Pearson. He had never run up against a politician like W.A.C. Bennett before.

Pearson was used to reason. Pearson was used to logic. Those two conditions never limited the former Premier from making a deal. And as a result, the gentle, loving Mr. Pearson came out to British Columbia, had a few chats with old Cece. He got the coffee cup romance, the charm — and what happened? Fulton's instincts along with Diefenbaker's deep Canadianism that stopped by feel the Columbia River deal...Pearson thought that he had better go along with old W.A.C.

I want to tell you that that was one of the greatest failings of the federal Liberal party. They allowed themselves to be buffaloed time and time and time again by the former Premier. They never fought back in Ottawa. They always thought it was a temporary aberration that might go away. Like the Rocky Mountains, it never went away. And Pearson got moved into the position of accepting the Columbia River treaty. It broke poor old General McNaughton's heart....

MR. CHABOT: Thank God!

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't feel that way. I think General McNaughton was an outstanding Canadian — an outstanding Canadian. I was new to the House at the time. I sat in that corner. I watched that whole debate, rage for two years in this House. The Member for Kootenay, the Member for Cowichan-Malahat, and the deceased Member for Revelstoke, Tiny Hobbs, along with Ran Harding, were all involved. Don't tell me about hindsight. Go back and read the news clippings, because we didn't have the freedom of a Hansard then, Mr. Chairman — just to remind those great freedom fighters. Go back and read the newspaper clippings of the debates that took place in this House.

HON. MR. LORIMER: They had no Hansard.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, no Hansard, no question period, no chairman of public accounts in the opposition, because in those days freedom wasn't an issue.

Anything to keep out the socialists, including the absence of a Hansard and a question period. You know, the old story — Reds in the beds since '33 in this province. You are a throwback, in that sense, to your uncle.

Back to the debate of the Columbia. It was true that time and time again in this House the analysis was given by these Members, and their analysis was proven correct by history. I didn't raise the Columbia again tonight. I didn't raise the issue of how bad it was again tonight. The Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) came in and did it, so I had to answer. And it grieves me to answer, because as much as there was great political advantage in beating the Social Credit Party over the head with their blunders, it is embarrassing to think how many schools, how many hospitals, how many junior colleges were not built in this province because the financial reserves of this province had their guts sucked out as every cent went into the Columbia River treaty.

When the financial draws came for the Columbia River treaty, the next consequence, as we sat over there and the Member for Point Grey fought for UBC, was that every nickel was squeezed out of schools. Schools were on shifts, universities were short of funds, junior colleges were not built, hospitals were not provided because the Columbia River needed every cent they could squeeze out of those pension funds.

MR. McCLELLAND: They're still on shifts.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Still on shifts? You're absolutely correct. Even though we've approved every construction request that has come across our desk, we still haven't cleaned up the mess that was left because of the school construction freeze! That was the consequence of the Columbia River treaty. That was the consequence of the Columbia River treaty in terms of the secondary effects here. The jobs were not provided; the employment wasn't here; the

[ Page 2575 ]

industrial growth didn't take place here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Than you read a letter because someone criticized the CBC's programme.

MR. FRASER: Balderdash!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, you can read the letters criticizing it; I can read the letters praising it. It isn't the CBC programme that created the issue. The record is there — the record that haunts you, and the record that is going to keep the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, if he joins Social Credit, from ever looking in the mirror again! It will come back to haunt them like the face of Dorian Gray. (Laughter.)

I'm sorry, I will have to make a footnote here, because Dorian Gray is not necessarily in the repertoire of that great intellectual group over there. Nonetheless, that is what we are faced with.

MR. CHABOT: Sickening.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, sickening, they say. It certainly is sickening. It certainly is sickening when you think of the people who could have had Mincome earlier, could have had Pharmacare earlier, could have had these services earlier — all because of the mystique of wanting to be the biggest dam builder of all. That's what we have, and we're suffering the consequences.

So, Mr. Member, the same accountants telling us what the exact costs are....

MR. FRASER: What about jobs?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Jobs! Mr. Member, I won't respond to that. I'll let someone else write out your report card. But I'll tell you this. You can go around this province and attempt to defend the Columbia River treaty all you want....

MR. FRASER: No problem.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No problem at all, if you absent yourself from what your Own accountants told you then, and what they tell you now. The record is clear — $545 million short; $545 million overrun caused by Social Credit!

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I must say I enjoyed the night club entertainment this evening. I had the feeling, almost, that Pat Paulsen had run for president and won. Nobody can toss out the one-liners like the Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Quoting your old speeches.

MR. McGEER: And you did them very well. I got the feeling the Premier was just a little nervous tonight — just a little nervous.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I just hope you join Social Credit.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Premier. He was very complimentary about all the speeches that I'd made on the Columbia in former years. He wasn't quite so complimentary about the speeches I'd made on the Columbia during this session and last.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now you're an independent.

MR. McGEER: But, Mr. Chairman, if the Premier believes the things he said about those speeches, perhaps he'll listen now.

The problems that occurred over the Columbia were due to a process which has not been altered nor improved one little bit by the NDP in office. Indeed, the faults in the processes which led to errors in calculation have been exacerbated by the Premier and by his cabinet.

HON. MR. LEA: What would your party do?

MR. McGEER: For one thing, Mr. Chairman, the directors of the B.C. Hydro are considerably less knowledgeable and much weaker than they were under the former government.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: The checks and balances.... Oh, yes!

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Sleepy over there is one of the directors, and the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), the man who did dishonour to civil servants and hasn't the courage to stand up and take his medicine, who slips the false reports into the House ...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: ...who promises an inquiry into B.C. Hydro and has absolutely no intention — nor has the Premier — of ever holding such an inquiry — absolutely no intention.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Want to stake your seat on

[ Page 2576 ]

that?

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: It was just another false promise.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: The Premier called the former Social Credit ....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Before the Hon. Member proceeds, I would just ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the imputation that the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources was guilty of impropriety such as slipping false documents into the House.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, he laid a report on the table....

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I just asked the Hon. Member to withdraw the imputation.

MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Chairman, I made no such imputation...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. McGEER: ...and I want to withdraw any imputation you might think I made. What I have done in the House is to quote others — former officials of B.C. Hydro — who read that report and listened to the Minister's statements, and they called him a liar. I pleaded with the Premier and the Minister of Lands and Forests to stand up for their honour, but they have refused to do that and they have refused to call in impartial inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's coming.

MR. McGEER: What other conclusion can I draw? They've had an opportunity, Mr. Member, to apologize; they've had an opportunity to call a man before the bar of the House if he was wrongly impugning them. They've had an opportunity to call an impartial inquiry. Nothing, Mr. Chairman — only silence, just like the Premier is showing now — complete silence. No intention at all of an inquiry, no intention at all. That's why I say, Mr. Chairman, that if there were faults in the past, the process which led to them is alive and well under the NDP, thank you very much.

You've not changed a thing, Mr. Premier. The way you operate those Crown corporations is sick because you're hiding what goes on in those Crown corporations, just like the people before you.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sanctimonious can't.

MR. McGEER: You're failing to bring forward mechanisms which will provide checks and balances on these huge sums of money which you requested from the Legislature. We know there has to be money for capital expenditures on B.C. Hydro. What we don't know is whether the decisions are wise.

In the days when B.C. Electric was a private corporation — and the Premier can talk about how hard he fought for those shareholders of B.C. Electric — he was there voting with the government. Certainly he was. He never uttered a word on behalf of that confiscation — not one word. You were in favour of it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you going to join Social Credit who did that? Are you going to do that?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the Premier is very nervous. He's jumpy tonight; he can't be quiet.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You join Social Credit.

MR. McGEER: He's not prepared to listen, Mr. Chairman. He was very complimentary about those speeches in the past, but listen to what's going on today. You're borrowing huge sums of money. There's no change in the procedure of evaluating those capital projects; none of the methodology that was the practice before this became a public corporation and then began to hide from public view.

We used to have a public utilities commission that evaluated the requests of the monopolies of British Columbia and made certain the best decisions were being made — that provided that second look which is so necessary. That disappeared when this became a public corporation — no shareholders' meetings, no basic information given out to the Legislature or to the public of British Columbia, just an occasional peek: once in 1967 when there were two public borrowings in the United States, and again this year when there was a borrowing from one of those Arab countries. We're not even told which country; those are the kinds of secrets that are being kept today. We don't even know who we're in hock to in British Columbia anymore.

Mr. Chairman, one can't call corporations that operate in this way public corporations. They are private in the full meaning of that word, because the methods by which they evaluate their need for public funds are kept a dark secret. We have no methodology through either the board of directors or any kind of independent energy board to evaluate whether wise decisions are being made or poor

[ Page 2577 ]

decisions.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Sure it is. Exactly. I have no brief for those corporations either or the methods that are used to keep their expenditures hidden from the public. Mr. Chairman, the problems that came with the Columbia River....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Members be quiet so we can hear the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey?

MR. McGEER: Why, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad you are interested. And I hope the Premier and the director there of the B.C. Hydro are, too.

The errors that were made were due to gross miscalculations on the part of the technologists that were responsible for evaluating Canada's position with respect to that treaty. We went ahead and negotiated a deal despite the pleas of independent engineers that the evaluations were incorrect and not in Canada's best interest. The people who were involved in those negotiations from the technical side were power people; they weren't environmentalists.

We find out years later that these gross miscalculations took place, that there were no payments at all to Canada for peaking power, that we misunderstood the true benefits of flood control, that we didn't take into account the environmental damage that would occur in Canada. We didn't take into account the costs that would accrue to us for management of the reservoirs. We didn't take into account the value of the lands underneath the water, which would have yielded minerals and would have yielded forestry products and possibly agricultural products, quite apart from the value as places in which to live. All of these things were thrown away because the people who were responsible for making these calculations for Canada made mistakes. The politicians never set up a system of checks and balances which would allow other opinions to be expressed.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Which party did it?

MR. McGEER: The federal Liberals did it. The provincial Social Crediters did it. The consultants to the B.C. Hydro did it. B.C. Hydro did it themselves. The people who were excluded, Mr. Chairman, were the people who issued warnings that the people who were responsible for making these decisions were wrong and that a process had not been established which allowed the other point of view to be expressed properly. That process hasn't changed at all. We are continuing to make the same mistakes.

Today the sin isn't what happened in the Columbia in the past but the fact that we are allowing it to continue in the present. It lies within the power of the NDP to seek renegotiation of that treaty now, to get the full benefits of the Columbia River power, to get recompense for peaking power, to get extra funds for the environmental damage, to get more from flood control. All of these things are within the power of the NDP to correct now.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: To correct now, Mr. Chairman, if they really believe that a sin was committed.

But the trouble is this: the same people who told the Social Credit government that it was a wonderful deal for Canada are still in the civil service. They are still in the B.C. Hydro. They are telling the same NDP government exactly the same story. They are as wrong now as they were then. The Minister has gotten the same advice from the same sources outside of the civil service who have justifiably questioned the judgment of the people who drew up that original Columbia River deal.

The Minister talked about secret deals and juggling of figures. We know that that was all phony, down to the last word. We know the Premier and the Minister are now trying to hide from that statement.

HON. R.A. Williams (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): You can't read, eh?

MR. McGEER: Oh, yes, we can read. We read the "confidential".

HON. MR. LEA: Who is "we"? You are not in a party.

MR. McGEER: People noticed that it was written on a different typewriter. It is funny that you didn't notice that, Mr. Minister, isn't it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member address the Chair, please?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, these are important issues for the future, because we are losing hundreds of millions of dollars that Canada and the people of British Columbia might gain if the NDP government were to get off its backside.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: What would you do with all your old speeches?

[ Page 2578 ]

MR. McGEER: The committee of Ministers that advises the permanent engineering board under the Columbia River treaty has not met once, not once, since the NDP took office. There has been a complete denigration of responsibility on the part of the government. Instead, what the Premier does is stand up in the House and make long harangues against the former Social Credit government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's cupid's first arrow.

MR. McGEER: When the Premier is gone, it is going to be just as easy for anybody to stand up on the other side of the House and spend hours and hours in condemnation of the policies of the present government, their neglect of the Columbia River, their failure to initiate policies for better development of plans for future hydro in British Columbia, for the secret financing of that Crown corporation, for turning their back on nuclear power, for failing to consider the thermal alternatives to Hydro — all of those things — because the process the NDP inherited is carrying on to this day.

All of the sins of the past are there right now, and we're asked to approve funds for increased borrowing for the B.C. Hydro in exactly the same fashion as the Social Credit government that the Premier has condemned — exactly the same kinds of bills that we used to get, approximately the same amounts of money, for the same amount of information.

The only peeks we get into the operation of B.C. Hydro come from the same sources still, whenever the government decides, on behalf of B.C. Hydro, to go for foreign borrowing. The only difference is that in the old days we used to know where the money was coming from, but now we don't. Even that's secret.

So, Mr. Premier, what you've done is to compound the errors of the past. You've weakened the board of directors. You haven't improved the decision-making process.

MR. FRASER: Nothing left.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: While I admire the one-line quips of the Premier, just like those of Pat Paulsen, I don't admire his wisdom or his judgment. I say once more that we won't get sound decisions in British Columbia until we open the books of our Crown corporations, until we strengthen the boards of directors, until we develop methods where the technology of those Crown corporations can be properly checked against independent engineering advice. All those things were absent in the past; they're all absent today.

We're going to continue to make the kinds of errors we made in the past because we haven't changed the way in which we reach the decisions. We haven't changed the way in which we borrow the money; we haven't changed the way in which we conduct the finances; and we haven't changed the way in which we let public corporations become accountable to the public.

Mr. Premier, it's just a big bag of wind. It's the same old story from another government.

MR. CHABOT: Just a few words. You know, I found some very revealing information here examining the budget speech. The Premier virtually led us to believe that the accountants used the virtual words that appear in the budget speech. But I'm sure that the accountants never used those words. They said that....

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: December 31, 1974. Yes, I'm not denying that. You're talking about generation and transmission as well. Don't confuse the Columbia River treaty with transmission and generation.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: They say, on page 20: "To December 31, 1974, the authority has spent $577 million on the construction of the storage projects required under the treaty, or $98 million more than we have realized from the United States advance payments." I'm not going to deny that. The overruns are $137 million, not $98 million. But they go onto say here.... I'm positive that the Premier doesn't want to attribute these statements to the battery of chartered accountants which he says are the same that existed in the past. "This means...."

Mr. Chairman, is it permissible for the Premier to chew gum? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's sugarless.

MR. CHABOT: "This means the deficiency that has to be financed by the people of British Columbia is in excess of $800 million, or over 60 per cent of the overall treaty costs — hardly a matter of cheap power."

I'm sure that the chartered accountants didn't say that. That was merely cheap political statement on the part of the Premier. And the Premier never really answered the questions that I posed to him regarding the question of the overrun, the 33 1/3 per cent overrun over a period of 10 years.

[ Page 2579 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you sit down?

MR. CHABOT: No, I just pulled my chair a little closer to me.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: It's very reasonable, and I mentioned a little earlier that it's reasonable, this kind of an overrun over a period of 10 years, when one looks at the serious financial mess of the construction of the B.C. Railway car-manufacturing plant in Squamish — a 60 per cent overrun over a two-year period.

MR. FRASER: Right on!

MR. CHABOT: Over a two-year period.

AN HON. MEMBER: A $100 million overrun in one portfolio.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, would you believe that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) had almost the equivalent overrun in one year in the administration — or lack of administration — in his department...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Right on!

MR. CHABOT: ...as what took place in the Columbia River treaty over a I 0-year period?

MR. PHILLIPS: Right on! What about Icky-Bicky?

MR. CHABOT: Listen, I could go on all night over the lack of administration and the irresponsibility on the part of that government and the administration of the tax dollars of this province, but I'm not going to.

MR. PHILLIPS: A $719 million overrun on their budget in two years.

MR. CHABOT: The Member for South Peace River talks about a $719 million overrun in the budget. Six times more overrun than took place in a 10-year period on the Columbia River treaty.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: You've just heard the chirps from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams).

As the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) said very recently, when they were going to have the inquiry. When is there going to be renegotiation of the treaty? It has been promised by the Minister. You know what the Minister was doing, Mr. Chairman? He attempted to light a grenade and drop it across the floor. You know what happened? The grenade landed in his lap, and he hasn't been able to find another grenade to take its place. That's exactly what happened with that Minister and his confidential report on 'he Columbia River treaty.

MR. WALLACE: What happened when the grenade landed in your lap, Bob?

MR. CHABOT: He had the grandson of General McNaughton go through the banks of files for months at B.C. Hydro. Yet years after the grandson of General McNaughton, we have no inquiry, we have no data that is damaging to the actions of the former government. Now he's attempting to find something. I am sure the Minister is going to have to probe a little deeper than he's probed regarding the Columbia River treaty to find an issue. It's an issue which has backfired on the Minister, and has caused serious embarrassment to that government over there.

MR. PHILLIPS: Right on!

MR. CHABOT: Then the Premier has the gall, the audacity, to talk about the McNaughton version of the Columbia River treaty. Now General McNaughton certainly had an idea. He had an idea that differed with the position of the Government of British Columbia, that differed with the experts of the national government as well. He stood alone in his position as to the....

AN HON. MEMBER: He was not alone.

MR. CHABOT: He stood virtually alone. Yes, he did. He stood virtually alone on what should take place regarding the Columbia River treaty. His basic programme was the additional storage of water in Canada for a maximizing of power generation in this country. That was his programme — the regulation of more water in Canada, the more flooding of land in this country as well. His programme would, without any doubt in my mind, have generated more power at Mica than the present Columbia River treaty does. But at what cost? And that was the concern of the government of the past — the disruption to communities and the ecological disruption would take place in certain areas in the province. Ecological and economic disruption that would have taken place in my riding, Mr. Chairman, would have virtually destroyed my riding. It would have put it 25 feet under water. Virtually the entire riding would have been under water had the government followed the McNaughton plan.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's not true.

[ Page 2580 ]

MR. CHABOT: There would have been the Dore Dam south of Bow River; there would have been the Luxor Dam which covers 75 per cent of my riding which would have been under water. And that is the pi an that government supports. Certainly there would have been more power production at Mica, but at what cost? The movement of the railway — in fact millions of dollars would have had to have been expended for the moving of the railway throughout the Columbia Valley. Entire communities would have been disrupted and moved. Additional disruption — that's what the McNaughton plan spelled out.

And that Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) has the audacity and the gall to destroy an historical Indian name in my community by naming the lake McNaughton Lake. I am not going into that story again, but Chief Kinbasket's name has been wiped off the maps and wiped out of the history of part of the area I represent.

MR. FRASER: By that socialist over there.

MR. CHABOT: By that government over there which wants to superimpose the name McNaughton on a treaty dam which bears no relationship to his point of view.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): On a point of order: I am sure the Member inadvertently misled Members of this House, but Kinbasket has not been removed from the map and not from your riding, Mr. Member. If you look at your geography, look at the maps in your area, look at the Purcell wilderness area and lands adjoining that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please. There is no point of order. Will the Hon. Member for Columbia River proceed with his speech?

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, within a few miles of where I reside in my riding, there are direct descendants of Chief Kinbasket who are shocked by the actions of this government — the destruction of an historical Indian name in my riding, virtual destruction. Kinbasket Arm, there was....

AN HON. MEMBER: Reach.

MR. CHABOT: Reach? Oh well, Reach, more sophisticated.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't know what you are talking about.

MR. CHABOT: We had in my riding, Mr. Chairman, a lake called Kinbasket Lake, named in honour of a former Indian chief who helped David

Thompson in the days he was exploring that part of the world.

I appealed to the former government as well as to this government. No decision was made by the former government because the time had not arrived to make a decision. (Laughter.) Certainly not, because there was no lake to name because there was no dam at the time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why did you ask then? (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: I put it on the record at the time to the former government, and I followed it up when there was a new government — a new, more dictatorial government elected in this province. But, oh, no, this is a government that is not concerned about Indian problems. This is a government which is not concerned about historical names in this province because we have this long-standing name, Kinbasket Lake, which was destroyed by that arbitrary Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources who has no understanding of the respect that should be due to the Indian people of this country.

The Premier talked about Mincome and Pharmacare which should have come along earlier, and the reason they didn't come on was because of the borrowing of Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. CHABOT: Now that is a bunch of nonsense.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, what was the reason?

MR. CHABOT: It's an absolute bunch of nonsense because the Minister of Finance in his budget speech said that there was a $98 million overrun on Hydro. But he borrowed $500 million on behalf of Hydro last year and he is attempting to borrow $750 million this year. How can you justify the borrowing of $1.25 billion for an overrun of $98 million, using your own figures? What kind of nonsense is this?

Everyone knows that the cost of power that will be generated at Mica is going to be $200 per kilowatt. Everyone knows that the projected cost of power to be generated at Pend-d'Oreille and at Site I on the Peace is going to be a minimum of $700 per kilowatt.

MR. FRASER: How do you justify that?

MR. CHABOT: Everyone knows that nuclear power, which has a life expectancy of 30 years, costs $1,000 per kilowatt.

MR. FRASER: Tell the people that.

MR. CHABOT: How cheap can the power come in

[ Page 2581 ]

this province? Nowhere else in this nation, nowhere else on this continent are we going to get the cheap power that is going to be generated at Mica — $200 per kilowatt. We don't know what the ultimate cost is going to be on power at Pend-d'Oreille or Site 1. We know for a fact....

MR. PHILLIPS: Go run Moscow mutual.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were born to lose.

MR. PHILLIPS: You couldn't run a teapot and make a profit on it.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, we know for a fact that the cost on the two power projects being developed by that government over there is going to be a minimum of three and a half times more costly than Mica. They have the gall, they have the audacity, and they have the temerity to question the Mica deal, the Columbia River treaty. That government over there should hang its head in shame because here is....

MR. WALLACE: Time!

MR. CHABOT: Well, apparently, Mr. Chairman, the Conservative Member for Oak Bay is not concerned about the benefits that will be derived from the Columbia River treaty.

MR. WALLACE: Look at the clock!

MR. CHABOT: Now there is that mouthy Member for Oak Bay, the chirper from Oak Bay. Mr. Chairman, in view of the great agitation, the tiredness of the Member for Oak Bay, I would like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the motion is that the committee rise and report progress.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again, and further reports that in committee a division took place and asks that this division be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I don't recall any division in committee, not on Bill 25.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: If it was a challenge to the Chair, it would not be recorded by this method. It would take a division on some other matter. Therefore, I cannot ask the House to approve that.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson files the first annual report of the Department of Housing.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:01 p.m.